/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200309.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 49

                            Headlines

500.COM LIMITED: Pomerantz Reminds of March 16 Deadline
616 FIRST AVENUE: SSC High Rise Sues Over $6 Million Unpaid Funds
ACR TITLE GROUP: Lechowicz Trust Balks at Closing Service Fee
ACTION TOWING: Rosenberg & Dorough Seek Proper Wages for Drivers
AFFILIATE ASSET: Violates FDCPA in M.D. Florida, Nobles Suit Says

AGAPE HOME: Solochek Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
B2B INDUSTRIAL: PT Metals Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads
BEYOND MEAT: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Lawsuit
BP EXPLORATION: Court Strikes Untimely Expert Report in Williams
BRRRN LLC: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA

BYREDO USA INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Hedges Suit Alleges
CANADA GOOSE: National Elevator Name Lead Plaintiff in Cheng Action
CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: Faces Arndt Civil Rights Suit in W.D. Okla.
CHEROKEE NATION HEALTH: Class Action Filed for Exposing Patients
CHEVRON USA: Bradford Labor Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court

CHICAGO, IL: Walker and Walawski Seek to Certify Class Action
CHIEFTAIN COATING: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
CIOX HEALTH: 6th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment Order in Faber
CIRE TRUDON: Faces Hedges Suit in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Greifman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York

CLIENT SERVICES: Scipio Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
COATES FIELD: Underpays Agents, Cummings Suit Alleges
CONAIR CORP: VanDerGinst Files Class Action Over Hair Dryers
CREDIT VW CANADA: Court Refuses Suit Over Lease Transfer Fees
D&JJ INC: Villanueva Sues Over Failure to Pay Workers Under FLSA

DEVON'S JEWELERS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Matthews Civil Rights Suit Moved to D.D.C.
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Kimko Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Breach
ENERGEN RESOURCES: Court Certifies Narrowed Class in Anderson Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Zayika Class Certification Bid Stayed

EQT CORP: Heaster Suit Seeks to Certify Landmen Class
EVERGREEN PEST: Bender Sues in D. Colorado Over Violation of TCPA
FAMILY DOLLAR: Martinez Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
FBCS INC: Lowe Sues in D. New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Denies Approval of $4MM Deal in Ward Action

FLUOR CORPORATION: Union Asset Sues Over Decline in Share Price
FOREST RIVER: Court Dismisses Failed Electrical Wiring Suit
G & L ENTERPRISES: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Anthony Alleges
GENERAL MOTORS: Crossovers Have Fuse Box Issue, Claims Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Szep Claims in Sloan Action Gets Dismissed

GERON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Shareholder Class Action
GOTHIC CABINET: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
GRAND CANYON: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims
GURBIR GREWAL: Greco Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
HAGYARD EQUINE: Counterclaims Sought in Radiograph Class Action

HARVEST LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tellez Says
HEALTH CARE: Class Settlement in Candelaria Gets Prelim. Approval
HI-TECH PHARMA: Dietary Supplements Contain Toxins, Rosas Claims
HOME DEPOT: Court Certified Settlement Class in Manopla Suit
HOUSTON CIRCLE: Thomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

HP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
IC SYSTEM: Faces Werzberger FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bronstein Notifies Shareholders of Class Action
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Schall Law Alerts Investors to Class Action
JOHN BALDWIN: Class Certification Bid Denied in Frazier Suit
KELLOGG CO: Marotto Denied Class Certification in Pringles Action
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: Wiler Sues Alleging Gender Discrimination
KINUM INC: Morgan Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Pyramid Scheme Suit
LOGIX FEDERAL: Faces Deronette Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
LUCKIN COFFEE: Pawar Law Group Announces Securities Class Action
LUCKIN COFFEE: Scott+Scott Notifies Investors of Class Action
MARATHON REFINING: Court Dismisses Wood Labor Suit W/Leave to Amend

MARY ANN MORSE: App. Court Flips Dismissal of Ryan Class Action
MCMC LLC: Mauthe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MICHAEL PAGE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Jordan Suit
MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT: Mich. App. Upholds Dismissal of Bauserman
MICROCHIP TECH: Court Certifies Employee Class in Schuman Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Breckenridge FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Landrum Suit in Texas Over FDCPA Violation
MIDWEST RECOVERY: Faces Worsham FDCPA Class Suit in Colorado
MOTEL 6: $10M Settlement Over Guest Privacy Violations Approved
MRS BPO LLC: Faces Mun Suit in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kim Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
NEST FRAGRANCES: Hedges Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
NEW MEXICO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Young Alleges
NEW YORK: Court Accepts Amended Complaint in Mitchell Inmates Suit
OAK AND FORT: Faces Begg Suit in California Over Violation of ADA

OPERA LTD: Scott+Scott Reminds of March 24 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PACIFIC SHOE: Violates Disabilities Act in California, Begg Says
PARAMETRIC SOUND: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 18
PLACE FOR MOM: Class Certification in Pine Suit Partly Granted
PROFESSIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces Lorenzo FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Hamilton FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
PROVEN RX SALES: Faces Katz Consumer Class Suit in S.D. Florida
PSA REALTY: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
REAL TIME: Faces Ventura Suit in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
RIOT GAMES: New Legal Counsel Takes Over Class Action Lawsuit

RIVER WAFFLES: Wilson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
ROGER LEE HARMON: $5.2M Sale of Chase County Property Approved
ROUND SKY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eckstein Suit Claims
S & C ELECTRIC: Stirmel Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL
SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: LV, Gucci & Prada Accused of Illegal Conspiracy

SANCHEZ OIL: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Flynn Suit
SASOL LTD: Bragar Eagel Alerts Investors to Class Action
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: $65MM 'Blackfish' Deals Gets Prelim. OK
SEQWATER: Queensland Dam Operator to Appeal Class Action
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class

SIOUX HONEY: Class Certification Bid in Tran Suit Granted in Part
SIX FLAGS: Lieff Cabraser Notes of April 13 Filing Deadline
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plagued by Maintenance Problems, Reveals Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Pomerantz Alerts Shareholders to Class Action

SVA HEALTHCARE: Navigators Has Until March 9 to Answer Questions
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
TARGET CORP: $8.2MM Settlement in Walters Suit Gets Prelim Approval
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Evans FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: McCutchen Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Non-Stick Pans Defective, Partida et al. Claim
TROPICANA MANUFACTURING: Falsely Markets Drinks, Willard Alleges
TRULIEVE CORP: Pomerantz Woos Shareholders to Class Action
UNITED STATES: $1.7MM Deal in Jones Veterans Suit Gets Final OK
UNITED STATES: Education Dept. Urges Court to Toss Students Suit

UNITED STATES: Faces Velesaca v. Homeland Security in S.D.N.Y.
UNIVERSAL TRANS: Class Conditionally Certified in Sprague Suit
USCB INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Rideau Suit Alleges
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 27
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Court Strikes Schmitzes' Rep. Claims

VERDI EQUITIES: Underpays Cooks, Benavides Suit Alleges
VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Resume Talks Over German Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Zamora Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
WESTPAC BANKING: Byrne Hits Stock Drop Over Money Laundering Row
WESTPAC BANKING: Zhang Law Files Class Action Lawsuit


                            *********

500.COM LIMITED: Pomerantz Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against 500.com Limited ("500.com" or the "Company") (NYSE: WBAI)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and
docketed under 20-cv-00806, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded 500.com securities between April
27, 2018 and December 31, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased 500.com securities during
the class period, you have until March 16, 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 or
       Tel: 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980

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

500.com, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide online
gaming services primarily in the People's Republic of China
("China") and Europe.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) 500.com executives and
consultants engaged in a bribery scheme with Japanese officials in
an effort to gain favor in a bid to run an upcoming Japanese casino
resort; (ii) consequently, 500.com was in violation of Japanese
anti-bribery laws and its Code of Ethics; and (iii) 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 December 31, 2019, 500.com issued a press release announcing
that a Special Investigation Committee was formed by the Board to
investigate illegal money transfers and the role played by
consultants following the arrest of one current consultant and two
former consultants by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office
in Tokyo Japan.

On this news, shares of 500.com fell $1.08 per share, or 12.56%, to
close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, the following trading
day, damaging investors.

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.
[GN]


616 FIRST AVENUE: SSC High Rise Sues Over $6 Million Unpaid Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SSC High Rise Construction Inc., individually, and as
representatives of all trust beneficiaries similarly situated v.
616 FIRST AVENUE DEVELOPER LLC, JDS DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC, JDS
CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, MICHAEL STERN, and "John Doe One" through
"John Doe Ten," and other Lien Holders unknown, Case No.
651367/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought
to seek judgment against the Defendants for all trust funds
allegedly misappropriated or otherwise improperly diverted, which
funds would have been paid for the outstanding balance of at least
$6 million owed to the Plaintiff.

SSC contracted with 616 First Avenue Developer LLC ("Owner"), JDS
Development and JDS Construction (collectively, "Contractor
Defendants"), to perform, among other things, foundation and
superstructure concrete work on a construction project located at
626 First Avenue, in New York City (the "Project" or the
"Property").

Owner is a single-purpose entity formed to hold an ownership
interest in the Project. Owner, in turn, is owned and controlled by
JDS Development and/or JDS Construction, which are alter-egos of
Owner, who exercised dominion and control over the Project and
SSC's work. SSC contends that the Contractor Defendants are jointly
and severally liable to SSC for damages.

The Project, also known as The American Copper Buildings, consists
of a 761-unit dual tower rental project which includes a
three-story skybridge that connects two buildings, one of which
rises 41 stories, while the other, 48. The Project is the first
copper skyscraper facade in New York. Indeed, the impressiveness of
the Project cannot be understated and, notably, is touted by JDS
Development on its Web site.

The initial contract was with Owner, for the agreed-amount of
$48,500,000. Additional sums became due to SSC for change order and
additional work outside the scope of the original contract which
was directed and agreed to by JDS Development and JDS Construction,
totaling not less than $7,219,212.94.

Despite SSC's performance of its work in a quality and workmanlike
manner, in full compliance with the contract and change orders,
Contractor Defendants have failed and refused to pay SSC for all of
its work performed to date, leaving an outstanding balance of at
least $6,699,837.72, says the complaint.

SSC was a construction company specializing in concrete work for
large-scale residential, mixed-use, and commercial properties.

JDS Development is a real estate development, construction, and
acquisition firm involved with residential, hospitality, and
mixed-use projects in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Gardner, Esq.
          Lauren M. Manduke, Esq.
          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          1325 Sixth Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 752-8000


ACR TITLE GROUP: Lechowicz Trust Balks at Closing Service Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN SUE LECHOWICZ, REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 31, 1993, BY AND
THROUGH TRUSTEE THOMAS LECHOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACR TITLE GROUP, LLLP,
Defendant, Case No. 103392849 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Feb. 17,
2020) is an action arising from closing fees improperly charged and
collected by the Defendant from buyers of real estate transactions
through the State of Florida.

On December 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate
purchase and sale contract with the owner of certain real estate
located in Pinnellas County, Florida. The Plaintiff agreed to pay
cash for the Seller's Property. According to the Contract, the
owner's title policy premium, title search and title agent closing
services were to only be charged to either the Buyer or Seller
consistent with the terms and instructions of the Contract. The
parties agreed that the Seller shall designate Closing Agent and
pay for Owners's Policy and Charges.

The Seller designated the Defendant to be the Closing Agent for the
procurement of title insurance and to perform closing services in
connection with the transaction. The Defendant accepted this
designation and by doing so, agreed to supervice and carry out the
closing in accordance with the terms of the Contract, including to
only charge and collect fees from monies in escrow in accordance
with the Contract.

At closing, the Defendant presented a settlement disclosure
statement a/k/a HUD Settlement Statement detailing the receipts and
disbursements made on the Plaintiff's account, including the
allocation of the Defendant's Closing Services Fee. The Settlement
Statement, an authorized Closing Services Fee was charged to the
Seller, but an unauthorized Closing Services Fee in the amount of
$250 was improperly charged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

ACR Title Group is a licensed title agency in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

               - and –

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and –

          Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC
          600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 231-6400
          E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com


ACTION TOWING: Rosenberg & Dorough Seek Proper Wages for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ROSENBERG and NATHAN DOROUGH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACTION TOWING,INC., and
JOHN LAVO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00494-VMC-SPF
(M.D. Fla., March 3, 2020) alleges the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs the full minimum wage and the time and one-half their
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work
week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as tow truck drivers and
performed related activities for Defendants in and around
Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Brianna A. Jordan, Esq.
            Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
            201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
            Tampa, FL 33602
            Direct No. 813-393-5457
            Facsimile: 813-393-5481
            E-mail: bjordan@forthepeople.com

AFFILIATE ASSET: Violates FDCPA in M.D. Florida, Nobles Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affiliate Asset
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tashawner Nobles,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:20-cv-00367 (M.D. Fla., March 2, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC, is a debt collection agency located
in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


AGAPE HOME: Solochek Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khani Solochek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGAPE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC, and TRANAISE SCOTT, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00346-WED (E.D. Wis., March 3, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants have had a common policy and practice that fail to
pay the Plaintiff and others at one and one half times their
regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result, the Defendant has
denied the Plaintiff of overtime pay, in violation of the FLSA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Solochek was formerly employed as a Personal Care Worker
by Agape since March 3, 2017.

Agape Home Health Care LLC is a home health care agency based 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 Street, Suite 210
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Phone: 414-271-8650
          Facsimile: 414-271-8442
          Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                 smurshid@hq-law.com
                 tmaynard@hq-law.com


B2B INDUSTRIAL: PT Metals Sues over Unwanted Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------
The case PT METALS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. B2B INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00487 (N.D. Ohio,
March 3, 2020) arises from the Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements in an attempt to
generate sales leads, and ultimately increase its revenues.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's fax advertisements
violate the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and caused Plaintiff
and members of the Classes to suffer actual harm, including the
aggravation and nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use
of their fax machines during the receipt of such faxes, increased
labor expenses, and the loss of any ink and paper used to print
them.

PT Metals LLC is a contract manufacturer and assembler of aluminum
and other products.

B2B Industrial Products LLC is an Illinois-based national company
that sells and services industrial packaging equipment and
supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Adam T. Savett, Esq.
            SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
            2764 Carole Lane
            Allentown, PA 18104
            Telephone: (610) 621-4550
            Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
            E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com

BEYOND MEAT: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND). .
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

BYND Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/beyond-meat-inc-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1

Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND)

BYND Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 2, 2019 -
January 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 30, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/beyond-meat-inc-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Beyond
Meat, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Beyond Meat's termination of
its supply agreement with Don Lee constituted a breach of that
agreement, thus exposing the Company to foreseeable legal liability
and reputational harm; (ii) Beyond Meat and certain of its
employees had doctored and omitted material information from a food
safety consultant's report, which the Company represented as
accurate to Don Lee; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Court Strikes Untimely Expert Report in Williams
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reason granting Defendants' Motion to
Strike in the case captioned BENJAMIN JAMES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Defendants. Civil Action
No. 18-9753. (E.D. La.)

Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Diagnosing Physician's
Expert Report and Trial Testimony for Failure to Comply with
F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Rec. Doc. No. 35, filed by Defendants BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company.

Also before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment Based on
Lack of Expert Medical Evidence of Diagnosis and Causation filed by
Defendants.

The case arises from Plaintiff's alleged exposure to harmful
substances and chemicals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Plaintiff alleges that during the Deepwater Horizon incident, he
was employed by Shamrock Management, LLC and Environmental Safety &
Health Consulting Services, LLC to perform response activities.
During this work, he allegedly was exposed to oil, other
hydrocarbons, and other substances released from the MC252 Well,
Corexit EC9500, Corexit EC9527, and other dispersants and
decontaminants. According to Plaintiff, he was diagnosed on July
17, 2014 with chronic damage to conjunctiva, chronic
rhinosinusitis, and chronic contact dermatitis at the site of
contact.

On October 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Back-End Litigation Option
("BELO") action against Defendants, pursuant to the terms of the
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA") in
In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (commonly referred to as "MDL 2179").
Plaintiff alleges his diagnosed medical conditions complained of
were legally and proximately caused by his exposure to the
substances and chemicals during his response activity efforts.

Pursuant to the District Court's initial Scheduling Order entered
on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff's deadline to produce expert reports
to defense counsel was October 11, 2019. On that date, Plaintiff
disclosed Dr. Scott A. Haydel but characterized him as a treating,
non-retained physician and did not produce an expert report
authored by him. At Plaintiff's request, the Court extended
Plaintiff's deadline to disclose Dr. Haydel's written expert report
to November 11, 2019. Plaintiff provided the Original Report to
Defendants on November 11, 2019. Then, two and one-half weeks
later, without leave of Court, Plaintiff filed the Revised Report
on November 27, 2019.

Plaintiff did not move to extend his expert disclosure deadline
beyond November 11, 2019. Now, in effect, Plaintiff is requesting
the deadline be extended to November 27, 2019, when the Revised
Report was provided. Rule 16(b) provides a schedule may be modified
only for good cause and with the judge's consent.

Under Rule 16(b), Plaintiff as the movant has the burden of showing
good cause. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he failed to
timely comply with his expert report deadline, even though he has
known his original expert report deadline for over eight months,
since the original Scheduling Order was docketed on March 15, 2019,
and he knew his extended report deadline, November 11, 2019, for
two and one-half weeks before providing the Revised Report.

Instead, Plaintiff simply attached the Revised Report to his
opposition. As Defendants point out in their reply, Plaintiff hopes
to dodge his obligation to meet this good cause standard by
slipping a new expert report in as an exhibit to his opposition
memorandum, but this sort of end run around the rules of civil
procedure is inappropriate and is contrary to the Court's prior
Order.

The other Rule 16(b) factors likewise weigh against extending the
deadline for providing the expert report.

The importance of the Revised Report is low because, for the
reasons explained, even if the Court extended the deadline for
producing the Revised Report, the report would be excluded for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Defendants would be prejudiced if the Revised Report were admitted.
Finally, Plaintiff has had more than sufficient time to comply with
the Court's Scheduling Order but has failed to do so. The complaint
was filed on October 19, 2018 and the Scheduling Order setting the
trial for February 10, 2020 was issued on March 15, 2019.

A continuance is not justified in the case, the Court opines. The
Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof of showing good cause to
extend his expert report deadline to November 27, 2019. The Revised
Report is untimely.

In sum, the District Court rules that Defendants' Motion to Strike
and Motion for Summary Judgment are GRANTED. Judgment will be
entered in favor of Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc.
and BP America Production Company, and against Plaintiff Benjamin
Williams.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at  https://tinyurl.com/ufqvxlr  from
Leagle.com

Benjamin James Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L.
Nations , Nations Law Firm, Albertus F. Wiesedeppe , Nations Law
Firm, Alison Divine , Nations Law Firm, 9703 Richmond, Suite 200,
Houston, Texas 77042, Frank Jacob D'Amico, Jr. , Frank J. D'Amico,
Jr., APLC,  4608 Rye Street, Metairie, Louisiana 70006 & Gary L.
Fuller , Nations Law Firm. 9703 Richmond, Suite 200, Houston, Texas
77042

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft -
dkhaycraft@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Michael P. Cash -
mcash@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore -
cbwilmore@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Chauntelle Renee Wood -
crwood@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid -
dcreid@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Jillian M. Marullo , Liskow &
Lewis, Russell Keith Jarrett - rkjarrett@liskow.com - Liskow &
Lewis & Wade T. Howard - wthoward@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis.


BRRRN LLC: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brrrn LLC. The case
is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Brrrn LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01766
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Brrrn LLC operates classes, events, and other programs in a
controlled cold-temperature environment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BYREDO USA INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Hedges Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Byredo USA Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Byredo USA Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01768 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Byredo is a European luxury brand founded in Stockholm in 2006 by
Ben Gorham.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CANADA GOOSE: National Elevator Name Lead Plaintiff in Cheng Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
National Elevator Industry Pension Fund has been named lead
plaintiff in a stockholder class action complaint commenced against
Canada Goose Holdings Inc. and certain of its current and former
senior officials.

The case is LI HONG CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CANADA GOOSE HOLDINGS INC., DANI
REISS, JONATHAN SINCLAIR, and JOHN BLACK, Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-8204 (VSB). (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Li Hong Cheng commenced the
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Canada Goose Holdings
Inc., et al., alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act (Exchange Act), as well as U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated
pursuant to the Exchange Act.   

Movants National Elevator, Steven Hulaj, and Ricardo Cardoso each
filed separate motions for their appointment as lead plaintiffs,
and approval of lead counsel.

In making the determination of which plaintiff has the greatest
financial interest, courts consider four factors: (1) the number of
shares purchased during the class period (2) the number of net
shares purchased during the class period (3) the total net funds
expended during the class period and (4) the approximate losses
suffered.  

The Court finds that National Elevator is the most adequate
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), and that the
remaining movants have failed to rebut this presumption. Therefore,
National Elevator is the appropriate lead plaintiff for the class
action.

Because movant National Elevator has the largest financial interest
in the litigation, currently appears to fulfill the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and is
represented by counsel with substantial experience in securities
class action litigation, National Elevator Industry Pension Fund's
motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of its
selection of lead counsel is granted, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York orders.

The remaining movants' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
and for approval of lead counsel are denied.

National Elevator is directed to file a second amended complaint
without delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r49jgdu from
Leagle.com

National Elevator Industry Pension Fund, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld - DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Li Hong Cheng, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -
ahood@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -
jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

Steven Hulaj, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman ,
Pomerantz LLP.
Ricardo Cardoso, Movant, represented by William Scott Holleman -
holleman@bespc.com - Johnson Fistel, LLP.


CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: Faces Arndt Civil Rights Suit in W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hatfield, et al. The
case is styled as David Arndt, as representative of all persons
similarly situated v. Barbara Hatfield, individually and in her
official capacity as Special District Judge for Canadian County,
OK; Maria Hurst, individually and in her official capacity as Court
Clerk for Canadian County, OK; Mike Hunter, individually, In his
official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma;
Kevin Stitt, individually, In his official capacity as Governor for
the State of Oklahoma; Charles McCall, individually, In his
official capacity as Speaker of the House/Representative for
district 22 for the state of Oklahoma; Greg Treat, individually, In
his official capacity as President Pro Tempore/Senator for district
47 for the State of Oklahoma; Jon Echols, individually, In his
official capacity as Majority Floor Leader/Representative for
District 90 for the State of Oklahoma; Marilyn Stark, individually,
In her official capacity as Representative for district 100 for the
State of Oklahoma; Mark Lawson, individually, In his official
capacity as Representative for district 30 for the State of
Oklahoma; Kevin West, individually, In his official capacity as
Representative for district 54 for the State of Oklahoma; Nathan
Dahm, individually, In his official capacity as Senator for
district 33; Justin Brown, individually, In his official capacity
as Director of the Department of Human Services for the State of
Oklahoma; Stacy Dillard, individually, In her official capacity as
an attorney for the Department of Human Services for the state of
Oklahoma; Angela Berry, individually, In her official capacity as
an attorney for the Department of Human Services for the State of
Oklahoma; Taylor Henderson, individually, In her official capacity
as Director of Council on Judicial Complaints for the State of
Oklahoma; David Halley, individually, In his official capacity as
Attorney; Candice Shultz, individually, In her official capacity as
Legal Secretary for David Halley; Jeramy Jarman, individually, In
his official capacity as Attorney; Mark Hixson, individually, In
his official capacity as Attorney; Denise Brewer, individually, In
her official capacity as House Representative for District 71; Jack
McCurdy, individually, In his official capacity as Elected Judge
for Canadian County Oklahoma; Paul Hesse, individually, In his
official capacity as Elected Judge for Canadian County Oklahoma;
Bob Hughey, individually, In his official capacity as Elected Judge
for Canadian County Oklahoma; Michael Fields, individually, In his
official capacity as District Attorney for Canadian County
Oklahoma; Justin Kemp, individually, In his official capacity as
Assistant District Attorney for Canadian County Oklahoma; Tiffany
Monte, individually, In her official capacity as Department of
Human Services Child Welfare investigator; Shannon Mallam,
individually, In her official capacity as Department of Human
Services Child Welfare investigator; Carmen Flores , individually,
In her official capacity as Deparment of Human Services Child
Welfare Supervisor; Jason Davis, individually, In his official
capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare Supervisor;
Janet Peery, individually, In her official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the YWCAOKC; Michael Figgins, individually, In
his official capacity as Executive Director with Legal Aid Services
of Oklahoma Inc.; Kim Garrett, individually, In her official
capacity as CEO and Founder of Palomar; Case No. 5:20-cv-00181-R
(W.D. Okla., Feb. 28, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

Barbara "Bobbie" Hatfield (b. December 17, 1935) was a 2014
Democratic candidate for District 35 of the West Virginia House of
Delegates. Hatfield is a former Democratic member of the West
Virginia House of Delegates, representing District 30 from 1998 to
2012.

