/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200406.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 69

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Oberholtzer Claims Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Vandamas Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Norwood Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
7-ELEVEN INC: Misrepresents Iced Lemon Cookies, Rodriguez Claims
ACADIA PHARMA: Continues to Defend NUPLAZID Securities Suit

ACCOR HOTEL: Stohl Sues in California Alleging Violation of ADA
ACE HIGH MARKETING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Eyo Suit Claims
AIR METHODS: Lyons Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMEREN ILLINOIS: Rossman Files CLASS Suit in Illinois
AMERICAN STRATEGIC: Buchanan Files Suit Over Insurance Policy

AMERICAN-PARAGON: Underpays Armed Security Guards, Aguilar Claims
ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Certifies Class in Romeo Suit
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS: Rosenkrantz Sues Over Unrefunded Fees
ASR PIZZA INC: Amato Files Civil Suit in Florida Circuit Court
B. LESTER LAW FIRM: McClinton Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona

BACARDI USA: Court Dismisses Marrache FDUTPA Suit with Prejudice
BAIRES VALET: Vetek Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BATTLE CREEK PIZZA: Fails to Pay FLSA Minimum Wages, Parker Says
BLAZE PIZZA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Alcazar Claims
BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of $1M Award to Walmart Upheld

BR BRAND HOLDINGS: Faces Gonzalez ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Violates Detainees' Rights, Savino Alleges
BURROW GLOBAL: Campanaro Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees
BUSINESS FIRST: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Pedestal
C. & M. SMITH: White Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

CANOPY ENERGY: Aussieker Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in Rael FTCA Suit Has Prelim Approval
CLIENT SERVICES: Baranskyi Alleges Violation under FDCPA
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Shields FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Stolzberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CMC ASSET: Valencia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
COBBFENDLEY INTERNATIONAL: Leal Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Staff
COLBURN ELECTRIC: De La Torre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COMPASS GROUP: Bryant Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court
CORECIVIC INC: Kansas Dist. Denies Bids to Intervene in Huff Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Taylor Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
CR ENGLAND: Clarke Suit Transferred to Utah
CREDIT CONTROL: Humphreys Files Suit in Pennsylvania
CREDIT CONTROL: Teage Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
D & A SERVICES: Faces Friedman FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois

DEBT RECOVERY: Ruffin Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
DEVA CONCEPTS: Faces Bolash Product Liability Suit in New York
DOUBLE DOWN: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Benson Suit
EARNHARDT'S GILBERT: Winters Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
EISAI INC: Sued by Zottola for Selling Defective Belviq Drug

ENSIGN UNITED: Filing of Third Amended Newell Complaint Allowed
EURO HOMECARE: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Sought
FCA US LLC: Melson Files Product Liability Suit in D. Montana
FCA US: Faces Galloway Suit in Utah Over Unsolicited Phone Sales
FERNANDES BROTHERS: Faces Gutierrez Employment Suit in California

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Parish Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing
GLASS MOUNTAIN: Faces Kennedy Suit over Recording of Phone Calls
GREAT DESTINATIONS: Threde Files TCPA Suit in California
HANNA LAW: 6th Cir. Affirms Amended Judgment in McClain Suit
HF FOODS GROUP: Faces Mendoza Securities Suit in C.D. California

HIRSCH PIPE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Loera Says
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERSECT ENT: Continues to Defend Yaron Class Suit
JACOBY & MEYERS: Summary Judgment Bid in Harding Suit Partly Okayed
JOHN B. STETSON COMPANY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York

JOHNS HOPKINS: $4.7MM Attorneys Fees Awarded in Kelly Labor Suit
JUN WEI INC: Faces Zhang Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA & NYLL
KONG KEE FOOD: Loh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LANDCORP STAFFING: Wilson-Sewell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
LOUIS LEEMAN: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation

LOYA INSURANCE: Robledo Sues in Northern District of Illinois
MANETTA ENTERPRISES: Loper Sues over Unpaid OT, Prevailing Wages
MDL 2047: Court Denies Class Certification in Drywall Products Suit
MERCK & CO: Faces Seals Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax
MIKE KELLY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

MOLLY MAID: Underpays Maids-Team Leads, Leyva-Ugalde et al. Claim
MYLAN INC: Faces Rochester Drug Suit Over EpiPen Overcharges
NATIONAL COURT: Curran Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fees
NATIONAL DEBT: Thompson Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Calls
NATIONAL TIRE: Florida Southern Dist. Narrows Claims in Exum Suit

NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
NCU: Falsely Markets Doctoral Program, Katzakian Suit Alleges
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Rosenfeld FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
OUTLAW LAB: Stores' Bid to File 3rd Amended Counterclaims Denied
PAM TRANSPORT: Browne Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly Granted

PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
POLK COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Class Certification in Case Suit
POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in Asst. Managers' Suit Finally Approved
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Faces Gonzalez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Case v LogistiCare Certified as Class Suit

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus in Calif. Ongoing
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Talarico Suit
R.A. ROGERS INC: Faces Kramarsky FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jara TCPA Suit

ROMEO & JULIETTE: Gonzalez Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Seeks OT Pay for Medical Personal
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Raksin Files FDCPA Suit in New York
SEMINOLE TOTAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Pauley Suit Alleges
SI SOHO LLC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA

ST. TROPEZ INC: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
STERLING BANCORP: Orr Sues Challenging Decline in Share Price
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Briggs Class Suit in S.D. New York
TAKEDA PHARMA: Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit Certified
TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California

TOUCHSTONE MEDICAL: Katt ADA Suit Moved to District of Colorado
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Nava Suit
UNITED STATES: Medicare Beneficiaries Seek to Certify Class
USPI HOLDING: Andrews Sues Over Breach of Stock Incentive Plan
VERIZON WIRELESS: Dunphy Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Opheim Class Suit in District of New Jersey
WELDO INDUSTRIAL: Underpays Mechanics & Welders, Alcalar et al Say
WESTROCK COMPANY: Reyna Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
WRIGHT TRUCKING: Bid for Protective Order in Leeson Suit Denied
XALER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Derval TCPA Suit

XP INC: Acerno Says SEC Registration Info False & Misleading

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Oberholtzer Claims Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EDWARD OBERHOLTZER, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:20-cv-00966-RMG (D.S.C., March 6, 2020), seeks damages for
personal injury for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing
the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Oberholtzer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


3M COMPANY: Vandamas Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD A. VANDAMAS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00961-RMG (D.S.C., March 6,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Vandamas case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Norwood Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Norwood, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. 48Forty
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2020CH01434, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 6, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01649 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Edmond E. Chang.

The suit demands $75,000 in damages asserting claims against the
Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty.

48Forty is a pallet management services company in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
          Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5674
          E-mail: dkays@seyfarth.com
                  rmcardle@seyfarth.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Misrepresents Iced Lemon Cookies, Rodriguez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02636 (S.D.N.Y., March
29, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws arising
from the Defendant's misleading representations on their iced lemon
cookies under the 7-Select brand.

The Product's relevant representations include "7-Select," "Iced
Lemon Cookies" (front), "Indulge in a classic childhood favorite!
Our iced lemon cookies have a light crisp bite and are perfectly
balanced with tart lemon and an irresistible coating of sweet lemon
icing" (back) and a picture of the Product (front and back). By not
including any qualifying terms preceding, following or in proximity
to "Lemon," consumers expect the Product to contain sufficient
lemon oil and/or lemon extract from lemons to flavor the Product
and no other flavors from natural sources other than lemons or
artificial sources, simulate, resemble, reinforce, enhance or
extend the flavoring from lemons.