The Plaintiff, of El Reno, Oklahoma, appears pro se.[BN]


CHEROKEE NATION HEALTH: Class Action Filed for Exposing Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Gilker, writing for 5 News, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Cherokee Nation W.W. Hastings
Hospital by two patients who claim a nurse reused needles, syringes
and vials from person to person, exposing them to a number of
diseases including HIV.

The class action lawsuit alleges a nurse at the hospital reused
needles, syringes and vials on patients in 2018.

The lawsuit says by violating the CDC protocols, the hospital
possibly exposed patients to diseases like HIV and hepatitis.

"We think there was as many as 200 people who were potentially
affected," Attorney Fourth Scoufos, Esq. said.

Scoufos represents two people who both were patients at the
hospital during the time frame.

"We think they delayed in contacting the patients and we think the
hospital didn't take the appropriate steps to safeguard not only
the patients' health but to properly inform and notify the
patients," Scoufos said.

The Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services investigated the hospital and found the nurse
used the same needle and syringe on several different patients
until the needle was dull, usually at the end of the day.

Scoufos says one of his clients was called by the hospital saying
they were doing some free health screenings, so she asked the
hospital why.

"It was not immediately disclosed to her that it was a result of a
lack of protocol that the hospital staff followed and the other one
I think heard about it through the grapevine and since then we've
heard several other people found out about it the same way,"
Scoufos said.

In a statement Cherokee Nation Chief of Staff, Todd Enlow said:

"The Cherokee Nation is reviewing the filing and remains committed
to providing quality health care for our tribal citizens and all
our health services patients.

Cherokee Nation Health Services made policy revisions that were met
and approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in
2018, including additional training and monitoring and reporting
procedures.

Cherokee Nation Health Services strives for a culture of
transparency and encourages employees to speak up about concerns of
patient safety and outcomes.

The Cherokee Nation continues to advance its health system recently
opening a new state-of-the-art outpatient health center,
constructing a new OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine at Cherokee
Nation medical school, adding more specialty services, employing a
great workforce and reducing patient wait times."

The nurse who didn't follow protocols was identified by The
Cherokee Nation in 2018 as John Baker. He resigned from his
position in May 2018. [GN]


CHEVRON USA: Bradford Labor Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
ordered for the remand of the case, JOANN BRADFORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-04051-PJH. (N.D. Cal.) to the Superior Court of California,
County of Contra Costa.

In June 2019, Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action
against Chevron in the California Superior Court, alleging four
causes of action: (1) failure to pay reporting-time pay pursuant to
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1-2001, (Wage Order
1-2001); (2) failure to pay all wages earned at termination
pursuant to Labor Code Sections 200-203; (3) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code Sections
226-226.3; and (4) violation of Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200, et seq. All of plaintiffs' claims are based on
their contention that Chevron failed to compensate certain
employees for reporting-time relating to "standby shifts" and
standby time. As such, the parties agree that the second, third,
and fourth causes of action are derivative of the first cause of
action, in that those claims seek penalties and other relief for
Chevron's alleged failure to pay wages disputed under the first
cause of action.

In July 2019, Chevron removed the action to the California District
Court.  

In August 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case.
Chevron subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss.

On review, the District Court finds that Plaintiffs' first cause of
action is not preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act (LMRA). As defendant's removal was based solely on
the argument that plaintiffs' first cause of action was preempted
by the LMRA, Plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED, the District
Court rules. As such, the District Court does not reach defendant's
motion to dismiss, which is TERMINATED by the recent order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vjojuha from Leagle.com

Joann Bradford, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Liza Mosqueriola, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Jason Rohrbach, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated & Brian White, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jannah Vanessa Manansala -
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net -  Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A
Professional Corporation, Alexander S. Nazarov , Weinberg, Roger
and Rosenfeld, 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Ste 200, Alameda, CA
94501-6430 & Kristina L. Hillman  - khillman@unioncounsel.net -
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.

Chevron USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas Roger Hart  -
douglas.hart@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Marina
Cristine Gruber  - marina.gruber@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP.


CHICAGO, IL: Walker and Walawski Seek to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANYETTA WALKER and JOSEPH WALAWSKI individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal
corporation, and UNITED ROAD TOWING, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01379 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action, on behalf of:

      "all vehicle owners who had their vehicle impounded and
      disposed of by the City of Chicago pursuant to Municipal
      Code of Chicago (MCC) section 9-100-120 (the Class)"; and

      "all vehicle owners who had their vehicle towed by or
      through the Department of Streets and Sanitation pursuant to

      Chapter 9-92 of the MCC that were disposed of by the City
      (Notice Class).

   2. designating Danyetta Walker and Joseph Walawski as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Myron M. Cherry, Jacie C. Zolna, and Benjamin R.
      Swetland as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality
of a City ordinance allowing it to take and dispose of vehicles for
an owner's failure to pay traffic tickets without providing any
form of compensation to the owner, or even a hearing to determine
fair compensation for the taking of the vehicle.

The primary issue in this suit is whether the procedures set forth
in the MCC authorizing the taking of vehicles without compensation
violates the Takings Clause of the United States and Illinois
Constitutions.

Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S. United Road provides vehicle towing services. The
Company offers towing, recovery, impound, storage, and incidence
and vehicle management solutions.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Classes are:

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
          Jeremiah Nixon, Esq.
          Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com
                  bswetland@cherry-law.com
                  jnixon@cherry-law.com
                  jchavin@cherry-law.com

CHIEFTAIN COATING: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Collette Young and Henry Bennett, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. CHIEFTAIN COATING, LLC, BURKARD
INDUSTRIES, INC. and JOHN "JAY" BURKARD, jointly and severally,
Case No. 2:20-cv-10520-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich., Feb. 28, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and any other remedies under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a common
policy and/or practice of requiring their production employees to
regularly work before, during, and after their scheduled shifts
without pay. The unpaid work was compensable and amounted to
overtime because the time was in addition to the production
employees' full-time schedules (i.e., 40 hours per week).

The Defendants also failed to pay the production employees their
correct overtime rate under the FLSA's regular rate calculation,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
production worker in Clinton Township, Michigan.

The Defendants offer metal finishing services to their
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge
          P.O. Box 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
          Phone: (269) 324-3000
          Facsimile: (269) 324-3010
          Email: jyoung@kehb.com
                 tcedoz@kehb.com


CIOX HEALTH: 6th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment Order in Faber
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a
district court order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned RICHARD FABER and JENNIFER MONROE,
Individually and also on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a HealthPort
Technologies, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-5896, (6th
Cir.).

Ciox is a large medical-records provider. It doesn't provide any
healthcare services of its own, but it contracts with those who do.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA") subjects Ciox to Department of Health and Human Service
regulations, which include fee-limit provisions. The Tennessee
state also has layered on additional rules that govern patients'
access to medical records, which include the Tennessee Medical
Records Act of 1974 ("TMRA").

The named Plaintiffs worked with law firms to request their medical
records from two Tennessee hospitals, and both hospitals contracted
with Ciox to provide patients their medical records. It was Ciox
who serviced Plaintiffs' requests, and it was Ciox who charged them
for their records. Plaintiffs would eventually file the class
action, with allegations that Ciox charged them more than what
HIPAA's implementing regulations and the TMRA allow.

The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' TMRA claim for failure to
state a claim. Plaintiffs later moved to certify a class of
"persons who requested their medical records from medical providers
and were subsequently overcharged for their medical records by
Defendant Ciox." Plaintiffs and Ciox filed cross motions for
summary judgment about three months later. And the district court
eventually granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
Rule 23(b)(3). Just two weeks later, the district court granted
Ciox's summary judgment motion.

Plaintiffs now appeal the district court's grant of summary
judgment to Ciox.

On review, the Sixth Circuit notes that all of Plaintiffs'
common-law claims suffer from the same fundamental defect:
Tennessee common law is no substitute for the private right of
action that Congress refused to create in HIPAA. That unavoidable
conclusion has consequences. Here, it means that Plaintiffs cannot
prove every element of their claims.

The Sixth Circuit adds that Plaintiffs' negligence and negligence
per se claims fail right out of the gate for the same reason:
Plaintiffs cannot establish that Ciox owed Plaintiffs a duty to not
overcharge for medical records. That is because no such duty exists
under Tennessee's common law. As a result, each of Plaintiffs'
attempts to locate that duty leads to a predictable dead end.

Plaintiffs next point to Ciox's answer to their complaint. There,
Ciox allegedly admitted that it owed a duty to patients, including
Plaintiffs and Class members, to comply with federal law and
regulations including HIPAA and the HITECH Act. But surely Ciox's
pleadings are not authoritative pronouncements of Tennessee law,
the Sixth Circuit points out. And besides, a quick look at the
record confirms that Plaintiffs' claim is misleading. Ciox only
admitted that it had a duty to comply with the law. That, of
course, tells us nothing about whether Ciox owed Plaintiffs the
type of common-law duty at issue here.

Plaintiffs also misplace their reliance on cases suggesting that
statutes may inform the standard of care of an ordinary negligence
claim, the Sixth Circuit continues. This, of course, is one
possible use for statutory standards short of deeming such
violations negligence per se. But the problem for Plaintiffs is
that the issue is not whether statutes can inform what it means to
breach a hypothetical duty. The issue is whether such a duty exists
under Tennessee common law in the first place. And here it does
not.

The same goes for Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim, the Sixth
Circuit says. That aptly named doctrine permits a court to treat a
statutory violation as a per se breach of the standard of care. But
it does not permit a court to recognize new common-law duties that
could not support an ordinary negligence claim. In other words: The
negligence per se doctrine does not create a new cause of action.
Rather, it is a form of ordinary negligence that enables the courts
to use a penal statute to define a reasonably prudent person's
standard of care.

So too here, the Appellate Court says. Plaintiffs can't prove the
existence of any common-law duty that could support their
negligence claims. So their negligence claims fail, the Appellate
Court finds.

As for quasi-contract claims, Plaintiffs' claims based on
implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment fail for largely the
same reasons, the Sixth Circuit notes. In Tennessee, these claims
are essentially the same. They refer to those situations when,
based on justice and equity, the law will imply a contractual
relationship without a legal contract. Essentially, Plaintiffs ask
the Appellate Court to hold that Ciox owes Plaintiffs a
quasi-contractual duty to not charge them more for their medical
records than HIPAA permits. They ask the Appellate Court for this
because, of course, the parties never entered into a legal contract
to that effect. But Plaintiffs cite no authority remotely
suggesting that justice and equity under Tennessee common law so
requires. Nor has the Appellate Court found any. And the one case
on which they substantially rely is inapposite. So Plaintiffs'
quasi-contract claims also fail, the Sixth Circuit opines.

As to the Plaintiffs' Tennessee Medical Records Act (TMRA) claim,
it flounders for a different reason, the Sixth Circuit opines. As
relevant, the TMRA is unlike HIPAA in two ways, one good for
Plaintiffs, one bad, indeed, fatal for them. The good: The TMRA
appears to authorize a private cause of action. At least the
parties don't dispute that it does. The bad: The TMRA's fee limits
unambiguously do not apply to medical-records providers like Ciox.
The TMRA's fee limits are clear: They apply exclusively to
hospitals.

In sum, the Sixth Circuit upholds the district court's decision in
favor of the Defendant with respect to the named Plaintiffs.  

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's December 5, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r4br629 from Leagle.com

ARGUED: Kevin McCormack - kmccormack@bbfpc.com - BALLIN, BALLIN &
FISHMAN, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Jay P. Lefkowitz - lefkowitz@kirkland.com -P.C., KIRKLAND & ELLIS,
LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Kevin McCormack , BALLIN, BALLIN & FISHMAN, P.C.,
Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, New York, New York,
Garry K. Grooms - ggrooms@burr.com - BURR & FORMAN LLP, Nashville,
Tennessee, for Appellee.


CIRE TRUDON: Faces Hedges Suit in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cire Trudon Usa, Inc.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Cire Trudon Usa, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01771 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Cire Trudon is a French candlemaker and a wax-producing
factory.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Greifman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Shlomo Greifman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-00700 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company
provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services,
and customer care solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Scipio Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Beverley S. Scipio, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01775 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company
provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services,
and customer care solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COATES FIELD: Underpays Agents, Cummings Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN CUMMINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COATES FIELD SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case
5:20-cv-00133-HE (W.D. Okla., Feb. 17, 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 Cummings was employed by the Defendant as agent.

Coates Field Service, Inc. provides comprehensive project
management, including route selection, title searches, survey and
mapping, appraisal, negotiation, relocation, and damage settlement.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard 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 -

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

               - and -

          Richard 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


CONAIR CORP: VanDerGinst Files Class Action Over Hair Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------
Quad-City Times reports that VanDerGinst Law, P.C. has filed a
class action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against Conair
Corp., seeking damages for injuries sustained while using its
Conair Infiniti Pro Hair Styler, Series 259Y.

The lawsuit, through attorney Michelle N. Schneiderheinze, says
Conair Corp. was aware of defects in the product causing it to
spark and/or catch fire, and that it failed to warn users of the
defect or the potential for injury.

The plaintiffs, Emily Hergert, of Sherrard, and Julie McClanahan,
of Atkinson, allege they were injured using the product.

"While using the hair dryer for its intended purpose, our clients
experienced substantially similar incidents/injuries. Both were
blow drying their hair, the dryer started to spark and it caused a
burn to both of their forearms," the law firm says on its website.

The suit says the dryers malfunctioned even though they were
equipped with safety plugs designed to recognize a change in the
electrical current. In each case, the plugs did not prevent the
dryer from sparking and causing injury.

The complaint maintains Conair knew about the defects, which posed
a safety hazard, but concealed that information "to make a profit,
to maintain an edge over its competitors and to place consumers
under the false belief that the products were safe."

Hergert and McClanahan "individually and on behalf of the class"
ask for judgment against Conair in an excess of $50,000 plus costs
of the suit, and ask for a jury trial.

Other people who have been injured by the Conair Infiniti Pro Hair
Stylers, Series 259Y, also may be entitled to compensation. [GN]


CREDIT VW CANADA: Court Refuses Suit Over Lease Transfer Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Martin of McCarthy Tetrault LLP wrote in Mondaq.com that
on February 7, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court in Benjamin v.
Credit VW Canada Inc. et al, 2020 QCCS 392. dismissed an
application to authorize a class action filed against several
vehicle lease financing companies for the charging of lease
transfer fees. This decision highlights the importance of the
requirement for a class representative to demonstrate a valid claim
against at least one of the named Defendants.

Background

Applicant, Mr. Adam Charles Benjamin, sought authorization to
institute a class action against the Defendant companies for (i)
not disclosing the existence of an assignment fee in their vehicle
leasing contracts, allegedly violating s. 12 of the Quebec Consumer
Protection Act (CPA) and (ii) for charging unreasonable amounts for
said fee, allegedly violating s. 1872 of the Civil Code of Quebec
(CCQ). The class action was originally filed against 10 companies,
but two of the named Defendants had settled prior to the
authorization hearing.

The proposed class consisted of a General Group and a Consumer
Sub-Group. On behalf of the members of the General Group, Applicant
was claiming reimbursement of the portion of the transfer fees that
exceeded the reasonable expenses resulting from the assignment. On
behalf of the Consumer Sub-Group, Applicant was claiming
reimbursement of the transfer fees that were undisclosed in the
original lease agreement. Applicant was additionally claiming
punitive damages of 2 million dollars to be paid to the Consumer
Sub-Group by Defendants who violated the CPA.

It is worth noting that the case was not identical as against all
Defendants. For example, the claim pertaining to s. 12 CPA was
invoked against some Defendants but not all, given that certain
Defendants disclosed the transfer fee in the original lease
agreement, while others only disclosed it in the lease transfer
agreement.
Decision

The Superior Court (per Justice Pierre-C. Gagnon) refused to
authorize the class action on the basis that Applicant failed to
demonstrate a valid cause of action against any of the Defendants,
thus failing to satisfy the requirement at s. 575(2) of the Quebec
Civil Code of Procedure (CCP) which provides that the facts alleged
must appear to justify the conclusions sought.

With regard to the claim on behalf of the Consumer Sub-Group, s. 12
CPA provides that no costs may be claimed from a consumer unless
the amount is precisely indicated in the contract. However, since
the original lease agreement is a separate contract from the lease
transfer agreement, Justice Gagnon concluded that the
non-disclosure of the transfer fees in the original lease agreement
did not violate s. 12 CPA, given that all parties to the lease
transfer agreement were aware of the transfer fees at the time of
the conclusion of that contract.

With regard to the claim on behalf of the General Group, s. 1872
CCQ provides that a lessor who consents to the assignment of the
lease may not exact any payment other than the reimbursement of any
reasonable expenses resulting from the assignment. Justice Gagnon
agreed with Defendants that this provision is not of "public
order", meaning that it is not obligatory and the parties can
stipulate terms and conditions that derogate from what is provided
by this provision, so long as these terms are not abusive pursuant
to s. 1437 CCQ.

In the Applicant's personal case, he contracted with Defendant
Canadian Road Management Company (Ford Credit) and was charged $450
(before tax) in transfer fees as assignee of the lease. He claimed
that this amount was abusive. However, in a Settlement Agreement
concluded with another named Defendant (SCI Lease Corp.), the
Applicant agreed that fees of $500 represented the reasonable
expenses that SCI incurs for a lease transfer. Justice Gagnon
concluded that, by signing this Settlement Agreement, Applicant
effectively waived his right to claim that a $500 transfer fee is
abusive. Given that the Applicant paid less than $500 in transfer
fees in his own case, Justice Gagnon reasoned that he failed to
demonstrate a valid cause of action against Ford Credit or that he
was even a member of the proposed Group. As there was no other
proposed representative that had a cause of action against one of
the Defendants, Justice Gagnon concluded that Applicant failed to
satisfy the requirement of s. 575(2) CCP.

Comments

This decision illustrates the requirement for a class
representative to demonstrate a valid claim against at least one of
the named Defendants. It also serves as a reminder that the
substitution of a class representative can only occur after the
class action has been authorized, under s. 589 CCP. Finally, it is
interesting to note the judge's reliance on a Settlement Agreement
that was concluded with one of the Defendants prior to the
authorization hearing. The judge's reasoning here may serve as a
warning to other plaintiffs that the positions they take, even for
settlement purposes, may have effects beyond their intended
purpose. [GN]


D&JJ INC: Villanueva Sues Over Failure to Pay Workers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Villanueva, Jose Fidel Moreno, Jose Joaquin Moreno, Ricardo
Villalobos, Alcides Alvarenga, Oscar Castro, Cesar Manuel
Albarenga, Emerson Fernando Garcia, Gerson Amaya, Hugo Rodriguez,
Juan Antonio Constanza, Norwin Soza, Samuel Edinilson Angulo, and
Samuel V. Angulo, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. D&JJ INC.; CR CALDERON CONSTRUCTION INC; COSTELLO
CONSTRUCTION OF MARYLAND, INC.; COSTELLO CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00556-CBD (D. Md., Feb. 28, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants seeking all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the
Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute, the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have perpetrated a more
than year-long scheme to deprive workers constructing the new
Catonsville Courthouse of their lawfully owed wages. By failing to
pay workers in accordance with the law, employers deny employees
their lawful wages and benefits while simultaneously underfunding
social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicaid,
unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation.

The Defendants have engaged in such conduct, the effect of which is
to deny employees on their construction site their lawfully owed
wages and benefits, in violation of federal and Maryland wage and
misclassification laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants and performed
construction work.

D&JJ Inc. is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the
laws of the State of Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew K Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON
          777 6th Street, NW, Eleventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Email: mhandey@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Phone: (703) 665-9529
          Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


DEVON'S JEWELERS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Devon's Jewelers. The
case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Devon's Jewelers, Case No. 3:20-cv-01514-WHO
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

DeVons Jewelers is a multi-generational family tradition of fine
jewelry started by the Merksamer family in 1929 in Sacramento,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Matthews Civil Rights Suit Moved to D.D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Teresa Matthews, Reginald Matthews, individually
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, MURIEL BOWSER, Case No. 20ca000284B, was removed from
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 28, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00595 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac
River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Honey C. Morton, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW, Suite 630 South
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 724-6591
          Fax: (202) 741-5908
          Email: honey.morton@dc.gov


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Kimko Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mung Kimko,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01109 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a full-service collection
agency based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery is experienced in
collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENERGEN RESOURCES: Court Certifies Narrowed Class in Anderson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge William Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Narrowed Motion for Class Certification in the
case THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a THE JAMES H. ANDERSON LIVING
TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-00909 WJ/CG, (D.N.M.).

Plaintiffs are four trusts owning royalty interests in oil and gas
wells that filed a putative class action complaint against
Defendant Energen Resources Corporation. Energen is the owner and
operator of oil and gas wells in the San Juan Basin, located in
Northwestern New Mexico and Southern Colorado. Plaintiffs allege
that Energen was systematically underpaying royalties due them from
the production of oil and gas from the wells in which they own
royalty interests.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings
granting summary judgment to Defendant on claims asserted by two of
the Plaintiffs, but remanded certain claims asserted by the
Neely-Robertson Revocable Family Trust which owns royalty interests
in New Mexico oil and gas wells, and the Tatum Living Trust which
owns royalty interests in wells located in Colorado.

Plaintiffs now seek to certify a much different class than they
originally proposed. Plaintiffs no longer seek to certify a class
consisting of all Colorado and New Mexico royalty owners and
instead restrict the proposed class to the Tatum Trust ("Trust")
and only Colorado royalty owners with interests in the 153 leases
at issue in the case. Also, Plaintiff seeks class certification
based on a single underpayment theory, namely that Energen failed
to pay additional royalties on gas used as fuel and that Energen
breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to
disclose all deductions related to those royalties. Plaintiffs
define the putative class as:

     All persons or entities who own non-cost bearing interests
     that are subject to the Class oil and gas leases productive
     of natural gas and other hydrocarbons in the State of
     Colorado, which were previously owned in whole or in part
     by Energen and its predecessors by name change, conveyance
     or acquisition. Southland Royalty Company LLC now owns the
leases.

Upon deliberation, the District Court finds and concludes that
Plaintiffs have met their burden for the prerequisites under Rule
23(a) for numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy. The
Court also finds and concludes that Plaintiffs have shown that the
common questions predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members and that resolution of the issues in this case
in a class is superior to determining liability and computing
alleged damages requires an analysis of royalties paid to each
owner, each month, for each well. Finally, the Court finds and
concludes that the members of the proposed class are readily
ascertainable.

Accordingly, the District Court orders that Plaintiffs' Narrowed
Motion for Class Certification is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r4jdfpf from Leagle.com

Anderson Living Trust, formerly known as James H. Anderson Living
Trust, Pritchett Living Trust, Neely-Robertson Revocable Family
Trust & The Tatum Living Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley
D. Brickell , Brickell & Associates, PC, 1014 24th Avenue Nw # 100,
Norman, OK 73069, pro hac vice, Brian K. Branch , The Law Office of
Brian K. Branch & Turner W. Branch , Branch Law Firm. 715 Marwuette
NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford
C. Berge – bberge@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP &
Christopher A. Chrisman – cachrisman@hollandhart.com - Holland &
Hart LLP, pro hac vice.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Zayika Class Certification Bid Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRYNA ZAYIKA, the Plaintiff
v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00225-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin
entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings on her motion for class certification.

On Feb. 13, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint and
at the same time, filed what the court commonly refers to as a
"protective" motion for class certification.  By this motion, the
plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but
also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion.

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."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and
reporting services.[CC]


EQT CORP: Heaster Suit Seeks to Certify Landmen Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ADAM HEASTER, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. EQT
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-01463-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing
      notice to be sent to:

      "all Landmen employed by, or working on behalf of, EQT
      who were classified as independent contractors and paid
      a day rate with no overtime at any time in the past
      3 years";

   2. approving the Notice and Consent forms;

   3. authorizing the mailing and emailing of notice, along
      with a reminder notice;

   4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Putative Class
      Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
      and Consent forms return undeliverable;

   5. directing EQT to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each of the Putative Class Members within
      10 days from the Court's order; and

   6. authorizing 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
      Members to join the case.

EQT bills itself as "the largest producer of natural gas in the
United States." In order to complete its business objectives, EQT
employs Landmen work with land and mineral rights owners to
facilitate contracts and lease agreements. EQT classifies these
Landmen, including Heaster and the Putative Class Members, as
independent contractors. The Landmen are paid a day rate with no
overtime.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, 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
                  tjones@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

EVERGREEN PEST: Bender Sues in D. Colorado Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evergreen Pest
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Kyle A. Bender, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Evergreen Pest
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00569 (D. Colo., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Evergreen Pest Solutions, LLC offers residential and commercial
pest control services, termite control, and inspection
reports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
          Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
                 osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Martinez Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marisa Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 20STCV03676, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 2,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02030 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. operates as a national discount store.
The Company offers merchandise that includes consumables, apparel,
accessories, seasonal, electronics, and home products.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elisabeth Forsberg Whittemore
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 885-1360
          Fax: (949) 885-1380
          Email: elisabeth.whittemore@jacksonlewis.com


FBCS INC: Lowe Sues in D. New Jersey Alleging Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Barbara Lowe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc., LVNV FUNDING, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02268 (D.N.J., March 2, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Federal Bond And Collection Service, Inc. (FBCS) provides
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Denies Approval of $4MM Deal in Ward Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley LLP wrote in InfoBytesBlog that on Feb. 14, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
approval of a proposed $4 million class action settlement in a TCPA
case based on a "confluence of a number of negative factors,"
including that the court believed the defendant - a subprime auto
lender - would be able to withstand a significantly higher
judgement to compensate consumers allegedly harmed by its use of an
automatic telephone dialing system. The complaint alleged that the
defendant allegedly placed automated and prerecorded phone calls to
class members on their cellphones in violation of the TCPA. In
2018, the parties reached a preliminary settlement that would give
each of the 67,255 class members who opted into the settlement
roughly $35.  

In denying the approval, the court cited three primary concerns
with the proposed settlement: "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 [the
defendant's] inability to pay more than $4 million when no
underlying financial information was provided to the class members,
compounded by the [c]ourt's belief, after in camera review of the
financials, that this statement is inaccurate; and third, the
[c]ourt'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." Arguing that "de minimis class action
recoveries, such as TCPA recoveries, may not be worth the costs
they impose on our judicial system," the court also noted that the
TCPA provides for a private right of action and statutory damages
of $500 for each violation (or actual monetary loss - whichever is
greater), and does not impose a cap on statutory damages in class
actions. Moreover, the court argued that the $35.30 that each class
member would receive would likely not even cover the cell phone
bill for one class member for one month and is, among other things,
"simply trivial in light of a possible recovery of $500."

The case is Ward v. Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC, Case No.
17-2069 (E.D. Pa.). [GN]


FLUOR CORPORATION: Union Asset Sues Over Decline in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Asset Management Holding AG, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. FLUOR CORPORATION, DAVID T.
SEATON, CARLOS M. HERNANDEZ, BRUCE A. STANSKI, D. MICHAEL STEUERT,
and ROBIN K. CHOPRA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 28,
2020), is brought on behalf of investors to recover damages
resulting from the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock.

The lawsuit is brought against Fluor and certain of the Company's
former and current senior executives under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, on behalf
of all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common
stock between November 2, 2017, and February 14, 2020, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants inflated Fluor's revenue
and earnings by improperly recognizing revenue on 16 separate
projects. Once awarded a contract to perform work on a project,
Fluor would routinely submit "change forms" to its clients in which
Fluor would request additional funds to cover the Company's cost
overruns that resulted from "unforeseen circumstances," funds which
the client was not contractually obligated to pay. When Fluor
determined, through its own assessment, that it was "likely" that
the client would accept their change order, Fluor would book the
additional revenue.

The Plaintiff contends that this was contrary to Defendants'
assurances to investors that the Company would only recognize
revenue from its submission of these change orders if it determined
that "recovery of incurred costs is probable and the amounts can be
reliably estimated." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had
been secretly utilizing change orders, among other tactics, to
improperly inflate the Company's revenue and earnings by
recognizing additional revenue on its contracts despite having no
reasonable basis to do so.

On May 2, 2019, before the markets had opened, Fluor disclosed to
investors that its Chief Executive Officer David T. Seaton had left
the Company, effective immediately, and would be replaced by
interim CEO and Chief Legal Officer Carlos M. Hernandez. In
addition, Fluor significantly reduced its earnings guidance, and
disclosed that the Company was taking over $100 million in
charges.

On this news, Fluor's share price fell $9.43 per share, or 24%,
closing at $29.72 per share on May 2, 2019.

On February 18, 2020, before the markets opened, the Company
revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was
investigating Fluor's past accounting and financial reporting, and
had requested additional information related to the 2Q 2019
Projects.

On this news, Fluor's share price fell $4.75 per share, over 24%,
closing at $14.79 per share on February 18, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a German asset manager for retail and
institutional clients, who acquired Fluor common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Fluor operates, through its subsidiaries, as a global engineering,
procurement, construction, and maintenance company that designs,
builds and maintains energy and gas facilities for both public and
private clients across the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
          McKOOL SMITH PC
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 978-4000
          Fax: (214) 978-4044
          Email: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
                 markl@blbglaw.com
                 avi@blbglaw.com


FOREST RIVER: Court Dismisses Failed Electrical Wiring Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ANGIE &
LARRY SPARKS, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Defendant. Civil
Action No. 4:19-cv-00110-P. (N.D. Tex.).

The Sparkses allege in their First Amended Complaint that they
purchased a faulty 2016 Sierra by Forest River 5th Wheel Travel
Trailer (Travel Trailer) from Forest River for tens of thousands of
dollars. The Sparkses claim that Forest River failed to properly
design and install the electrical wiring for the electric fireplace
in the Travel Trailer.  

Defendant Forest River, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim.  

On review, the Court finds that the Sparkses failed to sufficiently
plead the elements of, or legal conditions for, any cause of action
against Forest River. To the contrary, the Sparkses have adopted
what can be described as a shot-gun approach, reciting pages of
facts combined with cryptic legalese only serving to confuse the
reader.  Although the Sparkses' First Amended Complaint contains
vague citations to several claims, it is replete with bald,
disjointed assertions, the Court says.

Here, the Court cannot determine the nature of the claims asserted
in the Sparkses' First Amended Complaint without resorting to
improper speculation. Indeed, the confusing nature of the Sparkses'
First Amended Complaint is highlighted by the fact that Forest
River is required to impermissibly speculate as to the nature of
the Sparkses' causes of action, handicapping Forest River and
unfairly frustrating its ability to defend itself in the lawsuit.

Thus, the Court rules that Forest River's Motion to Dismiss is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r7fxnht  from Leagle.com.

Angie Sparks & Larry Sparks, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Ray
Lewis, PO Box 2759, Keller, Texas 76244 & Gary N. Schepps
-legal@schepps.net - Schepps Law Offices.

Forest River Inc, Defendant, represented by Craig D. Dillard -
cdillard@foley.com - Foley & Lardner LLP, Jason Paul Sharp-
jsharp@foley.com - Foley Gardere, Robert Patrick Arthur -
rarthur@foley.com - Foley Gardere / Foley & Lardner LLP & Sara Ann
Brown - sabrown@foley.com - Foley Gardere.


G & L ENTERPRISES: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Anthony Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHA ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G & L ENTERPRISES OF HURLEY, LLC d/b/a Full
Moon Saloon; ALICAT ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a Full Moon Saloon; and
CRAIG D. LINDQUIST, Defendants, Case: 3:20-cv-00140 (W.D. Wis.,
Feb. 17, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime premium compensation for all hours
worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Anthony was employed by the Defendants as exotic
dancer.

G & L Enterprises Of Hurley, LLC d/b/a Full Moon Saloon operates a
gentleman's club featuring female exotic dancers in Hurley,
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, Suite 210
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Crossovers Have Fuse Box Issue, Claims Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors claims certain
crossover models manufactured by the automaker have a fuse box
issue that can lead to powertrain and electrical malfunctions.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, was brought forth by California
plaintiff Rebecca Casey, who purchased a used 2014 Buick Enclave in
December of 2016 with just over 70,000 miles on the odometer. Casey
started experiencing problems with the vehicle in April of 2018 and
brought it back to the dealership for repairs with a little over
89,000 miles on the clock.

Casey's vehicle had the stability and traction warning lights
illuminated, while the trip computer showed a warning for reduced
power. Technicians discovered an error code and also noticed the
fuse block ignition bus had come loose. They reinstalled the bus
and charged Casey for the repairs, but she returned a few months
later due to the engine light going on and off and warning messages
over the traction control and reduced power. The technicians then
replaced the ignition bus completely, having deemed it defective,
and charged Casey for the repairs again.

The class-action lawsuit claims the fuse blocks in the 2013-2017
Buick Enclave and other related GM crossovers are defective and can
disrupt the distribution of electricity throughout the vehicle,
preventing the vehicle from starting or cause it to stall while in
motion. This is caused by one of the relay terminals coming loose,
a problem that can then be exacerbated by engine vibrations. As the
terminal moves around, it can cause intermittent or unpredictable
electrical failures. The suit also says that certain metal prongs
used in the terminals must be sufficiently tightened in order to
prevent the problem.

In addition to the Enclave, the 2013-2017 Chevrolet Traverse,
2013-2016 GMC Acadia and 2017 GMC Acadia Limited are also affected
by this problem, the suit claims. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Szep Claims in Sloan Action Gets Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has entered an order dismissing Szep's
claims in the case captioned MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC. (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant General Motors (GM) knowingly
manufactured and sold a car engine with inherent defects that
caused excessive oil consumption and engine damage. The defects
affect 2010 to 2014 model-year GM vehicles. Based on those
allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims under various state
consumer-protection and fraud statutes on behalf of a nationwide
class as well as twenty-nine statewide classes.

Plaintiffs all "purchased or leased one or more model year
2010-2013 GM vehicles fitted with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3
Liter V8 Vortec 5300 engines."

Plaintiffs first filed their complaint in December 2016. They have
amended their complaint several times since then.  On July 2, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, and  Defendant
subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Szep's Claims in
the Fifth Amended Complaint.

Defendants move to dismiss the claims of Ohio class representative
Plaintiff Szep for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(2), a
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction.

On the other hand, for specific jurisdiction to exist, the
defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial
connection with the forum State. Three requirements must be met:
(1) the defendant must either purposefully direct his activities
toward the forum or purposefully avail himself of the privileges of
conducting activities in the forum (2) the claim must be one which
arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related
activities and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with
fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs broadly assert that the District
Court has (specific) personal jurisdiction over GM because GM has
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business
in the State of California by advertising and selling its
manufactured vehicles (including the Class Vehicles) within the
State of California. Additionally, GM has maintained systematic and
continuous business contacts with the State of California and is
registered to conduct business in California.

While these allegations may establish jurisdiction over claims
asserted by California resident plaintiffs, GM's advertisements,
sales, and commercial conduct in California may not suffice to
furnish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs such as
Plaintiff Szep of Ohio. The Complaint does not allege that Mr. Szep
purchased his car in California, was injured in California, or
otherwise had any connection to GM's activities in California.

To the contrary, the Complaint merely notes that Mr. Szep is a
resident of Mayfield, Ohio, who purchased his Silverado from Tim
Lallie Chevrolet in Bedford Heights, Ohio. In light of these facts,
Plaintiffs appear to concede that there is no independent
relationship between Plaintiff Szep's Ohio state law claims and the
State of California.  

* Existence of Federal Question Jurisdiction

In its previous Order, the District Court exercised pendent
personal jurisdiction over other non-California plaintiffs' claims.
In reaching that conclusion, the District Court examined the
Supreme Court's reasoning in Bristol-Myers and concluded (as courts
both before and after the Court's prior order have done2 that a
categorical extension of the case's holding to federal courts was
not warranted.  

It has since become clear that there is no federal question
furnishing federal question jurisdiction as it relates to Plaintiff
Szep's claims. For one thing, federal question jurisdiction is not
pled by Plaintiffs.  

In addition, while claims brought under the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act confer federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff Szep has no
viable Magnuson Moss Warranty Act Claim. The Court previously
dismissed the express warranty claims of the Ohio Plaintiffs one
possible basis for the MMWA claims and Plaintiff Szep has included
those express warranty claims only for the purpose of preserving
them for appeal.

In addition, the Court previously dismissed the implied warranty
claims of the Ohio Plaintiffs (the other possible basis for the
MMWA claims) and because Plaintiff Szep pleads an identical implied
warranty claim here, that claim likewise does not furnish a basis
for a viable MMWA claim. Thus, lacking any viable warranty claim,
Plaintiff Szep has no viable MMWA claim.

* Application of Bristol-Myers in the Context of Diversity
Jurisdiction

The fact that this case is brought as a putative class action
extending across numerous states does not appear to be an accepted
basis for distinguishing Bristol-Myers, the District Court opines.
The overwhelming majority of federal courts have held that
Bristol-Myers applies to claims brought by named plaintiffs in
class actions. Whether Bristol-Myers applies to federal class
actions is an open question. However, Plaintiffs identify no
authority where a court has determined that Bristol-Myers does not
apply to a named plaintiff seeking to represent a statewide class
of non-forum residents proceeding under non-forum law.

To be sure, as cases cited by Plaintiffs have held, the question
concerning a district court's jurisdiction as it pertains to
unnamed plaintiffs in class actions is different from the issue of
jurisdiction over named plaintiffs in class actions. But this is
not the issue in this motion.

Accordingly, Bristol-Myers applies to federal courts sitting in
diversity, and thus, pendent personal jurisdiction does not apply
to GM as it relates to the claims of Plaintiff Szep. As a result,
the District Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
Szep's Claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint. Because the Court
finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over GM as to Plaintiff
Szep's claims, it does not reach the other arguments advanced by
Defendant as to why those claims should be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uqy8gen  from Leagle.com

Monteville Sloan, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Raul Siqueiros, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Thomas Shorter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Gabriel Del Valle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & John
Graziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lori Erin Andrus -
lori@andrusanderson.com - Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt –
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Amy E.
Keller – akeller@dicellolevitt.com- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
pro hac vice, Andrew E. Brashier , Beasley Allen, PC 218 Commerce
Street Montgomery, AL, 36104, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia -
Anthony@aglawinc.com - AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II ,
Beasley Allen, PC, 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL, 36104, pro
hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri  - dferri@dicellolevitt.com -
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Eric J. Haag -
ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com - Atterbury Kammer Haag S.C., pro hac
vice, H. Clay Barnett, III , Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL, 36104, pro hac
vice

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra-
Joseph.Ybarra@hygmlaw.com - Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP,
Kathleen Taylor Sooy - ksooy@crowell.com - Crowell & Moring LLP,
pro hac vice, April Nelson Ross - aross@crowell.com - Crowell &
Moring LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory Richard Oxford -
goxford@icclawfirm.com - Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP.


GERON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Geron Corporation (GERN).

Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

GERN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/geron-corporation-et-al-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1

Geron Corporation (GERN)

GERN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 19, 2018 -
September 26, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 23, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/geron-corporation-et-al-loss-form?prid=5495&wire=1

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.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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


GOTHIC CABINET: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gothic Cabinet Craft
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, v. Gothic Cabinet Craft
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01767 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Gothic Furniture manufactures wood furniture since 1969.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


GRAND CANYON: Rosen Continues to Investigate Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOPE) resulting from
allegations that Grand Canyon may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On January 28, 2020, the investment analyst Citron Research
("Citron") issued a report on Grand Canyon entitled "GCE, the
Educational Enron." The Citron report alleged that Grand Canyon was
improperly using a "captive, non-reporting subsidiary to hide its
liabilities," thereby "artificially inflat[ing] the [company's]
stock price."

On this news, Grand Canyon's stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on January 28, 2020.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Grand Canyon's investors. If you purchased
shares of Grand Canyon, please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1761.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact

      Phillip Kim
      Rosen Law Firm
      Toll free: 866-767-3653
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              cases@rosenlegal.com

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

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
        E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
        Web site: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]


GURBIR GREWAL: Greco Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as David M. Greco, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Gurbir S. Grewal, New
Jersey Attorney General, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-19145-BRM-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying the matter as a "Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action"
      and specifically defining the "Certified Class";

   2. appointing David Greco as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Albert J. Rescinio, Esq. of Ocean Township
      (Monmouth County), New Jersey, as Lead Class Counsel;

   4. approving initial proposed Class Notices;

   5. approving initial proposed "Plan of Providing Notice";
      and

   6. commencing Notice of the pendency of the Class Action.

Gurbir Singh Grewal is the sixty-first Attorney General of the
State of New Jersey. Appointed by Governor of New Jersey Phil
Murphy, he was confirmed by the New Jersey Senate on January 16,
2018.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert J. Rescinio, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT J. RESCINIO, L.L.C.
          1500 Allaire Avenue - Unit No. 101
          Ocean Township, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 531-2005
          Telefax: (732) 531-8009

Attorneys for Gurbir S. Grewal are:

          Robert McGuire, Esq.
          Simone Frey, Esq.
          Bryan Lucas, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL
          R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
          Trenton, NJ 08625

Attorney for Defendants Jared M. Maples and New Jersey Office of
Homeland Security and Preparedness is:

          Bryan Lucas, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL
          R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
          Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Attorney for Camden County Prosecutor's Office, Jill S. Mayer and
Nevan Soumails is:

          Howard L. Goldberg, Esq.
          FIRST ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL
          OFFICE OF THE CAMDEN COUNTY COUNSEL
          Courthouse - 14 th Floor
          520 Market Street
          Camden, NJ 08102

Attorneys for Gloucester Township Police Department, Bernard John
Dougherty, Nicholas C. Aumendo, Donald B. Gansky, William Daniel
Rapp and Brian Anthony Turch are:

          Vincent P. Sarubbim Esq.
          Daniel DeFiglio, Esq.
          ARCHER & GREINER, P.C.
          33 East Euclid Avenue
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033

HAGYARD EQUINE: Counterclaims Sought in Radiograph Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mitchell, writing for Blood Horse, reports that a Feb. 11,
2020 deposition of Tom Swearingen, an owner/trainer who filed a
class-action suit against four veterinarians for modifying dates on
sale horse radiographs submitted to the Keeneland repository, has
opened the door for those vets to file a counterclaim.

The motion for a counterclaim was filed Feb. 14 by Drs. Robert
Hunt, Michael Hore, Michael Spirito, and Dwayne Rodgerson, who are
all partners with Hagyard Equine Medical Institute. Whether the
countersuit can be pursued will be determined at a hearing before
Fayette County (Ky.) Circuit Court Judge Julie Goodman.

Adding a claim to an ongoing lawsuit requires getting permission
from a judge, according to Tom Miller, an attorney with Miller,
Griffin & Marks, which is representing Hunt.

"Typically, the courts are lenient on allowing it if there is new
information available. We believe there is new information," Miller
said.

New information came to light during Swearingen's deposition in
which he confirmed that most of the claims he made in his
class-action suit, filed just over a year ago, were not true.

The four vets named in the lawsuit self-reported to the Kentucky
Board of Veterinary Examiners that they modified the dates on
radiographs submitted to the Keeneland repository.

Radiographs offered at sales through a repository provide the
benefit of central information, eliminating the need to run
numerous radiographs and endoscopic exams of horses during a sale
session. Keeneland provides the information for free. Keeneland's
repository rules for the September Yearling Sale require submitted
radiographs to be taken within 21 days of the date a horse is to be
auctioned. For its mixed sales in November and January, the
requirement is within 15 days of when a horse is to be sold.

The class-action suit alleges the practice of modifying dates went
back to 2006 and impacted thousands of buyers. It said Hagyard
submitted about 50% of the repository radiographs at the Keeneland
sales during this time and, of those, up to 10% had the date
"intentionally and fraudulently altered." The lawsuit contends the
veterinarians involved deleted or destroyed the original digital
radiograph files from the mobile radiograph machines.

"Collectively, the actions of the defendants have resulted in the
submission of tens of thousands of fraudulent radiographs to the
repository where buyers like the plaintiff, relying on the alleged
integrity of the repository and reasonable belief that the rules
were being followed, acted and bid with the confidence Keeneland
sought to inspire, as reflected by the substantial prices commanded
by a process which was believed 'lower risk' by virtue of the
repository," the suit reads. "In fact, beneath the surface, that
was clearly not the case, and the repository engendered nothing
more than false confidence as a result of the defendants'
actions."

During Swearingen's deposition, however, the horseman said he never
reviewed any radiographs in the repository or asked a veterinarian
to review them on his behalf before he purchased a horse at
Keeneland.

Attorneys Mason Miller and William Rambicure, with Miller Edwards
Rambicure, are representing Swearingen. [GN]


HARVEST LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tellez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Tellez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HARVEST LANDSCAPE ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00438 (Cal. Super., Orange Cty.,
March 3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay all
wages due, including regular and overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide
meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, to provide
rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, to pay wages due upon
termination of employment, and to indemnify for expenditures or
losses in discharge of duties.

The Plaintiff says that he was entitled to timely, uninterrupted,
30-minute meal periods with the 5 hours worked. However, he
alleges, these breaks were either not provided, were interrupted,
or were provided late. He notes that he could not take any
duty-free breaks lasting 10 minutes, in violation of the Labor Code
and the IWC Wage Orders, due to the Defendants' uniform practice of
denying and/or interrupting these breaks.

The Plaintiff also alleges that he was not reimbursed for the use
of his personal cell phones. He adds that he was obligated to use
his personal vehicle to transport tools and supplies from
Defendants' office to the location of work sites, but he was not
reimbursed for expenses incurred.

Mr. Tellez began his employment with the Defendants in April 2018,
as maintenance worker and was terminated on November 8, 2018.

The Defendant provides landscape services to clients throughout
southern California with over seven locations in California,
including Orange County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          John A. Young, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 590-5550


HEALTH CARE: Class Settlement in Candelaria Gets Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
NORA CANDELARIA, KIMANI SINGLETON and all others similarly situated
under 29 USC Sec. 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE
CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-404-KG-SMV. (D.N.M.)

The class action complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Court find the proposed settlement in the class action as fair,
reasonable and adequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

For purposes of settlement, the Settlement Class includes the 597
individuals. The Settlement Class is comprised of individuals who
worked in New Mexico (New Mexico Class), individuals who worked in
Illinois (Illinois Class) and individuals who worked in states
other than New Mexico and Illinois (FLSA Class). The Settlement
Class is comprised of individuals who worked at some point between
April 3, 2014, and the present. The FLSA Class is limited to
individuals working between April 3, 2015, and the present.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ue4y4cl from Leagle.com

Nora Candelaria, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
§ 216 (b), Kimani Singleton, Arthur Santoyo, Debra Hollins, Yvette
Buckhaulter, Karen D Davis, Niteria McIntosh, Cynthia M Medley,
Keitta Smith, Idi Edem, Mari Gabbert, Janice Tucker, Fausat Osiade
& Bobbie S Drodwell, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack L. Siegel -
jack@siegellawgroup.biz - Siegel Law Group PLLC, Jesse Hamilton
Forester , Forester Haynie PLLC,1701 N. Market St. #210, Dallas,
Texas, 75202, Travis Andrew Gasper , Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek
Braziel , Lee & Braziel LLP, 1801 N Lamar St Ste 325,Dallas, TX,
75202-1732

Sabrina Powell & Charlene Gabaldon, Plaintiffs, represented by J.
Derek Braziel , Lee & Braziel LLP, Jack L. Siegel , Siegel Law
Group PLLC & Travis Andrew Gasper , Lee & Braziel, LLP.

Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam J.
Weiner , Reed Smith, LLP, Mark D. Temple , Reed Smith LLP,10 South
Wacker Drive, 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606- 7507 & Randy S.
Bartell , Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.,  325 Paseo de Peralta, Santa
Fe, NM 87501


HI-TECH PHARMA: Dietary Supplements Contain Toxins, Rosas Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN ROSAS; RALPH MILAN; and TANNER AYOOB, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HI-TECH
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., d/b/a APS NUTRITION, Defendant, Case
8:20-cv-00433 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2020) alleges that the Defendant
engaged in false and misleading promotion of its purportedly
consumable dietary supplement products.

The complaint asserts that the products contained either DMAA, DMHA
or Methylsynephrine which are considered by the Food and Drug
Administration as dangerous ingredients not safe or approved for
human consumption. The misrepresentations that Defendant made
regarding the ingredients in its products caused each of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated California consumers to purchase
and ingest substances that the FDA considers nonconsumable.

According to FDA.gov, DMAA (1,3-dimethylamylamine) is an
amphetamine derivative that has been marketed in sports performance
and weight loss products, many of which are sold as dietary
supplements. DMAA is not a dietary ingredient, and DMAA-containing
products marketed as dietary supplements are illegal and their
marketing violates the law.

DMHA is a DMAA-like stimulant.

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and/or distributes
various products, including purportedly consumable consumer
packaged goods and purportedly dietary supplements. The Company
conducts business through Internet sales and wide retail
distribution at numerous stores within the United States, including
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                       – and -

            Yana Hart, Esq.
            David James Mcglothlin, Esq.
            KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
            2221 Camino Del Rio S, Ste 101
            San Diego, CA 92626
            Email: yana@kazlg.com
                   david@kazlg.com

HOME DEPOT: Court Certified Settlement Class in Manopla Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AARON MANOPLA and EVELYN
MANOPLA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
V. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., ATLANTIC WATER PRODUCTS and JOHN DOES
1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), Hon. Judge Peter G.
Sheridan entered an order:

   1. certifying Settlement Class of:

      "all persons or entities within the United States who
      received any telephone calls from or on behalf of
      Defendants or their agents and/or employees made through
      the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with
      an artificial or prerecorded voice between October 16, 2013
      and June 1, 2015." Excluded from the Settlement Class are
      the Judge to whom this Action is assigned and any member of
      the Judge's staff and immediate family, as well as all
      persons who are validly excluded from the Settlement Class.