The Plaintiff contends that the Product's front label is misleading
to consumers because the ingredient list reveals "Natural and
Artificial Flavor" are used to provide flavoring. The Plaintiff
notes that consumers seek to avoid artificial flavors for reasons,
including nutrition, health and/or the avoidance of chemicals and
highly processed ingredients. Consumers cannot discern from the
ingredient list that (1) the natural flavor listed on the
ingredient list does not refer to an exclusively lemon ingredient
nor (2) that the artificial flavor enhances the Product's lemon
taste. The Product's ingredient list also indicates the presence of
yellow food coloring, "YELLOW #5, YELLOW #6," which misleads
consumers to think it contains more real lemon flavoring than it
actually does, by making its color closer to that of real lemons.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption. Had
the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, says the
complaint.

7-Eleven, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
iced lemon cookies, under the 7-Select brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


ACADIA PHARMA: Continues to Defend NUPLAZID Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647,
related to NUPLAZID.

Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity
about NUPLAZID, three purported company stockholders filed putative
securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against the company
and certain of its current and former executive officers.

Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff.

On January 3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the
caption In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under
submission. On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15, 2019.
The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to
disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID
threatened initial and continuing FDA approval, and by failing to
disclose that the company engaged in business practices likely to
attract regulatory scrutiny.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on June 7, 2019 and the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition on July 23, 2019. Defendants filed a reply on August 22,
2019. On November 12, 2019, the Court determined that the motion to
dismiss was suitable for resolution without oral argument and took
the motion hearing off calendar.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.


ACCOR HOTEL: Stohl Sues in California Alleging Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Stohl, and other similarly situated v. Accor Hotel and
Resorts (Maryland) LLC dba Pullman Hotel; Merritt Hospitality, LLC
a Delaware Limited Liability Company dba HEI Hotels and Resort;
SPUS7 Redwood City Hotel Lessee, LLC; and SPUS7 Redwood City Hotel
Owner LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02140 (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

According to the complaint, the Defendant actively misrepresents
itself as a disabled-accessible hotel. As the Plaintiff learned to
her detriment, in reality it does not provide access as required by
law. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendants, The
Hotel owners and operators, to make The Hotel and associated
facilities accessible to her and other similarly situated. The
Plaintiff also seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and litigation
expenses.

The Plaintiff is a person with a disability. She is affected by
paralysis that requires her to use a wheelchair for mobility.

The Pullman Hotel San Francisco Bay is a boutique hotel located in
Redwood City, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celia McGuinness, Esq.
          DERBY, McGUINNESS & GOLDSMITH, LLP
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 987-8778
          Facsimile: (510) 359-4419
          Email: info@dmglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony Goldsmith, Esq
          DERBY, McGUINNESS & GOLDSMITH, LLP
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (818) 213-2762
          Facsimile: (510) 359-4419
          Email: info@dmglawfirm.com


ACE HIGH MARKETING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Eyo Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE EYO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ACE HIGH MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01018-AT (N.D. Ga.,
March 5, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other employees
minimum wage for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, was employed by the Defendant
as a Brand Ambassador. The Plaintiff and other Brand Ambassadors
employed by the Defendant were similarly situated, with similar job
duties and responsibilities, and with similar pay structures, says
the complaint.

Ace High identifies consumer needs both in general and ethnic
markets, and implements marketing programs, communications and
events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
          Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Pkwy. SE, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 876-8100
          Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
          E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com
                  gordon@hallandlampros.com


AIR METHODS: Lyons Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER R. LYONS and AMELIA
G. VIELGUTH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. RG20053409 (Filed Feb. 5, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on March 9, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01700 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for violation
of the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages.

Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter
operator.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
          Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
          Sean T. Kingston, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-2424
          Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
          E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
                  cahearn@fisherphillips.com
                  skingston@fisherphillips.com


AMEREN ILLINOIS: Rossman Files CLASS Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameren Illinois
Company. The case is styled as Kevin Rossman, individually and For
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Ameren Illinois Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-mc-03002-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., April 1,
2020).

The docket of the case states a motion to compel compliance with
non-party subpoena has been filed in the case.