   2. approving class action settlement;

   3. approving Settlement Notice Plan; and

   4. setting Final Approval Hearing for Settlement.

The class action settlement provides that:

-- Settlement Class Members were advised in the Class Notice
    approved by the Court that Class Counsel intended to apply for

    an award of attorneys' fees in an amount of up to 35% of the
    Cash Settlement Fund plus expenses incurred in the prosecution
    of this litigation up to a maximum of $50,000, to be paid from
    the Cash Settlement Fund;

-- Class Counsel are hereby awarded $1,522,500 from the balance
    of the Cash Settlement Fund as their fee award;

-- Class Counsel are also awarded $30,824.70 from the balance of
    the Cash Settlement Fund as reimbursement of out of pocket
    expenses; and

-- payment of a service award in the amount of $7,500 to each
    Settlement Class Representative ($15,000 in total).[CC]

HOUSTON CIRCLE: Thomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quachea Thomas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. HOUSTON CIRCLE OF HOPE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00769
(S.D. Tex., March 3, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
the Defendant owes to the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has overtime problems.
The most obvious is that the Defendant pays hours it counts as
worked at the same hourly rate, even when they exceed 40 in a
workweek. The Defendant refuses to pay anything for other
compensable hours worked, including travel time and time doing
paperwork.

Plaintiff Quachea Thomas was employed by the Defendant as a "Rehab
Clinician."

HCHS is a for-profit corporation based in Houston, Texas, that
provides mental health rehabilitative services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


HP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against
HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ) ("HP") on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired HP common stock between February 23, 2017 and October 3,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action, captioned
Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01260, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HP common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than April 20, 2020, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please visit www.ktmc.com/new-cases/hp-inc. Click here
to view a copy of the filed complaint.

HP is a global provider of personal computers, printers and related
supplies, solutions, and services. HP conducts its business
primarily through two segments: Personal Systems and Printing. HP's
Printing segment includes the Supplies business unit which
comprises consumable products, including ink and laser cartridges,
for recurring use in consumer and commercial printing hardware. The
Supplies business has been a significant revenue driver for HP.

Prior to the Class Period, on June 21, 2016, HP reported that its
Supplies business was facing numerous challenges. As a result, HP
announced a one-time investment of $450 million to buy back
supplies from its channel partners to better align supplies
inventory levels with demand, with the goal of stabilizing supplies
revenue by the end of fiscal 2017. HP also announced the
fundamental shift in its Supplies business from a push strategy to
a pull strategy, which involves aligning channel supplies inventory
levels with current demand and marketing efforts to drive print
relevancy and strengthen HP's Supplies brand value.

The Class Period commences on February 23, 2017, the next trading
day after HP issued a press release after the close of market on
February 22, 2017, which it also filed with the SEC on a Form 8-K,
announcing its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal
2017.

At the start of the Class Period, HP assured investors that its new
approach of managing and aligning demand and inventory in its
Supplies business would avert the types of problems that
necessitated the $450 million buy-back. The centerpiece of this new
approach was focused on what HP called its "four-box model." For
several years, HP measured its Supplies business through this
model, which focuses on the four key drivers of revenue growth:
in-store base, usage, market share, and price.

HP's four-box model became the primary focus of HP and its
investors because HP assured investors that its use of the four-box
model enabled it to accurately assess demand for products in its
Supplies business and manage the inventory placed in its sales and
distribution channels. Throughout the Class Period, HP emphasized
the four-box model as an accurate, reliable tool to determine
demand and revenue in the Supplies business, and reassured
investors that, based on the four-box model, HP had a "clear line
of sight to supply stabilization." Defendants repeatedly
highlighted the reliability of HP's four-box model and the revenue
growth of the Supplies business, touting their "continued
confidence in the predictive value of the four box model" and
stating that HP's "Supplies revenue is in line with the
expectations that we set, and that our 4-box model continues to
drive predictability."

The truth began to emerge on February 27, 2019, after the close of
trading, when HP reported that total Supplies revenue was down 3%,
with a 9% decline in HP's Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
("EMEA") market, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2019. On an
earnings call held that day, HP management attributed the shortfall
to weaker than predicted demand from commercial customers in EMEA
driven by an increase in online sales, where HP had a lower market
share and faced more competition from cheaper third-party
alternatives than in the U.S. HP, however, admitted to a larger
problem with its four-box model: it had been using incorrect data
concerning inventory, market share, and pricing assumptions. Thus,
contrary to its previous statements, HP in fact had limited
"visibility into the downstream channel ecosystem." As a result, HP
had too much inventory in its Supplies channel network that was not
selling through.  HP also revealed that it lacked telemetry data -
data provided automatically by remote units, such as printers that
have been sold to customers, which apprise HP about the level of
usage and need for new toner - to determine reliable market share
assumptions for its Supplies business. Following this news, HP's
stock price declined from $23.85 per share to $19.73 per share, or
over 17%, on high trading volume.

Then, on August 22, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced in
a press release, also filed on a Form 8-K with the SEC, that Dion
J. Weisler ("Weisler"), HP's President and Chief Executive Officer,
would step down at the end of October 2019. HP also announced
disappointing earnings results for the third quarter of fiscal year
2019, with Supplies revenue down 7% year-over-year. Management also
revised Supplies revenue guidance even further down, to 4% or 5%
down for fiscal year 2019 from previous guidance of 3%. Following
this news, the price of HP's stock dropped nearly 6%, from $18.93
per share to $17.81 per share, on unusually high trading volume.

Finally, on October 3, 2019, after the market closed, HP announced
that it was "departing from the purely transactional
Supplies-centric business model" and transitioning to a
hardware-driven business. The new business model gives customers
the choice between a discounted HP printer that can only function
with HP Supplies or a higher-priced HP printer with the option to
choose third-party cartridges. Under the new business model, HP
would abandon its use of the four-box model as HP de-emphasized
Supplies revenue and instead would focus on "the key metrics [of]
service growth and operating profit dollars, which better reflect[]
the system profitability." HP also announced mass layoffs as part
of a major company restructuring, in which it expects to cut
between 7,000 to 9,000 positions, or up to 16% of its global
workforce, over three years. Following this news, the price of HP's
stock dropped from $18.40 per share to $16.64 per share, or nearly
10%, on unusually high trading volume.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants knew that the four-box model was severely deficient and
not a strong predictor of Supplies demand and outcomes, because HP
lacked telemetry data from its commercial printers and had to use
unreliable and stagnant market share data to develop assumptions
for the four-box model. The complaint also alleges that the
defendants knew the lack of telemetry data for commercial printing
was a critical shortcoming of the four-box model because HP
possessed telemetry data on its personal printing side and knew it
was a necessary element for an accurate understanding of the
Supplies channel.  As a result, the Supplies inventory in HP's
channel exceeded demand by at least $100 million and HP's Supplies
revenue growth was grossly inflated.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com.

HP investors may, no later than April 20, 2020, move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if they so choose.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. An investor's
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Communicating
with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any
recovery achieved in this case.  Any member of the purported class
may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of
his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive
class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world.  The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars).  For more information about
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, visit www.ktmc.com.

Contact:

         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (844) 887-9500
              (610) 667-7706
         E-mail: info@ktmc.com [GN]


IC SYSTEM: Faces Werzberger FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System, Inc. The
case is styled as Abraham Werzberger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No.
7:20-cv-01778 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

IC System is an accounts receivable management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bronstein Notifies Shareholders of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.
(JELD) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased JELD-WEN securities between January 26, 2017 and October
15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/jeld.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Jeld-Wen products, including doors, compete against other
manufacturers on price, and described the market in which the
Company sells its doors as "highly competitive"; and (2) Jeld-Wen's
strong margins and anticipated margin growth were attributed to
legitimate business factors, such as "making strategic pricing
decisions based on an analysis of customer and product level
profitability" and increasing its emphasis on "pricing
optimization"; (3) these and similar statements made by defendants
during the Class Period were false and misleading because
defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing
conspiracy with another door manufacturer to artificially increase
or maintain prices of interior molded doors; and (4) consequently,
Jeld-Wen common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jeld or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in JELD-WEN you have until April 20, 2020 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein
         Yael Hurwitz
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN]


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Jeld-Wen Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Jeld-Wen between January 26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Jeld-Wen investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants repeatedly attributed its
strong margins and anticipated margin growth to legitimate business
factors, such as "strategic pricing decisions" and an increased
emphasis on "pricing optimization."  These and similar statements
made by Defendants during the Class Period were false and
misleading because Defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a
price-fixing conspiracy.  As a result of Defendants'
misrepresentations, shares of Jeld-Wen's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

On February 15, 2018, a jury in a lawsuit brought by one of
Jeld-Wen's customers, Steves and Sons, Inc., found that Jeld-Wen
violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring with Masonite to
manipulate the price of door skins and awarded Steves over $58
million in damages, which, when trebled, totaled more than $175
million.  However, Defendants continued to conceal the true extent
of Jeld-Wen's misconduct and the financial impact it had on the
Company's business, including by continuing to assure investors
that it participated in a highly competitive market.  Then, on
August 7, 2018, J.P. Morgan slashed estimates for Jeld-Wen's
earnings in 2018 and 2019 and lowered its price target for
Jeld-Wen's stock based, in part, on liability from the "ongoing
Steves and Sons litigation."  Months later, on October 5, 2018, the
court in the Steves litigation ruled that, as part of the
resolution of that case, Jeld-Wen would be required to divest one
of its door skin manufacturing facilities.  Then, on October 15,
2018, Jeld-Wen announced that it would take a $76.5 million charge
related to the Steves litigation.  That same day, the Company also
announced the sudden resignation of its CFO, defendant L. Brooks
Mallard.  As a result of these disclosures, the price of Jeld-Wen's
common stock declined precipitously.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Spirit
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
20, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
        Tel: (212) 983-1300
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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 JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) between January
26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JELD-WEN investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the JELD-WEN class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1783.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
engaged in a scheme to defraud and made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, growth
prospects, and competitive positioning. Specifically, defendants
stated that: (1) Jeld-Wen products, including doors, compete
against other manufacturers on price, and described the market in
which the Company sells its doors as "highly competitive"; and (2)
Jeld-Wen's strong margins and anticipated margin growth were
attributed to legitimate business factors, such as "making
strategic pricing decisions based on an analysis of customer and
product level profitability" and increasing its emphasis on
"pricing optimization." These and similar statements made by
defendants during the Class Period were false and misleading
because defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing
conspiracy with another door manufacturer to artificially increase
or maintain prices of interior molded doors. As a result of
defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Jeld-Wen's common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

On October 15, 2018, after the market closed, Jeld-Wen announced
that the Company expected its third quarter 2018 financial results
to include a $76.5 million charge related to an ongoing litigation
regarding Jeld-Wen's anticompetitive behavior. The Company also
announced the resignation of its CFO, Brooks Mallard. In response
to these disclosures, Jeld-Wen's stock price declined from $21.31
per share to $17.28 per share, on high trading volume, a decline of
19%.

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 20,
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-1783.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
        E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
        Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Schall Law Alerts Investors to Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against JELD-WEN
Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) for violations of Sec. 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 January
26, 2017 and October 15, 2018, inclusive (the ''Class Period''),
are encouraged to contact the firm before April 20, 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. JELD-WEN enjoyed strong margins and
growth which it claimed were based on "making strategic pricing
decisions based on an analysis of customer and product level
profitability" and developing "pricing optimization." In fact, the
Company was engaged in a price-fixing scheme with a competitor to
artificially inflate pricing and margin. On October 15, 2018, the
Company's CFO resigned as the anticompetitive behavior became
public. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about JELD-WEN, 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.

Contacts

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


JOHN BALDWIN: Class Certification Bid Denied in Frazier Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Robin Frazier, et al. v. John
Baldwin, Case No. 1:18-cv-01991 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary
Feinerman entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 20, 2020, a
status hearing was held and is continued to April 1, 2020 at 9:15
a.m.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice.[CC]



KELLOGG CO: Marotto Denied Class Certification in Pringles Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned MATTHEW MAROTTO on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG COMPANY, KELLOGG USA INC., KELLOGG SALES
COMPANY, PRINGLES LLC, and PRINGLES MANUFACTURING CO., Defendants,
Case No. 18 Civ. 3545 (AKH). (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Matthew Marotto, a chef with training in molecular
gastronomy, filed the action in April 2018 against Defendants
Kellogg Company, Kellogg USA Inc., Kellogg Sales Company, Pringles,
LLC, and Pringles Manufacturing Co., alleging that Defendants,
makers and marketers of Pringles Salt and Vinegar crisps
(Pringles), label Pringles packaging in a way that misled Marotto
and other New York consumers into wrongly believing that Pringles
contain no artificial ingredients.  

Plaintiff now moves to certify a class of all persons who bought
Pringles in New York on or after April 1, 2012.  

The Court notes that Marotto's arguments for typicality and
adequacy are, at best, dubious. For instance, common sense alone
makes clear that a professional pastry chef, with years of training
in molecular gastronomy at an elite culinary school, for whom in
his own words price is of no concern when grocery shopping, and is
so averse to the purchase of packaged food that he makes his own
rigatoni, is neither the typical Pringles purchaser nor typical in
his zealous avoidance of artificial ingredients.  

Adequacy is an even more awkward fit, the Court cites, given
Marotto's testimony that, after consuming Pringles more or less
continuously since his childhood, he was first told that Pringles
contain artificial ingredients by his wife, an attorney at one of
the law firms seeking to represent the putative class. When asked
how she became aware of Pringles using artificial flavors, Marotto
answered, "I assume she found out through work or something."

Whatever the true reason for the genesis of the lawsuit, Marotto
would without a doubt be uniquely susceptible to questions as to
whether this suit is brought for his own benefit, or for that of
his wife's firm.

However, the Court need not address those arguments, because
Marotto has plainly failed to satisfy the predominance requirement
of Rule 23(b)(3).

First, while common issues may predominate if a product and its
labeling remain constant and are uniform between customers, this is
not so when it is not demonstrated that all members of the class
saw the same advertisements and not all the advertisements
contained the alleged misrepresentations.

Second, the individualized inquiry into the extent to which if at
all individual consumers were motivated by the No Artificial
Flavors label to purchase Pringles, and/or to pay a premium price
for Pringles, precludes a finding of predominance. This is not a
matter of damages implicating individual determinations as noted
already.

If the proposed class were certified, the Court would need to
engage in fact-finding as to the inner workings of, at least, tens
of thousands and likely more of consumers' minds. And ultimately,
the Court would need some meaningful way of determining the
interplay between the weight a class member placed on the No
Artificial Flavors label and harm to that class member. Such a
process would be as individualized as it is nonsensical. All the
more so because Plaintiff has of yet offered no evidence that a
price premium actually existed.

In short, predominance is wholly lacking here, the Court opines.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied, the Court
rules

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/up8t24k from Leagle.com

Matthew Marotto, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by John
Kerry Weston , Sacks Weston Petrelli Diamond & Millstein LLC, 1845
Walnut Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA 19103 & Alexander
Gabriel Cabeceiras , Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, 1 Pennsylvania
Plaza, Suite 4905, New York, NY 10119

Kellogg Company, Kellogg USA Inc., Kellogg Sales Company, Pringles
LLC & Pringles Manufacturing Co., Defendants, represented by Dean
N. Panos - dpanos@jenner.com - Jenner & Block, pro hac vice,
Alexander Smith - asmith@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP &
Elizabeth Austin Edmondson -
eedmondson@jenner.com - Jenner & Block LLP.


KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: Wiler Sues Alleging Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Wiler, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
female coaches, administrators and academics challenging pay equity
v. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00490 (N.D. Ohio, March
3, 2020), seeks to recover damages for pay discrimination and to
prevent pay discrimination for women currently employed at KSU in
the role of coach, administrator or academic.

The Defendant created intolerable working conditions for the
Plaintiff by failing to remedy her pay discrimination complaints
despite notice of her discriminatory pay forcing her constructive
discharge, the Plaintiff alleges. She avers that the Defendant had
actual knowledge of pay inequality based on gender across campus at
the time the Defendant created intolerable working conditions for
her.

According to the complaint, KSU has discriminated against the
Plaintiff on the basis of gender by paying wages at a rate less
than the rate paid to male employees for equal work on jobs, the
performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and
responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions.

The purpose of this action is to redress the Plaintiff's rights
under Title VII, Title IX and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) as well as
the Ohio Equal Pay Law (EPL) prohibiting gender and pay
discrimination, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kathleen Wiler was hired by KSU in 2006 to be the Head
Coach of the Women's Field Hockey Team.

Kent State University is an educational institution receiving
federal financial assistance and organized under the laws of the
state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Newkirk, Esq.
          Beatriz Mate-Kodjo, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Phone: 515-883-2000
          Fax: 515-883-2004
          Email: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com
                 Bmate-kodjo@newkirklaw.com

               - and -

          Karen C. Lefton, Esq.
          THE LEFTON GROUP, LLC
          3480 West Market Street, Suite 304
          Akron, OH 44333
          Phone: 330-864-2003
          Email: karen@theleftongroup.com


KINUM INC: Morgan Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kinum, Inc. The case
is styled as Amy Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kinum, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01484 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 28, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Kinum is a collections company. Kinum collects past due accounts
for its client base while maintaining good customer and client
relations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
          Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
                 osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                 jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Pyramid Scheme Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
BRIAN SMITH, individually, MICHAEL ILARDO, individually,
Plaintiffs, v. LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DARREN
JENSEN, an individual, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-00621 DN PMW.
(D. Utah).

The Complaint alleges securities fraud, sale of an unregistered
security, antitrust violations, and unjust enrichment. These claims
stem from Plaintiffs' involvement as Distributors of LifeVantage
products. Plaintiffs allege that they lost money by joining
LifeVantage. Plaintiffs' central allegation is that LifeVantage is
an illegal pyramid scheme rather than a legitimate multi-level
marketing (MLM) business.

Specifically, Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action
against the Defendants: (i) Violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act And Rule 10b-5; (ii) Violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 771(a)(1) and (2); (iii) Violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act and Sections 4 of the Clayton Act; and (iv) Unjust
Enrichment.

Defendants request dismissal of all of the causes of action in the
Complaint.  Defendants argues that Plaintiffs have not pleaded
fraud with the exacting degree of particularity demanded by Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"). Defendants also argue that Distributorship agreements
are not required to be registered as securities. Defendants further
argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to
state a claim for antitrust violations or unjust enrichment.

On review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts to state a Securities Exchange Act 10(b) Rule 10b-5 Claim.

A distributorship in LifeVantage qualifies as a security.
Investment in the Plan, where profit comes if not solely, at least
predominantly from the efforts of others, namely of the downline
members, falls under the definition of an investment contract
governed by securities laws. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the
LifeVantage MLM structure constitutes a pyramid scheme. Investment
in a pyramid scheme is itself a security. This allegation is key to
Plaintiffs' 10b-5 claim.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and its associated Rule 10b-5. Section
10(b) forbids the use of any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance that would violate any such rules and regulations as
the Commission may prescribe.

The Court opines that Plaintiffs have alleged enough plausible
facts in their Complaint to state a claim for scheme liability
under Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants structured
their purported MLM as a pyramid scheme. As part of the scheme,
recruited Distributors paid for the right to receive compensation
that was dependent on the recruitment of additional participants in
the scheme rather than on legitimate retail sales. Plaintiffs also
allege that Defendants hired professional marketers to pose as
success stories to convince potential recruits that they could
attain great financial rewards that were, in reality, highly
unlikely.

Plaintiffs have also sufficiently allege scienter, the Court adds.
At the motion to dismiss stage, it is enough that, seen in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, the allegation that
Defendants acted with scienter is at least as plausible as the
competing inferences. Therefore, granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to count one of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
would be inappropriate. Of course, whether respondents can
ultimately prove their allegations and establish scienter is an
altogether different question.
At this stage, there is no indication of what a final decision on
the merits would be.

However, the Court opines, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient
facts to state a claim for sale of unlicensed securities under 15
U.S.C. Section 771. To support their allegation, Plaintiffs offer
the legal conclusion that the Compensation Plan given by
LifeVantage to its recruited Distributors is a prospectus within
the meaning of Section 12(2). But no other facts are alleged to
support this conclusory assertion. Assertions devoid of factual
allegations that are nothing more than conclusory are disregarded.


Plaintiffs also fail to allege sufficient facts to state a claim
for antritrust violations, the Court opines.

Futhermore, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state a
claim for unjust enrichment, the Court finds. Plaintiffs simply
allege that Defendants derived financial benefits from Plaintiffs
and the putative class members. Instead of alleging the elements of
an unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiffs offer in a conclusory manner
that it would be unjust to permit these Defendants to retain these
ill-gotten gains.

In sum, the Court order that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in
part as to the Securities Act Rule 10b-5 claim and GRANTED in part
as to the Sections 12(1) and (2) claim, the antitrust claim, and
the unjust enrichment claim.  These claims are dismissed but
Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend complaint without delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court December 5, 2019 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/thyry74 from
Leagle.com

Brian Smith, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated & Michael Ilardo, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy L. Marino
- amy@marinopllc.com - MARINO LAW PLLC, Andrew J. Kochanowski  -
akochanowski@sommerspc.com - SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC, pro hac vice, J.
Benjamin King – bking@rctlegal.com - REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP, pro
hac vice, Lance C. Young - lyoung@sommerspc.com - SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
PC, pro hac vice, R. Adam Swick – aswick@rctlegal.com - REID
COLLINS & TSAI LLP, pro hac vice & Steven A. Christensen -
steven@christensenyounglaw.com - CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
PLLC.

Lifevantage Corporation & Darren Jensen, Defendants, represented by
Bradley D. Ryynanen – bryynanen@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN
LLP, pro hac vice, David C. Reymann- dreymann@parrbrown.com - PARR
BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Hunt  -
jhunt@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, John C.C. Sanders,
Jr.  - jsanders@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice,
Rex A. Mann  rmann@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert S. Clark  - rclark@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE &
LOVELESS, Thomas M. Melsheimer  - tmelsheimer@winston.com - WINSTON
& STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan S. Johansen
-bjohansen@parrbrown.com - PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS & Katrina G.
Eash  - keash@winston.com - WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, pro hac vice.


LOGIX FEDERAL: Faces Deronette Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Deronette and Darling Juste-Deronette, Individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. LOGIX FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 20-0209 (Mass. Cmmw., March 2, 2020), arises
from the alleged unlawful debt collection and car repossession
practices of the Defendant.

On June 22, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Deronette entered into a consumer
credit transaction with Logix to refinance the Deronettes' vehicle,
a 2014 Chevrolet Suburban. The vehicle serves as collateral for the
Loan Agreement, and the Loan Agreement provides for a security
interest in the vehicle in favor of Logix.

After repossessing a vehicle, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
requires a lender to send a post-repossession notice containing "a
description of any liability for a deficiency of the person to
which the notification is sent." On September 13, 2019, Logix sent
the Plaintiffs a notice advising them of the repossession and of
Logix's intent to sell the Vehicle.

According to the complaint, the Repossession Notice erroneously
states that, should Logix sell the vehicle, the Plaintiffs would be
liable for their loan balance minus the sale price of the vehicle.
Massachusetts law, however, requires that consumers be given
explicit notice that the fair market value of the vehicle, not the
sale price, will be deducted from the amount they would owe on
their loans after the sale of their vehicle, the Plaintiffs
assert.

After repossessing the Plaintiffs' vehicle, Logix sent them form
post-repossession notices that failed to include key provisions
required by law, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that Logix's
failure to provide consumers with all appropriate repossession
notices and information required by Massachusetts law gives rise to
statutory and other damages.

Plaintiffs Wilson Deronette and Darling Juste-Deronette reside in
Brockton, Massachusetts.

Logix is a credit lender that enters into consumer loans, including
auto loans, to customers nationwide, including in
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUCKIN COFFEE: Pawar Law Group Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Luckin
Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK) from November 19, 2019 through January 31,
2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Luckin Coffee Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email for information on the class action.
66
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.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.
         Pawar Law Group
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
         New York, NY 10007
         Tel: (917) 261-2277
         Fax: (212) 571-0938
[GN]


LUCKIN COFFEE: Scott+Scott Notifies Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Luckin Coffee Inc.
(NASDAQ: LK) and other defendants related to alleged violations of
federal securities laws. If you purchased Luckin Coffee American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") between November 13, 2019 and January
31, 2020, inclusive, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott
attorney Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888)
398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.

Luckin Coffee is a China-based, technology-driven coffee store
company.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational, and compliance policies, including: (i) 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; and (ii)
Luckin's financial results thus overstated the Company's financial
health and were unreliable.

On January 31, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report
alleging that Luckin Coffee had fabricated certain of the Company's
financial performance metrics, beginning in the third quarter of
2019. The Muddy Waters report asserted that Luckin Coffee inflated
its per-store per-day sales figures, citing a review of thousands
of hours of store video, and that Luckin Coffee significantly
inflated its net selling price per item.

On this news, the price of Luckin Coffee ADSs fell $3.91 per share
- 10.74% - to close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Luckin Coffee ADSs between November 13, 2019 and
January 31, 2020, inclusive, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.
The lead plaintiff deadline is April 13, 2020.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN]


MARATHON REFINING: Court Dismisses Wood Labor Suit W/Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned JANICE WOOD, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC, Defendant. Case No.
19-cv-04287-YGR. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Janice Wood, Anthony Alfaro, and Aaron Dietrich
commenced the putative class action against defendant Marathon
Refining Logistics Services LLC, alleging that defendant's standby
shift practices violate the reporting time pay provisions of
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order 1-2001.

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that (i)
plaintiffs' claims are preempted by section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA) and (ii) plaintiffs fail to state a
claim for reporting time pay.

To determine whether a claim is preempted by LMRA section 301, the
Court must first consider whether the asserted cause of action
involves a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law,
not by a CBA.

Here, the first prong of the preemption test is straightforward,
that is, plaintiffs' claims involve a right conferred by California
law, not the CBAs. Defendant argues that plaintiffs' claims
nevertheless are preempted because they are substantially dependent
on the terms of at least two heavily-negotiated CBAs between
defendant and the United Steel Workers union, and related
guidelines and shop practice, which purportedly govern the putative
class members' terms and conditions of employment.

To determine whether a state law right is substantially dependent
on the terms of a CBA, the Court must decide whether the claim can
be resolved by looking to versus interpreting the CBA.

Plaintiffs' claims center around defendant's standby shift system.
The complaint addresses some aspects of the system, including that
operators had 3.5 hours to arrive at the refinery when receiving a
call, maintenance workers had 30 minutes to respond to a call and 2
hours after that to arrive at the refinery, and employees were
subject to discipline for failing to meet these requirements. The
complaint, however, omits certain material facts, at least some of
which are addressed in the CBAs and related guidelines.  

Plaintiffs concede that if the LMRA preempts their claims, the
claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust the grievance and
arbitration procedures in the CBAs. Thus, because section 301
preempts plaintiffs' claims, they are dismissed. However, the Court
does not have sufficient information to determine whether
plaintiffs may be able to amend their complaint to avoid
preemption, that is, in such a way that the Court would not need to
interpret the CBAs or guidelines to resolve the claims.

The Court thus dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims with leave to
amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/waltu6m from Leagle.com

JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY ALFARO & AARON DIETRICH, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alexander S. Nazarov , Weinberg, Roger and
Rosenfeld, 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Ste 200, Alameda, CA
94501-6430, Jannah Vanessa Manansala  - jmanansala@unioncounsel.net
- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A Professional Corporation & Kristina
L. Hillman  -khillman@unioncounsel.net - Weinberg, Roger &
Rosenfeld.

MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC, Defendant, represented by
Mary Deanna Manesis - mmanesis@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Michael Warner Kopp  -mkopp@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
William J. Dritsas  - wdritsas@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Timothy Michael Rusche - trusche@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


MARY ANN MORSE: App. Court Flips Dismissal of Ryan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex, issued an
Opinion reversing the Superior Court judgment granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JAMES M. RYAN, executor, vs.
MARY ANN MORSE HEALTHCARE CORP, SJC-12708, (Supreme Judicial Court
of Massachusetts, Middlesex).

In 2013, Julia Ryan entered into an agreement with Mary Ann Morse
Healthcare Corp., doing business as Heritage at Framingham
(Heritage), to lease an apartment in the defendant's assisted
living residences (ALR) in Framingham.  Ryan's rent was $4,000 per
month.  Prior to occupancy, Heritage required her to pay the first
and last month's rent. In addition to the rental fees, Heritage
also charged Ryan a nonrefundable, one-time "community fee" of
$2,800.  According to the residency agreement, the community fee
was "intended to cover upfront staff administrative costs, the
Resident's initial service coordination plan and move-in
assistance, and establish a replacement reserve for building
improvements."

In 2016, James Ryan, the executor of Julia Ryan's estate, commenced
the putative class action, alleging that Heritage violated G. L. c.
186, Section 15B, and G. L. c. 93A by charging new residents the
community fee.  Heritage moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint, claiming that, as an ALR, it was not subject to the
security deposit statute.  On March 5, 2018, a judge in the
Superior Court granted the motion, concluding that the Legislature
did not intend for ALRs to be subject to the security deposit
statute.  The plaintiff appealed.  

* Ambiguity of the ALR statute

The extent to which the Legislature intended to provide ALR
residents with the protections afforded by other statutes is not
readily apparent from the plain language of the ALR statute.  The
statute repeatedly makes reference to the fact that ALRs are
subject to other applicable laws and regulations.  For example, G.
L. c. 19D, Section16, requires ALRs to meet the requirements of all
applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including, but
not limited to, the state sanitary code, state building and fire
safety codes and regulations, and laws and regulations governing
handicapped accessibility.

Despite these references, the ALR statute does not identify which
laws or regulations regarding consumer protection and protection
from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of the elderly and
disabled are applicable to ALRs. Nor does the statute expressly
address whether G. L. c. 186, Section 15B, is applicable.  

The Appellate Court notes that in the present case, each party
urges us to draw inferences selectively from the ALR statute's
ambiguity.  The plaintiff relies on the language in the ALR statute
generally incorporating applicable consumer protection laws.  The
defendant contends that the Legislature's explicit reference to G.
L. c. 186 with regard to evictions implies that the Legislature did
not intend for G. L. c. 186 to otherwise apply.  Neither proffered
explanation is wholly satisfactory, as each relies on selective
readings of the statutory language, the Appellate Court opines.

* Harmonizing the ALR statute with preexisting law

To resolve the ambiguity, the Appellate Court looks at the statute
holistically to determine its intent.  The Appellate Court
concludes that when the two statutes at issue here are read
holistically, they can be harmonized as follows: the security
deposit law was meant to be incorporated by the ALR statute to the
extent that it is applicable to ALRs, but ALRs may also charge
additional upfront fees for the distinct services that such
facilities provide that are not applicable to ordinary
landlord-tenant relationships.

The ALR statute requires ALRs to include a provision within their
residency agreements to comply with applicable federal and state
laws and regulations regarding consumer protection and protection
from abuse, neglect and financial exploitation of the elderly and
disabled.  The Appellate Court concludes that the security deposit
statute, G. L. c. 186, Section 15B, is an applicable consumer
protection law, at least to the extent that ALRs resemble a
traditional landlord-tenant relationship.  As the Appellate Court
had previously recognized, tenant protections are firmly rooted
within the Commonwealth's consumer protection laws.   

This is so because residential tenants generally inhabit an
inferior bargaining position relative to their landlords, and the
Legislature has enacted laws such as the security deposit statute
out of concern for their welfare.  Such protections are
particularly significant for elderly tenants, who are among the
most needy and vulnerable segments of our population.  

In sum, the Appellate Court concludes that the security deposit
statute is a consumer protection law applicable to ALRs to the
extent that ALRs resemble an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship.
This is, however, not the end of our analysis.  The Appellate
Court must now considers the services that ALR facilities provide
that are not applicable to ordinary landlord-tenant relationships,
and determine whether ALR facilities may impose upfront fees for
such services.

The Appellate Court concludes that they may.

* Inapplicability of security deposit statute to distinct ALR
services

In the present case, the Appellate Court focuses on substance, not
semantics. To be sure, the ALR statute uses terms different from
the traditional language of tenancy, employing the term resident
rather than tenant and residency agreement rather than lease.

Indeed, while normal residential leaseholds do not contemplate, and
certainly do not mandate, the provision of elderly assistance
services, ALR residencies are premised upon them.  The provision of
elderly assistance services is the means by which the Legislature
contemplated that ALRs would allow the elderly to age in place in a
residential setting, without prematurely moving to a nursing home.


Because the provision of services is at the core of what an ALR
does for its residents, it is crucial that the services be tailored
for each individual resident, and that the ALR have the ability to
appropriately furnish such services. An ALR would not be able to
adequately provide for the health, safety, and welfare of residents
in accordance with the ALR statute's purpose if it admitted an
individual that the ALR was ill equipped to care for.

Thus, a prospective ALR resident must also undergo an initial
screening and assessment to determine whether the ALR is adequately
suited to the prospective resident's particular needs.  This
constitutes one of the other most significant distinctions between
ALR residencies and residential leases and has specific
implications for the applicability of the security deposit statute.
Regular residential landlords are not mandated by statute or
regulation to conduct the kind of assessment that ALRs are so
mandated to conduct.

Thus, while landlords are strictly prohibited from imposing upfront
charges that exceed those specifically enumerated in the security
deposit statute, such a prohibition is incongruous in the context
of an ALR, which is mandated to spend additional resources on
initial resident assessments.

In summary, the Appellate Court concludes that the significant
differences between ALRs and residential landlords, combined with
the explicit language of the statute and the EOEA's interpretation
thereof, indicate a legislative intent to allow ALRs to charge
incoming residents initial fees that correspond to initial
ALR-specific services inapplicable to ordinary landlord-tenant
relationships, without violating the security deposit statute.

* Permissibility of the community fee

To be permissible, the purpose and the use of the community fee
must correspond to either the on-boarding services enumerated in G.
L. c. 19D, Section 13, or other services designed specifically for
ALRs.  In other words, the permissibility of the community fee will
hinge on a determination of (1) the actual purpose and use of the
fee, and (2) whether such purpose and use are for distinctive
ALR-specific services, rather than general maintenance or other
aspects of a generic residential tenancy.

The plaintiff's complaint does not specify whether the community
fee was used to charge solely for initial assessment services
distinctive to the ALR.  

In the instant case, however, the residency agreement indicates
that the community fee is not limited to providing initial
ALR-specific services.  The last category, which refers to
establishing a replacement reserve for building improvements,
appears much more open ended and potentially problematic.  It is
unclear from the language in the residency agreement whether, and
to what extent, this building reserve fund was used toward
ALR-specific services, rather than generic building maintenance.
If this fee were just a generic building maintenance fee, imposed
and used in the ordinary course, with no particular connection to
structures, services, or requirements distinct to ALRs, it would
fall afoul of the security deposit prohibitions applicable to the
landlord-tenant relationship.

Given the breadth of the language in the plaintiff's residency
agreement, and the uncertainty with which it applies, the motion to
dismiss should not have been allowed, the Appellate Court opines.
At a minimum, factual development of the purpose and use of the
building maintenance fee was required.

The Appellate Court thus reverses the allowance of the defendant's
motion to dismiss.  The Appellate Court remands the matter to the
Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 5, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/udljnft from Leagle.com

Joshua N. Garick , Law Offices of Joshua N. Garick, P.C., 100
TradeCenter, Suite G-700, Woburn, MA, 01801, ( Matthew T. LaMothe -
mlamothe@forrestlamothe.com -  also present) for the plaintiff.
AiVi Nguyen , anguyen@bowditch.com - for the defendant.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:

Joseph M. Desmond - jdesmond@morrisonmahoney.com - & Justin L. Amos
, 250 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210, for Massachusetts Assisted
Living Association.

Lillian Glickman, pro se.

Elizabeth A. Aniskevich , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, 1100
New York Avenue North West, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 &
Susan A. Silverstein , The Law Offices of Susan Silverman, 734
Central Ave Ste 200, Highland Park, IL, 60035-3253, of the District
of Columbia, Richard M.W. Bauer , 197 Friend StreetBoston, MA
02114, Liane Zeitz , Pathway Law LLC, 385 Concord Avenue, Suite
103, Belmont, MA, 02478 & Rebecca J. Benson , Margolis & Bloom, 535
Boylston Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA, 02116-3720, for AARP &
others.


MCMC LLC: Mauthe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MCMC, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01901-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons sent one or more faxes from MCMC about IAIME
       programs or meetings from May 7, 2014, through May 7,
       2018"; or

      "all persons sent one or more of the following four faxes
      from MCMC: (1) a fax sent December 22-24, 2016, and stating,

      "Register Today and Save $100 Off by Entering Code MCMC" for

      IAIME's "Annual Scientific Meeting" in Austin, Texas on
      January 11-14, 2017; (2) a fax sent April 17-19, 2017, about

      an IAIME training workshop in Rosemont, Illinois from June
      2-4, 2017, and stating "MCMC Partners With IAIME on CME
      Education"; (3) a fax sent July 11-13, 2017, about "IAIME's
      Pass the Texas DD Exam Prep Course" in Dallas, Texas on
      August 5, 2017; or (4) a fax sent December 18-19, 2017, and
      stating, "Be sure to Visit Laura at the MCMC Booth!" in
      Championsgate, Florida from January 10-13, 2018";

   2. appointing Dr. Mauthe as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Dr. Mauthe's attorneys, Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
      Oppenheim, LLC as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS , LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

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

MICHAEL PAGE: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Jordan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Daniel Jordan v. Michael Page
International, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01328-JVS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order:

   1. granting Jordan's motion to certify a Settlement Class
      consisting of;

      "all non-exempt employees within the State of California who
      are or were employed by Defendant in the State of California
      during the Settlement Period relating to any and all facts
      and claims asserted in the Litigation or any other claims
      that could have been asserted in the Litigation based on the

      facts alleged, including but not limited to meal and rest
      breaks; minimum wages, overtime, and double time wages; any
      and all theories for or related to "off the clock work,"
      wage statement violations, separation pay violations,
      failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to

      timely page wages, including wages "due and payable twice
      monthly," unfair business practices," and PAGA, based on the

      alleged California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act
      violations";

   2. granting preliminary approval of proposed settlement;

   3. directing dissemination of notice to the Class pursuant to
      the proposed notice plan;

   4. appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator
      for the dissemination of notice; and

   5. directing Class Counsel to file a motion for final
      settlement approval within 45 days of the Response Deadline.

The Court finds that common factual and legal issues predominate
over individual questions and that a class action is a superior
method to resolve the class claims. The Court has also found
commonality. Jordan's claims are based upon a common course of
conduct by Defendants with respect to every member of the Class:
the alleged underpayment of wages and non-provision of breaks.
Accordingly, common issues predominate over any potential
individual ones because liability and damages can be resolved for
all Class Members using the same evidence. Thus, the Court finds
that the predominance requirement has been met.

Settlement Amount and Injunctive Relief:

   The Defendants agree to pay $150,000 (Total Settlement Amount)
   in consideration for the settlement and the release of claims,
   and from which all: Net Settlement Payments, attorneys' fees
   and costs, administrative costs, enhancement award to Jordan,
   statutory penalties, interest, and PAGA penalties shall be
   paid.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs

   Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of
   reasonable attorneys' fees not to exceed 33% of the Total
   Settlement Amount, i.e. $50,000, and for reimbursement of
   reasonable costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed
   $15,000.

Administrative Expenses and Service Awards

   Subject to Court approval, the Parties have agreed on ILYM
   Group, Inc. to administer the settlement in this action
   (Settlement Administrator). The Settlement Administrator has
   provided an estimate that their fees and expenses for
   administration will not exceed $10,000. Jordan will apply for
   Court approval of a service payments not to exceed $7,500 in
   consideration of his service as Class Representative.

Michael Page provides employment services. The company offers
professional recruitment consultancies to place employees in
permanent, contract, temporary and interim positions.[CC]

MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT: Mich. App. Upholds Dismissal of Bauserman
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion affirming the
May 10, 2016 Opinion and Order of the Court of Claims denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned GRANT
BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS and TEDDY BROE, on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
333181, (Mich. App.).

Plaintiffs are former recipients of unemployment compensation
benefits who allege that the Agency unlawfully seized their
property without affording due process of law. Plaintiff Bauserman
received unemployment compensation from October 2013 through March
2014. In October 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman and his former
employer, Eaton Aeroquip, a questionnaire regarding suspected
unreported earnings that Bauserman received while he was receiving
unemployment compensation. Both Bauserman and Eaton responded that
Bauserman had not worked for Eaton at the time. On December 3,
2014, the Agency sent Bauserman two notices of redetermination, one
claiming that he had received unemployment compensation for which
he was ineligible and the other claiming that he had intentionally
misled the Agency or concealed information from it to obtain
compensation for which he was not eligible. As a result, the Agency
informed Bauserman that he owed $19,910 in overpayments, penalties,
and interest. The next day, Bauserman submitted an online appeal
through the Agency's website regarding its assertion that he had
committed fraud, but did not submit a separate appeal regarding the
Agency's determination that he had received compensation for which
he was not eligible.

From January 2015 through June 2015, the Agency sent Bauserman
multiple notices stating the amount he owed to the Agency,
informing him of missed payments on his debt, and raising the
possibility that his wages would be garnished or his tax refunds
seized. One of these communications consisted of a notice of intent
to reduce/withhold federal income tax refund. Around this same
time, Bauserman sent multiple letters to the Agency attempting to
explain the situation, two of which included an attached letter
from Eaton explaining that Bauserman received one payment in 2014
for work performed in 2013 but was not employed by Eaton during the
time he was receiving unemployment compensation. Finally, on June
16, 2015, the Agency intercepted Bauserman's state and federal
income tax refunds.

On Sept. 9, 2015, Bauserman filed a putative class action against
the Agency in the Court of Claims, alleging that the Agency had
deprived him of his property without providing due process of law.
More specifically, he alleged that Michigan's unemployment fraud
detection, collection, and seizure practices fail to comply with
minimum due process requirements.  On October 19, 2015, Bauserman
filed an amended complaint, which added Teddy Broe and Karl
Williams as named plaintiffs to the class action.

The Court of Claims issued a lengthy written opinion and order
denying the Agency's motion to dismiss on May 10, 2016.

On remand, the Michigan Appeals Court now reviews the Court of
Claims' decision regarding plaintiffs' claims alleging
constitutional torts.

At issue here is whether plaintiffs alleged cognizable
constitutional tort claims allowing them to recover monetary
damages arising from the alleged state due process violations they
incurred as a result of the Agency's actions.  

On appeal, the Agency initially contends that plaintiffs have not
established that the Agency acted pursuant to a state policy or
custom that mandated the alleged unlawful actions. The Agency
further argues that plaintiffs are precluded from recovering
damages for the alleged constitutional violations because the
administrative review process for issues with unemployment benefits
set forth in the MES Act provides an adequate remedy for plaintiffs
to address these alleged constitutional violations. More
specifically, the Agency asserts that the administrative process
provides an adequate procedure for reviewing plaintiffs'
constitutional claims because administrative decisions pertaining
to unemployment benefits are subject to review by the Michigan
Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC), the circuit court and the
appellate courts of this state.

In response, plaintiffs assert that the present case is an
appropriate one for the Appellate Court to infer a remedy for
monetary damages arising from the violations of the state
constitution that plaintiffs incurred. Specifically, plaintiffs
counter the Agency's assertion that they have an adequate remedy by
pursuing the administrative process set forth in the MES Act to
adjudicate their constitutional claims, particularly because that
administrative process is procedurally flawed, resulting in
claimants being denied rudimentary due process. Plaintiffs further
claim that the administrative process is not the appropriate forum
to address the substance of the constitutional claims at issue
here. Addressing other potential alternate avenues for redress,
plaintiffs also point out that they cannot sue the Agency in
federal or state court under 42 USC 1983.

The state may only be held responsible for an alleged violation of
the state constitution "where the state's liability would, but for
the Eleventh Amendment, render it liable under the standard for
local governments as set forth in 42 USC 1983 and articulated in
Monell v New York City Dep't of Social Servs, 436 U.S. 658; 98
S.Ct. 2018; 56 L Ed 2d 611 (1978).

In this case, plaintiffs have alleged that the Agency systemically,
and by way of concerted and coordinated actions, unlawfully
intercepted their state and federal tax refunds, garnished their
wages, and forced plaintiffs to repay unemployment benefits that
they had lawfully received. The first amended complaint further
alleges that the Agency, in violation of state law, imposes
penalties on individuals in receipt of unemployment benefits and
collects interest also not authorized by state law.

These allegations, if established to be true and correct, certainly
demonstrate that plaintiffs' rights to due process as guarded by
Const 1963, art 1, Section 17 were violated, and that the alleged
violations arose from actions taken by state actors pursuant to
governmental policy.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court rejects the Agency's assertion
that plaintiffs' claims in this regard are legally deficient, given
that the allegations plaintiffs advance, if proven to be correct,
amply demonstrate that plaintiffs' constitutional rights were
violated as a result of the Agency's use of its policy or custom in
administering the unemployment benefit system.  

Because plaintiffs allege that the Agency violated Const 1963, art
1, Section 17 in seizing their property without providing them with
adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, given the existence
and clarity of the alleged constitutional violation itself, the
Appellate Court concludes that the first factor weighs in favor of
judicially inferring a remedy for monetary damages.  

The second and third factors address the degree of specificity of
the constitutional protection as well as if there is support for a
judicially inferred damage remedy in the text, history and previous
interpretations of Const 1963, art 1, Section 17. Plaintiffs allege
that they were deprived of their property in violation of Const
1963, art 1, Section 17, and even though due process is flexible
and the procedural protections that it offers may vary depending on
the circumstances, the Due Process Clause secures an absolute right
to an opportunity for a meaningful hearing and an opportunity to be
heard before individuals are deprived of their property.  

Additionally, with regard to the third factor, concerning whether
support for a judicially inferred remedy exists in the text of
Const 1963, art 1, Section 17, the Appellate Court observes that
unlike Const 1963, art 1, Section 2, the plain language of Const
1963, art 1, Section 17 does not leave the implementation of a
private cause of action to the Legislature.  

As noted, the Agency focuses its argument on the fourth factor at
issue, that being whether plaintiffs have another remedy available
to them. Specifically, the Agency contends that plaintiffs have an
alternate remedy available to them because they can seek redress
through the administrative system established by the MES Act.

The MES Act provides for the payment of unemployment benefits, MCL
421.27, a person's eligibility to receive unemployment benefits,
MCL 421.28, criteria for disqualification for benefits, MCL 421.29,
the procedures governing determinations of unemployment benefits,
MCL 421.32, as well as review of determinations leading to a
redetermination of benefits, MCL 421.32a. Challenges to
unemployment benefit redeterminations are referred to the Michigan
administrative hearing system for assignment to an administrative
law judge. MCL 421.33. If a case is transferred to an
administrative law judge, all matters pertinent to the claimant's
benefit rights under this act shall be referred to the
administrative law judge.

The Appellate Court's review of this legislative scheme leads to
the conclusion that while the administrative process established by
the MES Act allows for the review of the Agency's decisions with
respect to the award or disqualification of unemployment benefits,
or pertaining to its imposition of penalty and interest, it does
not provide an avenue for plaintiffs to seek redress in the form of
monetary relief for the alleged violation of their due process
rights protected by the state constitution.

In sum, because of the factual and procedural backdrop of the case,
the Appellate Court disagrees with the Agency that the existing
administrative process as set forth in the MES Act, including the
judicial review provided by the courts of this state, provides
plaintiffs with a remedy to pursue their constitutional claims in
the case.

The Appellate Court therefore agrees with the Court of Claims'
determination that summary disposition was not warranted.

The opinion and order of the Court of Claims denying the Agency's
motion to dismiss is affirmed, the Appellate Court rules.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 5, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/sxqg5gr from Leagle.com

KEVIN M. CARLSON , Kevin M. Carlson PLLC, Po Box 6028, Plymouth,
MI, 48170-0028, for GRANT BAUSERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee.

DEBBIE K. TAYLOR , Saurbier & Siegan PC, 400 Maple Park Boulevard,
Saint Clair Shores, MI, 48081,  for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellant.


MICROCHIP TECH: Court Certifies Employee Class in Schuman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PETER SCHUMAN, et al. v.
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order on Feb. 24, 2020:

   1. granting a motion to certify a class consisting of:

      "all former U.S.-based employees of defendant Atmel
      Corporation who were employed as of the April 4, 2016
      closing date of the Atmel-Microchip merger and who were
      terminated by defendant Microchip Technology Incorporated
      without cause between April 4, 2016 and March 19, 2017";

   2. scheduling a case management conference for March 17,
      2020, at 2:00 p.m.; and

   3. directing the parties to meet and confer and submit a
      joint case management statement by March 10, 15 2020.
      The joint statement should include a proposed schedule
      through trial.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs contend that a class action is
superior because pursuing individual actions would be
cost-prohibitive, this is the proper forum, and resolving liability
and determining individualized damages will be manageable as
discussed in the predominance discussion above. Rather than respond
to these individual arguments, Defendants again emphasize that
their defense to liability will turn on the releases, and this
action will require mini-trials into the validity of these
releases. The Court disagrees, and reiterates that Defendants'
concern is based on the faulty premise that Plaintiffs have no
evidence that Defendants made any common communications to induce
class members into signing these releases. Defendants may contest
the nature of these communications and the weight of Plaintiffs'
evidence even on a classwide basis. The Court finds that
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate as to Plaintiffs'
claim for denial of benefits. Having already found that class
certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) for Plaintiffs'
claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the Court finds in the
alternative that certification is also appropriate under Rule
23(b)(3)."