Ameren Illinois Company provides utility services. The Company
provides electric power and natural gas transmission services.
Ameren Illinois serves its clients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas M Werman, Esq.
   Maureen A Salas, Esq.
   WERMAN SALAS PC
   77 W Washington Street, Suite 1402
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 419-1008
   Fax: (312) 419-1025
   Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
          mbantz@flsalaw.com

      - and -

   Richard J Burch, Esq.
   BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
   1415 Louisiana St, Suite 2125
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


AMERICAN STRATEGIC: Buchanan Files Suit Over Insurance Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Strategic
Insurance Corp. The case is styled as Lekeitra Buchanan and Jarvis
Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. American Strategic Insurance Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00106-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss., March 31,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

American Strategic Insurance was formed in 1997 and led by CEO and
President, John Auer. Its initial offering was Florida homeowners
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   James Brandon McWherter, Esq.
   MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
   341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
   Franklin, TN 37067
   Tel: (615) 354-1144
   Fax: (731) 664-1540
   Email: brandon@msb.law


AMERICAN-PARAGON: Underpays Armed Security Guards, Aguilar Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR AGUILAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN-PARAGON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC.,
AMERICAN EAGLE PROTECTIVE SERVICES CORP., and DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01982 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and the Collective, who were all present and former
non-exempt security guards, were employed by Defendants in
California within three years prior to the date of the filing of
the lawsuit. Also, they were paid on an hourly basis but were paid
different rates for different shifts.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the Collective were
subject to Defendants' common practices, policies, programs,
procedures, protocols, and plans of willfully failing and refusing
to pay them for all their hours worked, and pay for all overtime
owed, that includes:

     -- a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours
in excess of 40 hours during the workweek because of Defendants'
failure to use the weighted average in calculating their regular
rate of pay; and

     -- the off-the-clock time spent donning and doffing their
uniforms which process took approximately 20-30 minutes daily.

American Eagle Protective Services Corp. provides security services
and offers personal protection and security officers, private
investigation, lie detection, drug screening, hospital
housekeeping, landscaping, and technical training services.

American-Paragon Protective Services, LLC provides detective,
guard, and armored car services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          Manny M. Starr, Esq.
          Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, STE #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Tel: (818)914-3433
          Fax: (818)914-3433
          Emails: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com
                  dan@frontierlawcenter.com


ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Certifies Class in Romeo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACKLIN ROMEO, SUSAN S. RINE,
and DEBRA SNYDER MILLER, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORP., Case No.
1:17-cv-00088-IMK-MJA (N.D. W. Va.), the Court entered an order:

   1. denying Antero's motions to exclude;

   2. denying Antero's motion to strike;

   3. certifying a class of:

      "Persons and entities, including their respective
      successors and assigns, to whom Antero has paid royalties
      ("Royalties") on Natural Gas, including natural gas
      liquids, produced by Antero from wells located in West
      Virginia at any time since January 1, 2009, pursuant to
      Leases which contain either of the following gas royalty
      provisions: (a) [Lessee] covenants and agrees "to pay
      monthly Lessors' proportionate share of the one-eighth
      (1/8) of the value at the well of the gas from each and
      every gas well drilled on said premises, the product from
      which is marketed and used off the premises, said gas to
      be measured at a meter set on the farm"; or (b) "Lessee
      covenants and agrees to pay Lessor as royalty for the
      native gas from each and every well drilled on said
      premised producing native gas, as amount equal to one-
      eighth (1/8) of the gross proceeds received from the sale
      of the same at the prevailing price for gas sold at the
      well, for all native gas saved and marketed from the said
      premises, payable quarterly."

      The Class excludes: (1) agencies, departments, or
      instrumentalities of the United State of America; (2)
      publicly traded oil and gas exploration companies; (3) any
      person who is or has been a working interest owner in a
      well produced by Antero in West Virginia; and (4) Antero.