Microchip Technology is an American publicly-listed corporation
that is a manufacturer of microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and
Flash-IP integrated circuits.[CC]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Breckenridge FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Wayne Breckenridge,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-01528 (N.D. Cal.,
March 2, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Landrum Suit in Texas Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Judy L. Landrum, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00728 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 28,
2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
          Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
          James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
                 thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
                 jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MIDWEST RECOVERY: Faces Worsham FDCPA Class Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midwest Recovery
Systems LLC. The case is styled as Tracy L. Worsham, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midwest Recovery
Systems LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00561 (D. Colo., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Midwest Recovery Systems is a diverse financial institution
consisting of everything from accounts receivable management to
call center services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                 jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


MOTEL 6: $10M Settlement Over Guest Privacy Violations Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic, in Arizona, reports that a federal judge gave final
approval for the settlement of a national class-action lawsuit
involving Motel 6 employees disclosing guests' personal information
to federal immigration agents.

The roughly 2,000 members of the class will receive a part of the
$10 million settlement, with payouts ranging from $75 to $200,000,
according to a press release from the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund.

"We are grateful that Motel 6 will change practices and is
compensating those harmed," Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and
general counsel, said in the statement.  "The substantial
settlement should stand as a warning to all other proprietors not
to engage in similar conduct."

Motel 6 also must abide by a three-year decree on guest privacy,
the release stated.

A lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund and the Ortega Law Firm in 2018 claiming Motel 6
staff members were giving guest information to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement without having evidence on their legal status.

"The suit alleged that providing guests' personal information to
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents without a
warrant violated federal and state civil rights and privacy laws,
including those barring discrimination based on national origin,
and those protecting against unreasonable searches and breaches of
privacy," according to the press release.

That came after a report from Phoenix New Times that motel staff
reported Latino guests to ICE despite lacking evidence about their
legal status.  [GN]


MRS BPO LLC: Faces Mun Suit in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Hi Chul Mun, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-01777
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts
receivables solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kim Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Young Ae Kim, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01107-ENV-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEST FRAGRANCES: Hedges Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nest Fragrances, LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Nest Fragrances, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01769 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Nest Fragrances LLC offers beauty and aroma services. The Company's
line of business includes selling candles and new fragrances,
including bamboo, black fig, blue garden, mahogany, orange blossom
and pink jasmine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


NEW MEXICO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Young Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Young and Adam Koontz, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. New Mexico
Children, Youth & Families Department, and The State of New Mexico,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00179 (D.N.M., March 2, 2020), arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Statutes for the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs all earned overtime
wages.

The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other
non-exempt Juvenile Corrections Officer Supervisors at a rate equal
to one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for time spent
working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as Juvenile Corrections Officer
Supervisors by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a collection of juvenile detention
facilities throughout New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Phone: (216) 525-8890
          Fax: (216) 642-5814
          Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com

               - and –

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Phone: (480) 382-5176
          Fax: (480) 304-3805
          Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                 chris@bendaulaw.com


NEW YORK: Court Accepts Amended Complaint in Mitchell Inmates Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York has accepted the amended complaint in DONTIE
S. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et. al., Defendants,
Case No. 9:19-CV-0718 (MAD/ML), (N.D.N.Y.) as the operative
pleading.

Pro se plaintiff Dontie S. Mitchell commenced the action, asserting
claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
(DOCCS).

In July 2019, the District Court dismissed the following claims,
without prejudice: (1) First Amendment Free Exercise and RLUIPA
claims related to Plaintiff's religious freedom; (2) First
Amendment claims related to the right to petition; (3) First
Amendment retaliation claims; and (4) claims related to the
unwritten social media ban. In the July Order, the Court also
denied Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief and
for the appointment of counsel.  

Currently before the Court are the following motions: (1)
Plaintiff's motion to file an Amended Complaint, as of right; (2)
Plaintiff's third motion for counsel; (3) Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider a August 2019 Order denying Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider a portion of the July 2019 Order; (4) Plaintiff's motion
for depositions and the appointment of an expert; and (5)
Plaintiff's renewed motion for a temporary restraining order.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive
relief and for the appointment of counsel, but take no position on
the remaining motions.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff realleges the following
previously dismissed claims against  Anthony Annucci, Jeff McKoy,
Christopher Miller, David Barringer, and Elmi: (1) "class action"
allegations; (2) First Amendment Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims
related to Plaintiff's religious freedom; (3) First Amendment
claims related to the right to petition; (4) First Amendment
retaliation claims; and (5) claims related to the unwritten social
media ban. Plaintiff also asserts claims against new defendants:
Deputy Superintendent of Programs at Great Meadow C.F., Phil
Melecio and Sergeant Reynold.

The Amended Complaint includes no new factual allegations against
Defendants and the allegations are substantially the same as those
in the Complaint reviewed in the July Order, the Court opines.

* Freedom of Association

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff includes new First Amendment
freedom of association claims against Melecio. . . The Complaint
does not contain any facts related to when Melecio was employed at
Great Meadow C.F. or any other facts connecting Melecio to
Plaintiff and his request to form the UFD. As presently
constituted, the facts in the Amended Complaint do not plausibly
suggest that Melecio was personally involved in any alleged
constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First
Amendment claims against Melecio are dismissed for failure to state
a claim.

* First Amendment Religious Claims, RLUIPA claims, and Right to
Petition

Upon review, and as discussed at length in the July Order, the
Court concluded that Plaintiff's First Amendment religious claims
and RLUIPA claims did not survive initial review because (i) the
Complaint alleged no facts which would allow the Court to determine
that Plaintiff's inability to proselytize about Shetaut Neter
placed a substantial burden on his religion; and (ii) Plaintiff
failed to plead facts suggesting that he sought to maintain his
long hair in braids as part of his religious expression or beliefs.
The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment freedom of
petition claims because inmates do not have a constitutional right
to access an internal grievance process or procedure.  

Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has failed to remedy the pleading deficiencies identified
in the July Order.  

* Retaliation Claims

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff realleges his retaliation
claims against Miller, Barringer, Elmi, and Annucci without any
additional factual allegations. Therefore, for the reasons set
forth in the July Order, the retaliation claims against the
Defendants are dismissed.

* "Unwritten" Social Media Ban

Despite being given an opportunity to amend, the claims related to
an unwritten social media ban are insufficiently pled. Plaintiff
has not pled facts suggesting that any of the named Defendants were
personally involved in the decision to confiscate Facebook
materials in 2016 and 2017 or decisions related to his grievance
about social media. Indeed, Plaintiff has not alleged when he filed
a grievance related to the ban or where it was filed.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims related to the unwritten social
media ban are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

* Requests for Relief

The original Complaint and Amended Complaint contain the same
requests for relief.  For the reasons set forth in the July Order,
Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief and monetary damages for
claims related to the Free Exercise Clause, RLUIPA, the right to
petition and retaliation are dismissed. At this juncture, Plaintiff
may proceed with his request for injunctive relief as it pertains
to his First Amendment freedom of association claim.  

* Class Action Claims

In the July Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to certify a
class. With the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on his
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.
It is well settled that a class action cannot be maintained by a
pro se litigant since non-attorneys may not represent anyone other
than themselves. Since the named plaintiff is not an attorney, he
cannot bring claims on behalf of other litigants or prisoners.

In sum, the Court makes these rulings:

   (a) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint
       is DENIED as moot;

   (b) The Amended Complaint is accepted for filing and is deemed
       the operative pleading;

   (c) The Clerk of the Court shall create a separate docket entry
       for the Amended Complaint and amend the docket to include
       Melecio and Reynold as defendants herein;

   (d) The following claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
       Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b) for failure
       to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:
       (1) First Amendment Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims
       related to Plaintiff's religious freedom; (2) First
       Amendment claims related to the right to petition; (3)
       First Amendment retaliation claims; (4) claims related
       to the "unwritten" social media ban; and (5) claims
       against Melecio;

   (e) Plaintiff's First Amendment freedom of association claims
       against Annucci, Miller, McKoy, and Barringer survive the
       Court's sua sponte review under 28 U.S.C.
       Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b) and
       require a response;

   (f) Melecio and Reynold are DISMISSED as defendants;

   (g) A response to the Amended Complaint may be filed by the
       remaining defendants, or counsel, as provided for in
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (h) Plaintiff's motion for counsel is DENIED;

   (i) Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the August Order is
       DENIED;

   (j) Plaintiff's motion for depositions and for the
       appointment of an expert is DENIED; and

   (k) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive
       relief is DENIED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rndkjks  from
Leagle.com

Dontie S. Mitchell, Plaintiff, pro se.

Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, sued in their individual
and/or official capacities, Jeff McKoy, Deputy Commissioner, sued
in their individual and/or official capacities, Christopher Miller,
Superintendent, sued in their individual and/or official capacities
& David Barringer, Deputy Superintendent, sued in their individual
and/or official capacities, Defendants, represented by Helena O.
Pederson , New York State Attorney General.


OAK AND FORT: Faces Begg Suit in California Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak And Fort
Enterprise (U.S.), Inc. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Oak And Fort
Enterprise (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-01516-DMR (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 28, 2020).

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

OAK + FORT is a fashion brand that provides every day essentials
with a modern minimalist approach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


OPERA LTD: Scott+Scott Reminds of March 24 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Opera Limited (NASDAQ:
OPRA), and other defendants, related to alleged violations of
federal securities laws.  If you purchased Opera American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between July 27, 2018 and January 15,
2020, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew for
additional information at (844) 818-6982 or
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.  The deadline for lead plaintiff
motions is March 24, 2020.

Opera provides web browser applications and has also increased its
fintech business, providing mobile loan and financing applications
marketed to Kenya, Nigeria, and India, and offered on Google's Play
Store marketplace.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
Opera's business, operational, and compliance policies;
specifically, that (i) Opera's sustainable growth and market
opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled
loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory
lending practices; and (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, were
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's
financial prospects.

On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
asserting, among other things, that Opera was involved in
"predatory short-term loans in Africa and India, deploying
deceptive 'bait and switch' tactics to lure in borrowers and
charging egregious interest rates" and that Opera's lending
business applications were "in black and white violation of
numerous Google rules" aimed at "curtail[ing] predatory lending."

On this news, the price of Opera ADSs fell $1.69 per share, or
18.7%, to close at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020.

If you purchased Opera ADSs between July 27, 2018 and January 15,
2020, inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or your
legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew
at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

Contact:

         Joe Pettigrew
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
         Tel: (844) 818-6982
         E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


PACIFIC SHOE: Violates Disabilities Act in California, Begg Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Shoe
Corporation. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. Pacific Shoe Corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01515-JCS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Pacific Shoe Corporation was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


PARAMETRIC SOUND: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 18
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP notified of the settlement
fairness hearing in the Parametric Shareholders Litigation.

The Summary Notice is for ALL PERSONS AND/OR ENTITIES THAT HELD
SHARES OF PARAMETRIC SOUND CORPORATION ("PARAMETRIC") COMMON STOCK
ON JANUARY 15, 2014, AT THE TIME PARAMETRIC ISSUED SHARES IN THE
MERGER PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER, WHETHER
BENEFICIALLY OR OF RECORD, INCLUDING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,
HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, TRANSFEREES, AND ASSIGNEES OF ALL
SUCH FOREGOING HOLDERS, BUT EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS, EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF PARAMETRIC AS OF JANUARY 15, 2014, AND THEIR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, TRANSFEREES, AND
ASSIGNEES.

Interested parties are notified that pursuant to an Order of the
Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark
County, a hearing will be held on May 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez of the Eighth Judicial
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, 200 Lewis Avenue, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Courtroom 3E, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation for $9,650,000.00
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice and releasing the Released Claims and the Settled
Defendants' Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for
the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved; (4) whether the application of Co-Lead Counsel
for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved;
and (5) whether any application for reimbursement of time and
expenses by Plaintiffs should be approved.

IF YOU HELD SHARES OF PARAMETRIC COMMON STOCK ON JANUARY 15, 2014,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION,
INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS
RELATING TO YOUR OWNERSHIP OF PARAMETRIC COMMON STOCK.

Documents may be obtained by writing to Parametric Settlement,
Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43342,
Providence, RI 02940-3342, or on the Internet at
www.ParametricShareholderLitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail (postmarked no later than June 3, 2020), or online
at www.ParametricShareholderLitigation.com no later than June 3,
2020, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.

If you held shares of Parametric common stock on January 15, 2014
and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than May 4,
2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above. All members of the Class who do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement. If there are objections, the Court has ruled that it
will conduct a hearing on that particular objection within three
(3) days of when the objection is filed. Any such objector shall
have an additional five (5) days after the relevant objection
hearing to submit a request for exclusion.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or
Co-Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be
received by each of the following recipients no later than May 4,
2020:

The case is In re PARAMETRIC SOUND CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS'
LITIGATION, Lead Case No. A-13-686890-B, Dept. No. XI (Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada).

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     David Knotts
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101

Defendants' Counsel:

     John P. Stigi III
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
     Clark County, Nevada
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067

     Joshua D. N. Hess
     DECHERT LLP
     1900 K Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20006-1110


PLACE FOR MOM: Class Certification in Pine Suit Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting in part and deffering
in part Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned KEVIN PINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. A PLACE FOR MOM, INC., Defendant, Case No. C17-1826
TSZ. (W.D. Wash.).

Under the action, plaintiff Kevin Pine alleged on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated that defendant A Place for Mom,
Inc. had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  

Since then, the parties have engaged in further negotiations in an
effort to address the concerns raised by the Court. They ultimately
reached a proposed settlement, which seeks of a plan to resolve the
class claims through defendant's payment in three installments of
$6,000,000, and the distribution of the net proceeds (i.e., the
balance remaining after deducting attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, administration costs, and incentive awards) to class
members on a pro rata basis.

Under the current proposed Settlement, in response to the Court's
reluctance to approve an "opt in" system of distributing settlement
proceeds, the parties propose to segregate the class into two
groups, which are essentially subclasses, only one of which would
be required to "opt in." The parties have labeled the subsets as
"Locate" and "Non-Locate." The designations "Locate" and
"Non-Locate" bear no correlation to the features of the subclasses,
but rather correspond to the actions of the proposed settlement
administrator. Defendant has the same information about all Locate
and Non-Locate subclass members, i.e., names, cellular phone
numbers, and email addresses. For Locate subclass members, the
settlement administrator will be tasked with using its "best
efforts" and the data provided by defendant to determine a mailing
address or, in other words, to locate the individuals, and to send
notices about the settlement to them via U.S. mail. On the other
hand, for Non-Locate subclass members, the settlement administrator
need not attempt to find a physical location, and may correspond
with such individuals via email.

According to the Amended Settlement Agreement, the only difference
between the Locate and Non-Locate subclasses is whether defendant
concedes on the issue of consent. Defendant does not dispute that
Locate subclass members did not consent to receiving calls from
defendant or its agents. As to Non-Locate subclass members,
defendant is either unable or unwilling to agree on an absence of
consent to receiving calls. Thus, the parties propose to require
that members of the Non-Locate subclass return a claim form
verifying that they did not consent to receiving calls from
defendant before they can receive any benefit from the settlement.
In contrast, under the terms of the proposed settlement, monetary
awards would be automatically sent to Locate subclass members who
do not exclude themselves from the class or opt to donate their
funds to the Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research Foundation. The
parties indicate that the Locate subclass has at least 56,000
members. They have not provided any estimate concerning the number
of members in the Non-Locate subclass.

Although the parties contemplate that class members cannot receive
a share of the settlement funds if they consented to the calls at
issue, they have not included lack of consent as a prerequisite in
defining the class. The parties' proposed definition of the class
is therefore overbroad. For the sake of consistency with the terms
of the proposed settlement and with the requirements of the TCPA,
the class definition must be revised.

The Court cannot, however, at this time, certify the two subclasses
proposed by the parties. The parties have not provided any
estimates concerning the number of individuals in the Non-Locate
subclass or the expected rate at which claim forms might be
returned by such subclass members. Without this information, the
Court cannot calculate the potential pro rata shares to be paid
from the settlement fund and class members cannot assess whether
they should object to the settlement.

Notwithstanding some issues, the Court approves portions of the
parties' agreement and orders that:

   (1) Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval
       of class action settlement is GRANTED in part, DEFERRED
       in part, and RENOTED to January 31, 2020.

   (2) The Court hereby CERTIFIES for settlement purposes the
       following Class:

       "All persons within the United States who, between August
        7, 2013, and August 15, 2019, received, without their
        consent, a non-emergency call, from defendant A Place
        for Mom, Inc. or any party acting on defendant's behalf,
        to a cellular telephone."

       The parties are given the chance to object to the class
       definition and seek amendment or decertification.

   (3) Kevin Pine is appointed as Class Representative; and the
       firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Kozonis
       & Klinger, Ltd.; Hussin Law Firm; and Frank Freed Subit
       & Thomas LLP are appointed as class counsel.

   (4) Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is appointed as settlement
       administrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wefywqu from Leagle.com

Kevin Pine, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson -
dhutchinson@lchb.com - LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac
vice, Gary Michael Klinger - gklinger@kozonislaw.com - KOZONIS &
KLINGER, LTD., pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Selbin - jselbin@lchb.com
- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, pro hac vice & Michael C.
Subit , FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200,
Seattle, WA 98104-1729

A Place For Mom Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Debra Rae Bernard – DBernard@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS COIE,
pro hac vice, James G. Snell - JSnell@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS
COIE LLP, pro hac vice, James F. Williams –
Jwilliams@perkinscoie.com -PERKINS COIE & Nicola Menaldo –
Nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS COIE.


PROFESSIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces Lorenzo FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional
Adjustment Corp. of S.W. FL., Inc. The case is styled as Lubena
Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Professional Adjustment Corp. of S.W. FL., Inc., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00141-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., March 2, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Professional Adjustment Bureau of Southwest Florida, Inc. is a debt
collection company located in Fort Myers, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Hamilton FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Ekima Hamilton, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional
Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00223-FJS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Feb.
28, 2020).

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

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. provides receivable collection and
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROVEN RX SALES: Faces Katz Consumer Class Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proven RX Sales LLC.
The case is styled as Bruce Katz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Proven RX Sales LLC, Case No.
0:20-cv-60464-RS (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit for unauthorized
publication or use of communications.

Proven Rx Sales is a pharmaceutical platform that provides an
amazon style shopping to independent pharmacies and
physicians.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33602, Suite 300
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com


PSA REALTY: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSA Realty Corp. The
case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PSA Realty Corp. doing business as: La
Quinta Inn Queens, Case No. 1:20-cv-01131 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29,
2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Psa Realty Corp is a hospitality company based in Long Island City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REAL TIME: Faces Ventura Suit in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time
Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Ventura, on behalf of
himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01132 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. ("RTR") is a full-service loan
servicing and recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto,
student, credit card, and other consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Phone: (212) 268-2128
          Fax: (212) 268-2127
          Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


RIOT GAMES: New Legal Counsel Takes Over Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Haydn Taylor, writing for Games Industry, reports that
representatives of a class action lawsuit against Riot Games have
hired new legal counsel and withdrawn their motion for a $10
million settlement.

The move comes after it was revealed last month that the 1,000
class members may actually be entitled to $400 million.

Two California state agencies suggested the on-going gender
discrimination lawsuit against Riot Games had been mishandled by
the plantiffs' legal representation, Rosen & Saba.

Together, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) made a case against
the settlement, finding issue with the final figure of $10 million
and suggesting that Riot Games had colluded with Rosen & Saba.

A judge was scheduled to rule on the validity of this intervention
earlier this month, but the hearing has been pushed back to an
unconfirmed date.

Despite this, class action representatives Melanie McCracken,
Jessica Negron, and Gabriela Downie have found new legal counsel
with women's rights attorney Genie Harrison.

Harrison, who is known for bringing cases against the Weinstein
Company in the wake of #MeToo, is joined by plaintiffs' employment
lawyer Joseph Lovretovich.

Harrison and Lovretovich are now seeking expert analysis on the
alleged discrimination to find an appropriate settlement figure.

"These brave women spoke out against gender inequality and sexism,
and I want to make sure they are fairly compensated," says
Harrison.

"Our well-qualified statisticians are already analysing pay data.
We intend to recover the compensation due to the women of Riot
Games and achieve institutional reform, in order to level the
playing field for women."

Following the DFEH and DLSE intervention, a Riot Games spokesperson
described the $400 million figure as "clickbait."

Update, February 24, 2020: In a statement responding to the news, a
Riot Games spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz the League of
Legends developer was committed to finding a fair outcome for all
parties, one that is "justified by the underlying facts."

"We understand that the plaintiffs' new counsel needs adequate time
to review the proposed settlement agreement and we respect that,"
said the spokesperson.

"That said, the analysis and discussions which led to the earlier
proposed settlement were comprehensive and thorough, and we believe
that the proposal was fair and adequate under the circumstances."

Riot also described the $400 million figure proposed by the DFEH as
"outrageous," and said that any arguments put forward in favour of
sum "can simply not be made in good faith."

"While we have acknowledged that there is work that we needed to do
to better live up to our values, we have also made clear to our
employees that we will defend ourselves against false narratives
and unfair claims that do nothing to remedy any hardships of actual
class members," they added.

The new counsel can be reached at:

       Genie Harrison Law Firm
       523 W. 6th Street
       Suite 707
       Los Angeles, CA 90014
       Phone: (213) 805-5301
       Fax: (213) 805-5306 [GN]


RIVER WAFFLES: Wilson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merinda Wilson, Individually, and on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated current and former employees v. RIVER
WAFFLES, LLC d/b/a Waffle House, a Georgia Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02144-TLP-dkv (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 28,
2020), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that she typically worked between 40 to 50
hours per work week; however, the Defendant had a common plan and
practice of failing to compensate her the applicable FLSA overtime
rate of pay for all hours over 40 per week. In addition, the
Defendant had a common practice of failing to compensate the
Plaintiff the difference between their sub-minimum wages and $7.25
per hour, as required by the FLSA. As a result, not only did the
Plaintiff  and other workers frequently earn far less than the FLSA
required $7.25 hourly rate of pay, they were obliged to pay taxes
on tips they did not receive, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as server at its Waffle
House restaurant.

River Waffles is a franchisee of Waffle House restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          B. Alan Matthews, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com
                 amatthews@jsyc.com


ROGER LEE HARMON: $5.2M Sale of Chase County Property Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas L. Saladino of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Nebraska authorized Roger Lee Harmon's sale of real
property and irrigation equipment to Stromberger Farms, Inc. for
$5.2 million, free and clear of all liens, taxes and encumbrances.

The real property is legally described as:

     a. Tract 1 - Township 5 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 15: SE ¼; together with a Zimmatic
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     b. Tract 2 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 26: NW ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     c. Tract 3 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 26: NE ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     d. Tract 4 - Township 7 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 31: SW ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     e. Tract 5 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 6: NW ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     f. Tract 6 - Township 6 North, Range 40 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 6: SW ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     g. Tract 7 - Township 7 North, Range 41 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 25: SE ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well;

     h. Tract 8 - Township 6 North, Range 41 West of the 6th P.M.,
Chase County, Nebraska, Section 1: NE ¼; together with a Reinke
pivot, electric motor, control panel, liquid fertilizer tank,
underground wiring and well.

The sale is free and clear of liens, taxes and encumbrances
pursuant to the terms of the Agricultural Real Estate Sale
Agreement.

The closing agent will pay the following from the proceeds of the
sale: first, to closing costs; second, to pay all real estate,
personal property, and occupational taxes related to the Property;
and third, to pay all of the remaining balance to the Secured
Creditor, Rabo Agrifinance, now known as Rabo Agrifinance, LLC, to
be applied to the indebtedness owed to such Secured Creditor by the
Debtor: first to the default interest at the rate of 8% per annum
accrued between Nov. 1, 2018 and Jan. 21, 2020; second to accrued
interest at the contract rate of 3.92% to Nov. 1, 2018, third to
accrued interest from Jan. 21, 2020 to the date of closing at the
rate of 6% per annum, and fourth to principal.

The Debtor is authorized to convey the title to the Property to the
Purchaser by Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale free and clear of all
liens, taxes and encumbrances.

Roger Lee Harmon sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Neb. Case
No. 19-40903) on May 24, 2019.  The Debtor tapped Wayne E. Griffin,
Esq., at Wayne E. Griffin Law Office.


ROUND SKY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eckstein Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON ECKSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUND SKY, INC. dba
CASHADVANCEUSA.NET; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case 3:20-cv-00294-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2020) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Round Sky, Inc. is an online marketing company for online
publishers and lenders. [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: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


S & C ELECTRIC: Stirmel Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Stirmel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. S & C ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00347-LA (E.D. Wis.,
March 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws to obtain relief for unpaid overtime
compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages.

The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the
Plaintiff for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Technician working at
its Franklin, Wisconsin manufacturing facility.

The Defendant owned, operated, and managed engineering offices and
manufacturing facilities in the States of California, Florida,
Illinois, Washington, and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: LV, Gucci & Prada Accused of Illegal Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fashion Law reports that Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Loro Piana, Gucci,
Prada, Brunello Cucinelli, and Saks Fifth Avenue are named in a
proposed class-action lawsuit by three former Saks Fifth Avenue
employees.

The proposed lawsuit cites violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
a federal statute from 1890 prohibiting activities that restrict
interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace, and accuses
the brands of engaging in an "illegal conspiracy" to "suppress the
total compensation of their employees."

The former Saks Luxury employees claim that if they were to seek
employment with one of the luxury brands named in the lawsuit, the
brand would require that they "resign from Saks and wait six months
before [it would] be allowed to hire the Luxury Retail Employee."
As a result of these alleged agreements, the plaintiffs claim they
were prevented from advancing their careers.

The plaintiffs then assert that these alleged practices not only
stand in the way of "a properly functioning and lawfully
competitive labor market," but that they are helping to fix the
wages earned by employees "at artificially low levels."

The Fashion Law explains this is because even just the threat of
lateral hiring by competing companies "forces employers to
reactively increase compensation," "enhance the terms of [their]
commission agreements," and/or "matching [any other] compensation
terms" in order to retain employees that are likely to join a
competitor.

The three plaintiffs are currently seeking certification of their
class action to allow others in similar situations - potentially
"all persons in the United States employed by at least one of
Defendants at any time from September 30, 2015 until the effects of
the defendants' conduct ceases" — to join the lawsuit and any
ultimate settlement (if there is one), while also seeking a jury
trial and monetary damages. [GN]


SANCHEZ OIL: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in Flynn Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned MARK FLYNN, WILLIAM
HOWELL, WILLIAM RYAN MOORE, Plaintiffs, v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS
CORPORATION, Defendant, CAse No. SA-19-CV-00867-JKP. (W.D. Tex.).

The putative collective action was filed by Plaintiff Mark Flynn on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Flynn alleges that he formerly worked as a Lease Operator
for Defendant Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation and was paid a day-rate
with no overtime compensation.

Sanchez Oil's Motion to Compel argues that it is a third-party
beneficiary of an arbitration agreement between Flynn and Cypress
Energy Management-TIR, LLC (Cypress-TIR), the staffing company that
provided Flynn to work for Sanchez. The record before the Court
reflects that Flynn entered into an Employment Agreement with
Cypress-TIR on July 21, 2017, which contains an arbitration clause.


Sanchez concedes it was not a party to the Employment Agreement
between Cypress-TIR and Flynn.

Sanchez nonetheless maintains it is entitled to enforce the
arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary and that this
case should be dismissed. Alternatively, Sanchez argues that Flynn
is prohibited from avoiding his obligation to arbitrate by
direct-benefits estoppel.

The Court disagrees with both of Sanchez's contentions.

Sanchez's motion to compel arbitration is denied because Sanchez
has not convinced the Court that Flynn and Cypress-TIR intended to
make Sanchez a beneficiary of their arbitration agreement.

Although Flynn indisputably entered an arbitration agreement with
Cypress-TIR, he did not enter one with Sanchez, and nothing in the
language of his agreement with Cypress-TIR evinces the parties'
intent to extend the agreement to arbitrate to Cypress-TIR's
customers generally or Sanchez specifically. Finally, Flynn's
lawsuit is not barred by the doctrine of direct-benefits estoppel.

Sanchez is not a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration
agreement, the Court opines.

Although there is a strong presumption favoring arbitration, the
presumption arises only after the party seeking to compel
arbitration proves that a valid arbitration agreement exists.
Hence, the party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial
burden of proving the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate.
Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden
shifts to the party resisting arbitration to assert a reason that
the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.  

The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), applies
to the arbitration agreement at issue.  Section 2 of the FAA
provides that written arbitration agreements shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

The Court is not persuaded by Sanchez's argument that the
Employment Agreement's references to customer in another portion of
the contract establishes the parties' intent to arbitrate employee
claims against customers. The only references to customer in
Flynn's Employment Agreement are that Flynn's employment was to be
performed for a designated customer and maintaining a good working
relationship with the customer is critical to the company's success
and the employee's opportunity for employment. Such language may
demonstrate that Sanchez is an incidental beneficiary of the
parties' contract but not that the parties intended to grant
Sanchez the right to enforce Cypress-TIR's various agreements with
its employees.

In other words, it was one reason not the sole or dispositive
reason that supported the court's decision to confer third-party
beneficiary status on the customer. Neither court suggested that
indemnification agreements between employer and customer
unaccompanied by any language in the arbitration agreement between
employer and employee referencing third parties would allow a court
to infer an agreement by the employee to arbitrate claims against
the customer. Here, there is no evidence that the primary parties
contemplated that the third party would be vested with the right to
sue for enforcement of the contract, and all presumptions run
against affording Sanchez this right.

In sum, Sanchez has not established it is a third-party beneficiary
with authority to enforce the arbitration agreement at issue, the
Court opines.

Sanchez contends that Flynn's lawsuit is barred by the Texas
doctrine of direct-benefits estoppel. The Court disagrees.

Direct benefits estoppel applies when the claim depends on the
contract's existence and would be unable to stand independently
without the contract.

Flynn's claims are statutory and arise under the FLSA, a federal
law, and not the contract.

Moreover, whether Sanchez was Flynn's employer under the FLSA and
whether Flynn is ultimately entitled to overtime compensation as an
employee under the FLSA does not depend on the terms of Flynn's
employment agreement. Rather it turns on the economic realities of
Flynn's relationship with Sanchez. To be sure, the parties may
point to the Employment Agreement as evidence relevant to their
competing theories of the nature of Flynn's relationships with
Sanchez and with Cypress-TIR.

But ultimately, no matter what was promised or documented, what
will be dispositive under the FLSA will be how the parties in
reality behaved.  Flynn's FLSA claims against Sanchez relate to the
contract" with Cypress-TIR but do not arise from it.
Direct-benefits estoppel does not apply to bar Flynn from filing
the lawsuit in federal court.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/us6ohtg from Leagle.com

Mark Flynn, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap -
adunlap@mybackwages.com -, Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Julianne C.
Lomax  - JLomax@mbwages.com - Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard J. Burch , Bruckner Burch PLLC, 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite
1500, Houston, TX 77046, Richard M. Schreiber -
rschreiber@mybackwages.com - Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, William R.
Liles - wliles@mbwages.com - Josephson Dunlap & Michael A.
Josephson  - mjosephson@mybackwages.com - Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm.

William Howell & William Ryan Moore, Plaintiffs, represented by
Andrew W. Dunlap , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Julianne C. Lomax ,
Josephson Dunlap LLP, pro hac vice, Richard J. Burch , Bruckner
Burch PLLC, Richard M. Schreiber , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm &
Michael A. Josephson , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm.

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura E.
O'Donnell -
laura.odonnell@haynesboone.com - Haynes and Boone, L.L.P. & Paloma
Ahmadi -
paloma.ahmadi@haynesboone.com - Haynes and Boone LLP.


SASOL LTD: Bragar Eagel Alerts Investors to Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Sasol Limited
(NYSE: SSL) securities between March 10, 2015 and January 13, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 6, 2020 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On October 27, 2014, Sasol announced the construction of a of an
$8.1 billion ethane cracker and derivatives complex in Lake
Charles, Louisiana, dubbed the Lake Charles Chemicals Project
("LCCP"). According to the Company, the LCCP includes seven
manufacturing units, some of which are in continued development,
including the low-density polyethylene ("LDPE") facility and
Ziegler alcohol, ethoxylates and Guerbet alcohol facilities, among
others.

On June 6, 2016, Sasol reported "that the expected total capital
expenditure for the [LCCP] could increase up to US$11 billion,
including site infrastructure and utility improvements"; a slower
rate of capital "resulted in an extended project schedule and
contributed to further project cost increases"; "[t]he expected
returns for the project have reduced due to changes in long-term
price assumptions and the higher capital estimates"; and "[t]he
increase in the estimated LCCP capital cost and extended schedule
will reduce the expected project returns by approximately the same
amount as the Company's lower long-term price assumptions."

Following these disclosures, Sasol's share price fell $3.53 per
share, or 10.99%, to close at $28.60 per share on June 6, 2016.

On May 22, 2019, Sasol disclosed that "the cost estimate for the
LCCP has been revised to a range of $12,6 to $12,9 billion which
includes a contingency of $300 million." Sasol cited a $530 million
change in the project's cost forecast because of a "[c]orrection
for duplication of investment allowances of approximately $230
million"; a "[c]orrection for certain contracts and variation
orders managed by Sasol, outside the primary engineering,
procurement and construction contract, of approximately $180
million"; and forecast improvements that were "not expected to be
realised and adjustments for potential insurance claims and
procurement back-charges of approximately $120 million."

Following these disclosures, Sasol's share price fell $4.50 per
share, or 14.93%, to close at $25.64 per share on May 22, 2019.

Later, on August 16, 2019, Sasol issued a press release disclosing
that it was delaying the announcement of its 2019 financial results
because of "possible LCCP control weaknesses."

On this news, Sasol's share price fell $0.74 per share, or 4.02%,
to close at $17.67 per share on August 16, 2019.

Then, on October 28, 2019, Sasol disclosed that its review of the
LCCP control weaknesses had brought to light "errors, omissions,
and inaccuracies in the [LCCP] cost estimate," and a number of
unethical and improper reporting activities that took place at the
highest level of management. Sasol also announced the resignation
of, inter alia, its Joint Presidents and Chief Executive Officers
("CEOs"), effective November 1, 2019, and Senior Vice Presidents
and others previously in charge of the LCCP.

Finally, on January 14, 2020, Sasol issued a press release
confirming that on January 13, 2020, the Company "experienced an
explosion and fire at its LCCP low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
unit." Sasol stated that "[t]he unit was in the final stages of
commissioning and startup when the incident occurred" and "has been
shut down and an investigation is underway to determine the cause
of the incident, the extent of the damage and resulting impact on
the LDPE unit's [beneficial operation] schedule."

Following these disclosures, Sasol's share price fell $1.70 per
share, or 7.84%, over the following two trading days, to close at
$19.99 per share on January 15, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on February 5, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sasol had
conducted insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account
for multiple issues with, the LCCP, as well as the true cost of the
project; (ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was
consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs,
and technical issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by
Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical
behavior with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the
project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely
to render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and
negatively impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Sasol securities during the Class Period, have
information, 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 Melissa
Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (646) 860-9156, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Marion Passmore, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: (646) 860-9156
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com
                 walker@bespc.com
         Website: www.bespc.com [GN]


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: $65MM 'Blackfish' Deals Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law 360 reports that a California judge has preliminarily approved
SeaWorld Entertainment Inc.'s $65 million settlement of a
securities class action related to the controversial 2013
documentary "Blackfish", saying he will likely give his final
approval of the deal because it is fair and reasonable.  U.S.
District Jude Michael Anello set a July 22, 2020 date for a
settlement hearing.

SeaWorld Entertainment on Feb. 11, 2020, disclosed that a
settlement has been entered in the class action suit entitled,
Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-CV-02129-MMA (AGS).  The proposed settlement, which is subject
to certain conditions, including court approval, requires the
Company to pay $65.0 million for claims alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses.
The proposed settlement does not include or constitute an
admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or
wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant.  

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [GN]


SEQWATER: Queensland Dam Operator to Appeal Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that thousands of victims
of the 2011 Brisbane floods have learned a Queensland dam operator
will appeal a court decision finding it partly responsible for
water damage.

According ot the report, a lawyer for Seqwater, the Queensland
Government Bulk Water Supply Authority responsible for providing a
safe, reliable, resilient and affordable bulk drinking water,
confirmed it would appeal the NSW Supreme Court finding that nearly
7,000 flood victims were failed by engineers operating its Wivenhoe
and Somerset dams.

The dams weren't operated according to the rules, exacerbating
downstream flooding when a deluge of "biblical" proportions fell
after days of earlier rain, Justice Robert Beech-Jones found in
November.

More water should have been released earlier, he said.

Another state-owned entity that provided flood management services
to Seqwater has also filed a notice of intention to appeal.

However Sunwater's lawyer told the court on Friday he was awaiting
final instructions on whether to proceed with the challenge.

The State of Queensland, the third defendant, has ruled out
appealing.

Damages could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, placing
it among the biggest class-action payouts in Australian legal
history, lawyers for victims say.

"Real justice, that is compensating our clients, feels that much
further away (because of this appeal)," Maurice Blackburn lawyer
Rebecca Gilsenan told reporters outside court in Sydney.

"Their hearts are sinking."

Former Ipswich councillor and flood class action claimant Paul
Tully said the appeal process will add to the distress victims have
experienced over "nine long and tortuous years".

"These insurance companies are toying with people's lives and
futures," he said in a statement.

"They are corporate scumbags just delaying the inevitable. They
make Scrooge look like an honourable citizen."

While Seqwater prepares its grounds for appeal, mediation between
the parties will commence.

"We're happy to mediate immediately," Julian Sexton SC, for the
victims, told the court on Friday.

Each defendant will also need to tell the court by April 9 how it
believes the eventual damages payout should be divided among them.

The matter is scheduled to return to court on April 29 for further
case management. [GN]


SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER GARCIA, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current
v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07798-PA-AFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 23, 2020,
for an order granting her motion for class certification pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3), or,
in the alternative, an order granting an extension of time.

National Beverage is an American beverage developer, manufacturer,
and distributor based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focused on
flavored soft drinks.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Heather McMillan, Esq.
          Daniel P. Stevens, Esq.
          Michael J. Berry, Esq.
          STEVENS & McMILLAN
          335 Centennial Way
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 730-1000
          Facsimile: (714) 730-1067
          E-mail: heather@scmclaw.com
                  ken@scmclaw.com
                  michael@scmclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher J. Kondon, Esq.
          Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Kintzele, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-552-5000
          Facsimile: 310-552-5001
          E-mail: saman.rejali@klgates.com
                  christopher.kondon@klgates.com
                  Jonathan.kintzele@klgates.com

SIOUX HONEY: Class Certification Bid in Tran Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Susan Tran v. Sioux Honey
Association Cooperative, Case No. 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order on Feb. 24,
2020:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Tran's motion for class
      certification:

      -- Tran's Motion is denied as to the certification of a Rule
         23(c)(4); and

      -- Rule 23(b)(2) class is certified, on behalf of:

         "all persons residing in California, who, from January
         2014 to the Present, purchased, for personal use and not
         resale, Sue Bee Products";

   2. appointing Susan Tran as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Kim E. Richman of the Richman Law Group as
      Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff may provide a supplemental declaration identifying
and detailing the adequacy of the individual attorney from Levi &
Korsinsky LLP who is to serve as co-class counsel in this case.

Sioux Honey produces and supplies honey products. The company
provides spun, natural, organic, raw, and orange honey, honey
bears, and BBQ sauces.[CC]

SIX FLAGS: Lieff Cabraser Notes of April 13 Filing Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased shares of the common stock of Six Flags Entertainment
Corporation (NYSE: SIX) between April 25, 2018 and January 9, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased shares of the common stock of Six Flags during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Six Flags investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Six Flags, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Grand
Prairie, Texas, is the largest regional theme park operator in the
world, with 26 parks across North America.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements to investors regarding the
Company's business, operations, and growth prospects in connection
with its agreements with Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd.
("Riverside"), a real estate developer, to develop Six
Flags-branded theme parks in China. Further, defendants misled
investors by assuring that delays in developing the parks were
"short term," that the problems were "not material in the context
of long-term opportunity," and that Riverside was in "great shape"
financially.

The truth about defendants' fraud began to emerge on February 14,
2019, when Six Flags announced a negative $15 million revenue
adjustment for fourth quarter of 2018 as a result of delays in the
opening of multiple parks in China, which the Company falsely
attributed to macroeconomic issues in China. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $9.00 per share, or over 14%, from its
closing price on February 13, 2019 to close at $54.87 per share on
February 14, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 23, 2019, the Company again announced delays in its park
openings in China. In addition, Six Flags reported a 26% drop in
international agreements, sponsorship and accommodations revenue
for the third quarter of 2019 compared to the third quarter of
2018. On these disclosures, Six Flags's stock price fell $6.35 per
share, or 12.4%, from its closing price on October 22, 2019 to
close at $44.88 per share on October 23, 2019.

On January 10, 2020, Six Flags revealed that it continued to
encounter challenges in the development of its parks in China, that
Riverside had defaulted on its payment obligations to Six Flags,
and that the Company would realize no revenue from its agreements
with Riverside in the fourth quarter 2019 and expected a negative
$1 million revenue adjustment in connection with those agreements.
Six Flags also disclosed approximately $10 million in charges
related to Riverside's default. On this news, Six Flags's stock
price fell $7.80 per share, or approximately 17.8%, from its
closing price of $43.76 on January 10, 2020 to close at $35.96 per
share the next day, January 11, 2020.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plagued by Maintenance Problems, Reveals Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jozelyn Escobedo, writing for WFAA, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Airlines on behalf of
other stockholders, claiming the company has been "plagued by
non-compliance and maintenance issues," according to court
documents.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court mid-February, accuses
Southwest of having maintenance issues with flights for more than a
decade. It also accuses the airlines and their top-officials of
being non-compliant.

Plaintiff Robert G. Linenewebe, who is representing the class, says
Southwest has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and self-touted
remediation efforts, according to court documents.

The lawsuit states the class includes people who purchased or
acquired Southwest Airlines securities between the dates of Feb. 7,
2017, and June 25, 2019.

Documents allege that during the time period, Southwest denied any
wrongdoing and insisted that is was a complaint with government
regulations.

"We are aware of the complaint and are reviewing it ahead of
mounting a vigorous defense against it," Southwest officials said
in a written statement.

The lawsuit claims the issues were exacerbated by the airlines'
undue influence over Federal Aviation Administration officials. It
also says the because of this and other wrongdoings, that
passengers' safety was put at risk. [GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Southwest Airlines Company (NYSE:  LUV) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and
indexed under 20-cv-00408, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Southwest securities between February 7, 2017,
and June 25, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Southwest securities during
the class period, you have until April 20, 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 at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Southwest was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.  The
Company operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air
transportation services in the U.S. and near-international markets.
Southwest is regulated by, among other government entities, the
Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the sub-agency of the U.S.
Department of Transportation ("DOT") that regulates civil aviation
in the U.S. and its surrounding international waters.

Southwest's operations have been plagued by non-compliance and
maintenance issues with its flight services for over a decade,
often exacerbated by the Company's repeated denials of wrongdoing
and self-touted remediation efforts.  For example, according to the
Wall Street Journal, the FAA's certificate-management office
overseeing Southwest faced significant controversy over a decade
ago "when congressional investigators discovered that local agency
managers had allowed the airline to continue flying tens of
thousands of passengers on nearly two dozen aircraft without
completing mandatory structural inspections."  Additionally, "[i]n
2009, Southwest agreed to pay $7.5 million in penalties to settle
allegations that it operated 46 aircraft on 60,000 flights without
completing mandatory maintenance checks for potential fuselage
cracks."

Notwithstanding these widely reported issues, Southwest has
continually denied any wrongdoing, while insisting that it has
remained compliant with applicable government maintenance and
safety regulations.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Southwest's operations were
non-compliant with government maintenance and safety regulations;
(ii) the foregoing issues were exacerbated by Southwest's undue
influence over FAA officials and, consequently, lax regulatory
oversight of the Company's operations; (iii) all of the foregoing
significantly increased the safety risks to passengers traveling on
Southwest flights and heightened governmental scrutiny into the
Company; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 17, 2018, news sources reported that a Southwest plane had
blown an engine, which exploded and caused shrapnel to strike the
plane.  The explosion resulted in the death of one passenger, who
was partially pulled through a large hole as the cabin suffered
rapid decompression, and injured seven others.  According to the
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the incident
marked "the first passenger fatality in a U.S. airline accident
since 2009," and that, out of twenty-four fan blades in the engine
at issue, one was missing.  On this news, Southwest's stock price
fell $0.62 per share, or 1.13%, to close at $54.27 per share on
April 17, 2018.

On April 19, 2018, during pre-market hours, the FAA announced that
it would "order inspections of at least 220 aircraft engines as
investigators are focusing on a broken fan blade in an engine that
exploded."  According to news sources, the order was initially
proposed in August 2016, following the earlier incident in which
engine failure had also resulted from a broken fan blade.  Critics
also reportedly questioned why the FAA had not acted sooner in
conjunction with their European counterparts.  On this news,
Southwest's stock price fell $1.02 per share, or 1.83%, to close at
$54.80 per share on April 19, 2018.

On June 21, 2018, near the end of the trading session, news sources
reported that eight passengers were suing Southwest in connection
with the engine explosion in April 2018.  On this news, Southwest's
stock price fell $1.24 per share, or 2.33%, to close at $51.91 per
share on June 22, 2018.

Finally, on June 25, 2019, during after-market hours, the Wall
Street Journal published an article entitled "FAA Reassigns Senior
Managers in Office Overseeing Southwest Airlines," which reported
that the FAA had "removed three senior managers in the office
overseeing Southwest Airlines Co., amid allegations of lax safety
enforcement raised by agency whistleblowers and various resulting
government inquiries."  The article also noted that "[t]he [DOT]'s
inspector-general has been looking into some of the safety issues
for many months . . . including lapses by the airline in
documenting maintenance for more than 100 of its jets," as well as
"failures to reliably compute the weight of checked baggage and
hazardous landing incidents in which one aircraft smacked a wingtip
on the tarmac and another ran off the strip in stormy weather.

On this news, Southwest's stock price fell $0.30 per share, or
0.59%, to close at $50.70 per share on June 26, 2019.

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.

Contact:

      Robert S. Willoughby
      Pomerantz LLP
      E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Pomerantz Alerts Shareholders to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc. (SPR) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit securities between October
31, 2019 and January 29, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Spirit securities during the
class period, you have until April 10, 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 or
       Tel: 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980

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

Spirit purports to design, manufacture, and supply commercial aero
structures in the United States and internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants 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 Spirit's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On January 30, 2020, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that Spirit had determined that it did not
comply with its accounting procedures and that its Chief Financial
Officer Jose Garcia and Chief Accounting Officer John Gilson had
resigned.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.56 per share or
approximately 4% on unusually high volume to close at $65.08 per
share on January 30, 2020, damaging investors.

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.
[GN]


SVA HEALTHCARE: Navigators Has Until March 9 to Answer Questions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
SVA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, and TIMOTHY RAVE,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Necessary party, Case No. 18-cv-1062-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James
D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin has given Navigators until March 9, 2020, to file
supplemental materials addressing the questions raised in the Order
before the Court can consider its motion for summary judgment.

Navigators has filed a motion for summary judgment in the suit for
a declaration regarding the scope of an insurance policy that
Navigators issued to Defendant SVA.  Specifically, Navigators
contends that its policy doesn't cover the losses alleged in a
pending class action filed in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court by
Timothy Rave.  Before the Court can consider Navigators' motion,
Navigators must show that it has brought the case in the proper
court.

As its basis for subject matter jurisdiction, Navigators relies on
28 U.S.C. Section 1332, which requires complete diversity of
citizenship and an amount in controversy more than $75,000.  It is
reasonable to infer from Navigators' allegations that more than
$75,000 is at stake, but Navigators hasn't shown complete diversity
of citizenship.

First, Navigators alleges in its proposed findings of fact that it
is a New York domiciled stock property and casualty insurance
company with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
But it only cites its complaint to support that allegation, and a
complaint isn't evidence.  More fundamentally, Navigators doesn't
say whether it is incorporated or unincorporated.  That's important
because the citizenship of incorporated and unincorporated
companies is determined in different ways.  If Navigators is a
corporation, it is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the
state of its principal place of business; if Navigators is not
incorporated, its citizenship is determined by the citizenship of
its members.  Navigators must provide the Court with the
information necessary to determine its citizenship.

Second, Navigators says that SVA Healthcare is a limited liability
company and is a citizen of Wisconsin.  But it doesn't identify
SVA's members or the citizenship of those members.  Without that
information, the Court cannot determine SVA's citizenship.

Third, Navigators says that Mr. Rave is a citizen of Wisconsin.
But Navigators has identified Rave as a "necessary party" rather
than a plaintiff or defendant, so before the Court can determine
Rave's effect on jurisdiction, Navigators must explain whether Rave
should be aligned as a plaintiff or a defendant.