   4. appointing Romeo, Rine, and Miller as class
      representatives; and

   5. appoinitng Larry Lee Javins, II, George A. Barton, and
      Howard M. Persinger, III as class counsel.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' proposed class is readily
identifiable, and Antero's claims otherwise lack merit. Antero's
Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Alvyn Schopp, confirmed during his
deposition that its summary royalty reports are a summary of all
payments from 2010 to 2018. He also confirmed that the summary
royalty reports identified payees by payee number, and that
Antero's accounting system maintains information about royalty
calculations and payments. Moreover, Phil Yoo, an Antero employee
in charge of its accounting department, confirmed that Antero
maintains electronic information of all royalty payments it has
made to payees since 2010, even though that information spans two
different accounting systems: Excalibur (2010 to 2013 or 2014) and
Enertia (2013 or 2014 to present). In other words, although Antero
has not yet identified the potential class members by name, it
maintains accounting information that
makes them readily identifiable, thereby satisfying Rule 23's
implicit requirement."

Antero is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. It is
organized in Delaware and headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The
company's reserves are entirely in the Appalachian Basin and are
extracted using hydraulic fracturing.[CC]


ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS: Rosenkrantz Sues Over Unrefunded Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rosenkrantz, Susan Bishop, and Christopher Bishop,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Arizona Board of Regents, Case No. 2:20-cv-00613-JZB (D. Ariz.,
March 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal and
unfair conduct in retaining the costs of room and board and fees
paid by the Plaintiffs and others, while forcing or encouraging
them to move off campus.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid fees
and/or the cost of room and board for the Spring 2020 academic
semester at The University of Arizona, Arizona State University,
and/or Northern Arizona University and who, because of ABOR's
response and policies relating to the Novel Coronavirus Disease
2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefits of the room and board
for which they had paid, and/or the services for which their fees
were paid, without having those fees and costs refunded to them.

In March 2020, ABOR and the Universities announced that because of
the global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be moved online for
the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Students who lived in
on-campus housing were told they had to move out or were strongly
encouraged to do so, such that they had no meaningful choice but to
comply. Further, because all classes were moved online, there was
no reason for students to remain on campus if they had other
housing available to them. This is particularly so in the face of
the dangers, risks, and fear associated with the pandemic.

Despite its constructive eviction of students at the Universities
for the remainder of the semester and ending all campus activities
for at least that same time period, ABOR has not offered refunds to
students for the unused portion of their room and board, nor has it
offered refunds of fees paid to cover the cost of certain on-campus
services, which will no longer be available to students, the
Plaintiffs say. To the extent refunds have been offered, the
refunds have not been commensurate with the financial losses to the
students and their families. ABOR is, in essence, profiting from
this pandemic, they add.

The Plaintiffs are parents of a University of Arizona student and
paid their child's room and board and fees for the Spring 2020
semester.

Arizona Board of Regents is the governing board created under the
Arizona Constitution as the governing body for the
Universities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. RYAN, P.L.C.
          343 West Roosevelt Street, Suite 220
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Phone: 602-256-2333
          Email: rob@robertdryan.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Miller, Esq.
          MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-741-1085
          Email: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com


ASR PIZZA INC: Amato Files Civil Suit in Florida Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASR PIZZA INC., DBA
DOMINOS PIZZA, et al. The case is styled as Tamara Amato,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ASR
PIZZA INC. DBA DOMINOS PIZZA, ANTHONY REULBACH, individually, Case
No. 2020-10464-CIDL (Fla. Cir., Volusia Cty., March 27, 2020).

The case type is stated as "OTHER CIVIL-CIRCUIT."

Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American
multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N Orange Ave., 14th Floor


B. LESTER LAW FIRM: McClinton Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B. Lester Law Firm.
The case is styled as Rachel McClinton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B. Lester Law Firm,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00642-DLR (D. Ariz., April 1, 2020).