In addition to these jurisdictional issues, Navigators must address
some other questions not discussed in its summary judgment motion.
First, Navigators has failed to explain why it is seeking a
declaration in the District Court rather than in the court where
the underlying class action is pending.   Second, Navigators should
explain why the District Court should determine the scope of
coverage before liability has been determined in the state court
action.  Third, and finally, Navigators must address the
significance of its decision to name not just Mr. Rave but also the
class he represents as a necessary party.

Based on the foregoing, the District Court gives  Navigators until
March 9, 2020, to file supplemental materials addressing the
questions raised in the Order.  Any other party who wishes to be
heard should respond by the same date.  Briefing on Navigators'
motion for summary judgment is stayed pending further order of the
Court.  If Navigators does not respond by March 9, the Court will
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/a9pxjW from Leagle.com.

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Kimberly E. Blair -- kimberly.blair@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan J.
Cecil -- bcecil@hansenreynolds.com -- Hansen Reynolds, LLC &
Timothy Michael Hansen -- thansen@hansenreynolds.com -- Hansen
Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC.

Timothy Rave, Individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Defendant, represented by Robert Welcenbach,
Welcenbach Law Offices, S.C..


TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No.
1:20-cv-00155-MN on behalf of shareholders of Tallgrass Energy, LP
("TGE" or the "Partnership") (NYSE:TGE) who have been harmed by
TGE's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the
Partnership with affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners
together with affiliates of Enagas, GIC, NPS and USS (the "Proposed
Transaction").

On December 16, 2019, the Board caused the Partnership to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger under which TGE shareholders
stand to receive $22.45 in cash for each share of TGE stock they
own.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Partnership and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Partnership's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to TGE shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/TGE.

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


TARGET CORP: $8.2MM Settlement in Walters Suit Gets Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District
California granted preliminary approval to the proposed class
settlement in JAMES WALTERS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORP., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-1678-L-MDD. (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Walters filed the California action against Target
seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for
Target's alleged breach of the Target Debit Card (TDC) Agreement
(TDC Agreement) and California law.  

The Settlement has a total cash value of $8,222,330, consisting of
the Cash Settlement Amount of $5,000,000 payable by Target to
establish the Settlement Fund and the Debt Reduction Cash Amount of
$3,222,330.

The Court finds that the Settlement has satisfied the Rule 23(a)
requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
The proposed Settlement Class consists of thousands of TDC holders
and joinder of all class members is impracticable.  Plaintiffs
point out the following questions of law and fact common to the
class: (1) whether Target's TDC processing practices violate the
TDC Agreement and (2) whether the TDC Agreement and allegedly
deceptive TDC marketing injured all Settlement Class members
through imposition of RPFs. Plaintiffs contend the typicality
requirement is satisfied because the named Plaintiffs' claims are
reasonably coextensive with those of the absent class members. The
Court also finds that class counsel is competent due to class
counsel's purported experience in litigation, certification, trial
and settlement of nationwide class action cases.

Moreover, the Court finds that the class representative service
awards amounts are reasonable in light of the time, effort, and
risk each class representative assumed. Plaintiff Walters will
apply for an award not exceeding $10,000, and Plaintiffs Dixon,
Powell, and Polcare will apply for an award not exceeding $3,000.
These awards merely compensate the class representatives for the
risk they assumed and the successful assistance they provided in
this case.

The Court finds the settlement is preliminarily fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the proposed class.

The Parties' deadline to file a Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and to file a response to Absent Settlement Class
Members' objections is May 22, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/t84jwwq from Leagle.com

James Walters, on Behalf of Himself and Those Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Gold - agold@tzlegal.com - Tycko &
Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei
-hzavareei@tzlegal.com - Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey Douglas
Kaliel - jkaliel@tzlegal.com - Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -
ostrow@kolawyers.com - Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, pro hac vice, Joshua Robert Levine - levine@kolawyers.com
- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice,
Scott Edelsberg - edelsberg@kolawyers.com - Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.,
pro hac vice, Sophia Goren Gold  - sgold@kalielpllc.com - Kaliel
PLLC, Chiharu Sekino -csekino@sfmslaw.com - Shepherd, Finkelman,
Miller & Shah, LLP & James C. Shah - jshah@sfmslaw.com - Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP.

Target Corp., Defendant, represented by James R. McGuire -
jmcguire@mofo.com - Morrison and Foerster, Mark Poe -
mpoe@gawpoe.com - Gaw & Poe LLP, Morgan Donoian MacBride  -
mmacbride@mofo.com - Morrison & Foerster & Sylvia Rivera -
srivera@mofo.com - Morrison and Foerster LLP.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Evans FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Monet Evans, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case
No. 2:19-cv-05720 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2020).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: McCutchen Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Verletta McCutchen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01528 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2020).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Non-Stick Pans Defective, Partida et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY PARTIDA, PATRICIA GARY, and GLENN GRAEVES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00436 (C.D. Cal.,
Riverside Cty., March 3, 2020) alleges false and deceptive
advertising of the Copper Chef Signature Cookware products
manufactured, marketed, distributed, warranted and, in some cases,
sold by Defendant Tristar Products, Inc.

The Plaintiffs rely upon the advertising claims made in Defendant's
television infomercials, social media sites and website, and on the
Product's labels, all of which Defendant and its agents intended to
entice consumers to purchase Copper Chef Pans at a premium over
conventional non-stick pans. The advertisements assert that Copper
Chef Pans are breakthrough and premium alternatives to traditional
pans and utilize Cerami-Tech Non-Stick Technology so that nothing
sticks to the surface after several uses.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to remedy the
Products' propensity to prematurely fail, despite Defendant's
knowledge and notice of the Products' propensity to prematurely
peel, chip, discolor, and generally degrade shortly after
purchase.

Tristar Products, Inc. is a New Jersey-based manufacturer and
direct marketer of cookware products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Eric D. Zard, Esq.
            CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
            1350 Columbia St. Ste. 603
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 762-1900
            Facsimile: (619) 756-6990
            Email: ezard@carlsonlynch.com

                    – and -

            Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
            Matthew Brady, Esq.
            CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
            1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
            Pittsburgh, PA 15222
            Telephone: (412) 322-9243
            Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
            Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                   mbrady@carlsonlynch.com

                       – and -
             
            Katrina Carroll , Esq.
            CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
            111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
            Chicago, IL 60602
            Telephone: (312) 750-1265
            Facsimile: (412) 231-024  
            Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

                       – and –

            Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
            Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.  
            CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
            150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312)782-4880
            Facsimile: (312)782-7785
            Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                   ctourek@caffertyclobes.com

TROPICANA MANUFACTURING: Falsely Markets Drinks, Willard Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Willard and Amie Blackman, on behalf of themselves
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the general public v. TROPICANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. a
Delaware corporation; Case No. 1:20-cv-01501 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28,
2020), alleges that the Defendant misbrands and falsely advertises
numerous juice-based beverage products, in Illinois, California,
and throughout the United States, in violation of federal and state
unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer protection
laws.

The Defendant conceals that the Products are artificially flavored,
the Plaintiffs allege. They note that the Defendant knowingly adds
artificial flavor to the Products but fails to label the Products
accordingly, concealing this crucial fact from consumers. They add
that the Defendant knowingly omits all the federal and state law
required label disclosures informing consumers that the Products
contain artificial flavors.

The Products, in fact, are all labeled as if they contain only
natural ingredients deceiving consumers into believing they are
purchasing a premium, all-natural product instead of one that
contains artificial flavoring, the Plaintiffs allege. They argue
that the Defendant intended to give reasonable consumers like them
the impression that the Products are pure, natural, and not
artificially flavored, by packaging, labeling, and advertising the
Products in this way.

The Plaintiffs and the Class lost money as a result of the
Defendant's conduct because they would not have purchased the
Product or would not have paid as much as they had in the absence
of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Products several
times.

The Defendant manufactures, packages, labels, distributes,
advertises, markets, and sells fruit-juice-based beverage products
that contain undisclosed artificial flavoring agents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Elliot, Esq.
          ELLIOT LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (858) 228-7997
          Email: davidelliot@elliotfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


TRULIEVE CORP: Pomerantz Woos Shareholders to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Trulieve Corporation (OTCMKTS: TCNNF) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under
20-cv-00775, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Trulieve securities between
September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Trulieve securities during
the class period, you have until February 28, 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 or
       Tel: 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980

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

Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate as a
medical marijuana company.  The Company cultivates and produces
products in-house and distributes its products to Trulieve branded
stores (dispensaries) in Florida, as well as directly to patients
through home delivery.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Trulieve overstated its
mark-up on its biological assets; (ii) therefore, Trulieve's
reported gross profit was inflated; (iii) Trulieve engaged in an
undisclosed related party real estate sale with Defendant Rivers'
husband; and (iv) 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 December 17, 2019, during market hours, Grizzly Research
published a report (the "Report") explaining that Trulieve had
failed to disclose: (i) real estate transactions with insiders;
(ii) that rather than high-quality indoor production, the vast
majority of the Company's marijuana was produced in low quality
hoop houses; and (iii) the Company's markup on biological assets
was excessive and unreasonable.

The Report provided evidence that One More Wish LLC, an entity in
which Trulieve engaged in a real estate transaction, was controlled
by Kim Rivers, the company's Chief Executive Officer husband, JT
Burnett.

The Report also explained after researching Trulieve's
manufacturing facilities, it was found that the vast majority of
the Company's cultivation facilities were "low-quality hoop houses"
that were "prone to infestations and weather damage."

The Report went on to explain that the Company's markups on
biological assets were likely inflated as a result.

On this news, shares of Trulieve fell $1.51 per share, or over
12.6%, to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, damaging
investors.

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.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: $1.7MM Deal in Jones Veterans Suit Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has
given final approval of the settlement agreement proposed in the
case captioned ANNETTE E. JONES, et al, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 11-681C, (Fed. Cl.).

Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who allege that they have been
regularly scheduled to work, and did perform work, on Sundays and
that they are entitled to receive Sunday premium pay pursuant to 5
U.S.C. Section5546(a) or 5 U.S.C. Section 5544(a).  As relief,
plaintiffs seek to recover back pay, interest and other fees and
costs.

At a fairness hearing held on the matter, the Court concludes that
the proposed settlement in the case is fair, reasonable and
adequate.

Accordingly, the Court approves the Settlement Agreement. The Court
directs the Clerk to enter judgment in the total amount of
$1,725,734.39; which amount consists of:

-- $713,269.44 in back pay;

-- $156,919.28 in interest;

-- $54,565.12 in employer's contributions for VA Medicare and
    VA Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance on back pay
    for all class members;

-- $235,350.11 for services approved by the Court to the class
    administrator; and

-- $565,630.44 in attorney's fees, expenses and costs to be
    awarded to class counsel.

The judgment shall be payable to the Jones Class Qualified
Settlement Trust for distribution by the class administrator to the
class members and class counsel according to the terms of the
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the parties' settlement
agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 5, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tup6g66 from
Leagle.com

ANNETTE E. JONES, NORMAN SAMPSON, ROLAND SIMMONS & HAZELLA
THORNHILL, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ira M. Lechner.

USA, Defendant, represented by Zachary John Sullivan , U.S.
Department of Justice Commerical Litigation Branch, Civil
Division.


UNITED STATES: Education Dept. Urges Court to Toss Students Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a Justice Department lawyer urged a federal judge to strike down a
class action over long delays in processing student debt relief
applications as moot, even as 171,000 borrowers remain "in limbo"
with no decision from the U.S. Education Department.

Justice Department lawyer R. Charles Merritt told the judge that
the rollout of a new formula for processing borrower defense claims
effectively resolves a class action over prolonged waits of up to
four years or more.

Lead plaintiff Theresa Sweet sued Education Secretary Betsy DeVos
in June last year, claiming the department's "pause" in processing
borrower defense claims became a "policy of inaction and
obfuscation" preventing defrauded students from obtaining debt
relief as required by law. The plaintiffs say the long delays have
damaged their credit and permanently stifled their ability to
accumulate wealth.

Enacted in 2015 by the Obama administration, the borrower defense
rule gave students who attended predatory for-profit colleges an
avenue to have their loan debt forgiven.  After Trump's
inauguration in January 2017, the Education Department announced it
was taking a "pause" in processing those claims in order to
"re-evaluate" the Obama-era policies.

DeVos unveiled a new blueprint for the program on Dec. 10. The
revamped methodology offers sliding-scale debt relief based on a
complex formula which compares the median salary of graduates from
fraudulent for-profit colleges with the median salaries of
graduates from similar schools.

At a hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment, Merritt
insisted that because the department has resumed processing
borrower defense claims, the lawsuit is no longer relevant or
necessary. The department has processed 25,000 applications since
Dec. 10, finding 5,000 borrowers eligible for at least partial debt
relief and denying another 20,000.

Representing a certified class of 171,000 student borrowers,
attorney Kyra Taylor argued that despite processing a small
percentage of borrowers' claims, the department has offered no
evidence showing it can resolve all other pending applications in a
reasonable time frame.

"All the people waiting are doing so because of the department's
choice to stop issuing final decisions," Taylor said. "There's no
evidence that the department will ever deal with the backlog."

Taylor is with the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard
Law School. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Faces Velesaca v. Homeland Security in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolf, et al. The case
is styled as Jose L. Velesaca, On behalf of himself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Chad Wolf, in his official
capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Thomas R. Decker, in his official capacity as New York
Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Matthew Albence, in his official capacity as the Acting Director
for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States Department of
Homeland Security; Carl E. DuBois, in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Orange County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
28, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus--Alien Detainee for
the Immigration & Nationality Act.

Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and
Plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Belsher, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION  FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 607-3300
          Email: abelsher@nyclu.org


UNIVERSAL TRANS: Class Conditionally Certified in Sprague Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert Sprague v. Universal Transportation Systems
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00165-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Michael R. Barrett entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      and court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs
      pursuant to 20 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing the Parties to have a reasonable amount of time
      to meet and confer, and directing the Plaintiff shall file
      an amended notice consistent with the Court's findings; and

   3. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to toll the
      limitations period applicable to the Fair Labor Standards
      Act claims of potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff has made a sufficient factual
showing under the 'fairly lenient' standard this Court must employ
at this stage. The Plaintiff retains the right to re-file his
motion or raise the issue of equitable tolling at a later date."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as
a driver from February 2016 until December 2017.

Universal Transportation provides transportation services
throughout Ohio.[CC]

USCB INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Rideau Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed USCB, Inc. The case is styled
as Siobhan Rideau, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. USCB, Inc., doing business as: USCB America,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00467-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., March 2, 2020).

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

Uscb, Inc., doing business as USCB America, provides accounting
services. The Company offers business process outsourcing and
full-service accounts receivable management solutions to healthcare
providers, retail, banking, creditors, and government
municipalities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for May 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP notified of a hearing on the
proposed settlement in the Valeant Pharmaceuticals Securities
Litigation.

The Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action is for ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("VALEANT,"
NOW KNOWN AS BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC.) COMMON STOCK, VALEANT
DEBT SECURITIES, OR CALL OPTIONS ON VALEANT COMMON STOCK, OR SOLD
PUT OPTIONS ON VALEANT COMMON STOCK, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN
JANUARY 4, 2013 AND MARCH 15, 2016, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD").

Interested parties are notified that a hearing will be held on May
27, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh,
U.S.D.J. (Ret.), Special Master, at the Clarkson S. Fisher Building
& U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Courtroom 1, Trenton, New
Jersey 08608, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the Valeant action as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement for $1,210,000,000.00 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Litigation against all Defendants with prejudice
except PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"); (3) the Class should be
finally certified for purposes of the Settlement only; (4) to award
Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and charges and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and, if so, in what amount;
(5) to award Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of
the Class and, if so, in what amount; and (6) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, one must
establish its rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form by mail (postmarked no later than May 6, 2020) or online (no
later than May 6, 2020). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim and
Release by May 6, 2020, will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Litigation. To exclude yourself from the Class,
you must submit a written request for exclusion so that it is
postmarked no later than May 6, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you request exclusion, you
will not recover money pursuant to the Settlement.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to exclude yourself from the Class or to
object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim and Release, you
may obtain these

Documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation and other
settlement documents, may be obtained online at
www.ValeantSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to:

      Valeant Securities Settlement
      c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
      P.O. Box 43337
      Providence, RI 02940-3337

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim and Release, may be made to a representative of Lead
Counsel:

      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Rick Nelson
      c/o Shareholder Relations
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: 800/449-4900

If you are a class member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request by Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and/or the awards to
Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a) in connection with
their representation of the class. Any objections must be filed
with the Court and mailed to Lead Counsel and Valeant's counsel by
May 6, 2020.

The case is In re VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master No. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-LHG (N.J.).


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Court Strikes Schmitzes' Rep. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the
case captioned SHEILA SCHMITZ and ROBERT SCHMITZ, Individually, as
Representatives of the Estate of JOANNE SCHMITZ, and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS,
LLC and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-15. (E.D.
Wis.).

Sheila and Robert Schmitz filed the putative class action against
Valentine & Kebartas, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

The Schmitzes are brother and sister and the adult children of
Joanne Schmitz, who died on April 30, 2017. The Schmitzes allege
that they are the representatives of Joanne Schmitz's estate.  In
November 2017, Valentine sent a debt collection letter to Joanne
Schmitz at the address at which Joanne Schmitz resided with the
Schmitzes. The alleged debt referenced in the letter is a Citibank
credit card account, used only for personal, family, or household
purposes.

The Schmitzes allege that the debt collection letter addressed to
their deceased mother, but received and opened by them, contained a
false statement in violation of the FDCPA and the WCA. Valentine
and LVNV argue that the Schmitzes' amended complaint must be
dismissed because the Schmitzes lack standing to prosecute their
claims both individually and as representatives of their mother's
estate.

* Individual Capacity Claims

Valentine and LVNV argue that the Schmitzes lack standing to bring
a claim under Section 1692e. Specifically, they argue that
Valentine's debt collection letter was addressed and directed to
Joanne Schmitz. While Sheila and Robert were her powers of attorney
during her lifetime, this position ceased upon Joanne's death and
the Schmitzes fail to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate they
fall within Section 1692e's zone of interest, whether in their
individual or representative capacities.

The Schmitzes counter that they fall within the statute's zone of
interest because they were close family members of Joanne, they had
authority to open and review Joanne's mail, and they resided at the
same address as Joanne and are the primary beneficiaries of her
estate.

The Court notes that allowing a person who has the authority to
open and read the debtor's letters to pursue a Section 1692e claim
fulfills the purpose of the FDCPA to protect consumers and those
who have a special relationship with the consumer such that the Act
is still protecting the consumer from statements that would mislead
these consumers. In this case, the Schmitzes allege that they were
authorized to open their mother's mail. While the defendants may
challenge the validity of this authorization, at this juncture, the
amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to show standing on the
Schmitzes' individual claims under the FDCPA and the WCA, the Court
opines.

* Representative Capacity Claims

Valentine and LVNV also challenge the Schmitzes' standing to bring
the FDCPA and WCA claims on behalf of their mother's estate. As an
initial matter, the law the Schmitzes cite in support of standing
to pursue a claim on behalf of the estate is inapposite. They argue
that because the FDCPA is remedial in nature, a cause of action
under the FDCPA survives the death of a party.  While this may be
true, these cases address substitution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25
after a party dies during litigation. That is not what happened
here. No FDCPA action was filed until after Joanne's death. In
fact, the letter was not sent until after Joanne's death. Because
there was no lawsuit prior to Joanne's death, there was no claim to
survive her death, the Court finds.

The Court further notes that there are no allegations in the
complaint that plausibly claim the estate was harmed. In fact, the
Schmitzes specifically allege that they received and read the debt
collection letter as the caregivers of Joanne Schmitz, they do not
allege that the letter was read or received in their capacities as
representatives whether formal or informal of the estate. While the
Schmitzes' allegations sufficiently plead claims in their
individual capacities, by alleging that the letter was read as
Joanne's caregivers, they have pled themselves out of court as to
their representative capacity claims.

For these reasons, the Schmitzes may pursue their FDCPA and WCA
claims in their individual capacities, but not as representatives
of Joanne's estate, the Court maintains.

Accordingly, the Court rules that Defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The
plaintiffs may pursue their FDCPA and WCA claims in their
individual capacities. However, their FDCPA and WCA claims made in
their capacities as representatives of Joanne Schmitz's estate are
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/t7h5eyd from
Leagle.com

Sheila Schmitz & Robert Schmitz, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben J.
Slatky  - bslatky@ademilaw.com- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse
Fruchter  - jfruchter@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D.
Blythin  - jblythin@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim
Ademi -
sademi@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A. Eldridge  -
meldridge@ademilaw.com - Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Valentine & Kebartas LLC & LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants,
represented by Alyssa A. Johnson - ajohnson@hinshawlaw.com -
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & David M. Schultz -
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com - Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP


VERDI EQUITIES: Underpays Cooks, Benavides Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BENAVIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERDI EQUITIES, INC.; and R.G.G.
ENTERPRISES, INC.; GIUSEPPE "JOE" ROCCO; JOHN SACCO; and ROCCO
SACCO, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-00850 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2020) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Benavides was employed by the Plaintiff as cook.

Verdi Equities, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005


VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Resume Talks Over German Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Thomasson and Illona Wissenbach, writing for Reuters, report
that Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) and the German consumer protection
organisation have agreed to resume talks aimed at reaching a deal
in a class action lawsuit over the carmaker's rigging of diesel
emissions tests.

VW admitted using illegal software to cheat U.S. diesel engine
tests in 2015, a scandal which has cost it more than $30 billion in
vehicle refits, fines and provisions.

Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a
$25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States, but VW has
said there was no legal basis for consumers in Germany to seek
compensation due to differences in law.

A court in the town of Brunswick, which has urged Volkswagen to
settle the lawsuit, said the parties to the case had agreed on the
advice of the court to resume discussions to try to reach a
settlement.

State-financed consumer protection organisation Vzbv said it had
accepted the court invitation and said talks should take place
soon.  A Volkswagen spokesman confirmed the new talks, but declined
to comment further.

Vzbv said it had not changed its demand that any settlement must be
fair, transparent and verifiable.

Vzbv has said it aimed to show that owners of VW, Audi, Skoda and
Seat cars with so-called type EA 189 diesel engines have been
intentionally harmed by VW's use of software that was used to cheat
emissions tests.

The German class action was made possible after the cabinet
approved a draft law in 2018 allowing consumer protection
organisations to litigate on behalf of consumers, avoiding the high
legal costs that might put people off legal action.

When the diesel scandal broke, 2.4 million cars with defeat devices
were on German roads. In the meantime, most have received a
software update. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Zamora Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesenia Zamora and Brandan Griego, individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; WALMART, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; SAM'S WEST, INC., AN
ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:20-cv-00401-W-AHG
(S.D. Cal., March 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
alleged unpaid wages.

As a matter of policy and/or practice, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiffs all wages due and owing upon termination of
employment, including payment of all vacation and day equivalent
wages (the latter including Paid Time Off days and personal
holidays), minimum wage and regular wage and other qualifying wage
compensation, in violation of Labor Code, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Defendants also failed to maintain sufficient funds to pay
wages and failed to properly deliver all wages owed to their
employees by withholding and maintaining an internal fund for
undelivered and/or uncashed wages, in violation of California law,
says the complaint. In addition, the Plaintiffs contend, the
Defendants failed to reimburse employees for bounced check or
overdraft or bank fees incurred as a result of their failure to
deliver all wages owed to their employees, in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in California as an hourly
non-exempt cashier and associate.

Wal-Mart is a national retailer with locations throughout the
United States, including San Diego County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          8330 Allison Ave., Ste. C.
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Phone: (619) 488-6400
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com

               - and –

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 725
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 478-5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          Email: hartpeter@msn.com


WESTPAC BANKING: Byrne Hits Stock Drop Over Money Laundering Row
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Byrne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Westpac Banking Corporation, Brian Charles
Hartzer and Peter Francis King, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00171
(D. Or., January 30, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of federal securities laws.

Westpac provide various banking and financial services in
Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific region. It is
incorporated in New South Wales, Australia. Westpac's American
Depositary Receipts (ADR) trade on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "WBK." It sold for $13.00 per ADS during
its December 2018 IPO.

Defendants failed to disclose that contrary to Australian law, the
company failed to report over 19.5 million international funds
transfer instructions violating anti-money laundering regulations.

On this news, Westpac ADRs fell $1.25 per share over the next three
trading days or over 7.13% to close at $16.67 per ADR on November
22, 2019, damaging investors including Byrne. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, 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
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
      RANSON, GILBERTSON, MARTIN AND RATLIFF LLP
      8401 NE Halsey St., Suite 208
      Portland OR 97220
      Tel: (503) 226-3664



WESTPAC BANKING: Zhang Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Westpac Banking Corporation (WBK)
between November 11, 2015 and November 19, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=westpac-banking-corporation&id=2169
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=westpac-banking-corporation&id=2169

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to (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.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***