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

B.Lester Law Firm is a client focused bi-lingual (Espanol)
neighborhood law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC - Asbury Park, NJ
   701 Cookman Ave., Ste. 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com



BACARDI USA: Court Dismisses Marrache FDUTPA Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Uri Marrache, Plaintiff, v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc. and
Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-23856-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Marrache commenced the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("FDUTPA") class action against Bacardi and Winn-Dixie,
alleging that one of the products made by Bacardi and sold by
Winn-Dixie, the Bombay Sapphire gin, contains a botanical the use
of which is prohibited under Florida law.  The botanical is called
grains of paradise, and it is identified in a Florida Statute
enacted in 1868 that criminalizes the adulteration of liquor.
Marrache does not allege that the bottle of gin he bought
containing grains of paradise caused him any health issues or other
harm.  He instead alleges that the product was "worthless" because
it was adulterated with grains of paradise.  Marrache brings the
class action complaint against Bacardi and Winn-Dixie due to his
purchase of the "valueless" gin.

Now, before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  

The Plaintiff argues that his claims are not preempted because the
Twenty-First Amendment grants states the right to regulate liquor.

Judge Scola holds that the Plaintiff's argument is mistaken.  The
Supreme Court has stated that the Twenty-first Amendment does not
in any way diminish the force of the Supremacy Clause.  Therefore,
the Twenty-First Amendment does not meaningfully change the
preemption analysis in the instant case.  Moreover, the case is
comparable to recent court decisions finding state law claims
stemming from the use of partially hydrogenated oils ("PHOs") in
food were preempted because they conflicted with the FFDCA, which
deemed PHOs to be safe.

Next, Judge Scola explains that FDUTPA provides a civil cause of
action for unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or
practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct
of any trade or commerce.  There are three elements of a FDUTPA
claim for damages: (1) a deceptive or unfair practice; (2)
causation; and (3) actual damages.  The Judge finds that Marrache's
complaint makes no such allegations.  Instead, it states that the
class members were injured by purchasing an illegal product which
is worthless.  Marrache does not set forth allegations explaining
how the product could have been worthless.

Moreover, the Florida Statute criminalizing the adulteration of any
liquor with grains of paradise is preempted by the FFDCA and the
FDA's regulations deeming the additive to be generally recognized
as safe. It is not illegal to sell gin adulterated with grains of
paradise, and therefore, unlike the supplements in Debernardis, the
gin is not worthless.

Likewise, Marrache's claim for unjust enrichment fails, the Court
opines.  Marrache alleges that the Defendants received and retained
wrongful benefits from his purchase of the "valueless" gin.  But,
as described, the Florida Statute criminalizing the adulteration of
gin with grains of paradise is preempted by federal law; it is not
illegal to sell gin adulterated with grains of paradise; and the
gin is not worthless.  The Defendants were not unjustly enriched
because they sold a bottle of gin in exchange for money.

For the reasons stated, Judge Scola granted the Defendants motion
to dismiss with prejudice.  Because Marrache has already amended
his complaint and because the Florida Statute prohibiting the
adulteration of the gin with grains of paradise is preempted,
repleading would be futile, the Court opines.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/qjPmsQ from Leagle.com.

Uri Marrache, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maury Lorne Udell --
mudell@bmulaw.com -- Beighley, Myrick, Udell & Lynne, P.A. & Roniel
Rodriguez, IV -- ron@rjrfirm.com -- Roniel Rodriguez IV PA.

Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation & Winn-Dixie
Supermarkets, Inc., doing business as Winn Dixie Liquors,
Defendants, represented by David B. Massey --
david.massey@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Melissa Linn
Levitt -- melissa.levitt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Martin Leonard Steinberg -- melissa.levitt@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


BAIRES VALET: Vetek Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. Vetek, and other similarly situated individuals v.
BAIRES VALET PARKING, INC., Case No. 9:20-cv-80526-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 27, 2020), is brought to recover damages for half-time unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours during one or more weeks on March 2017, without being
compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff was
not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one-half of their
regular rate of pay for all of the overtime hours worked, based in
part upon the Defendant's custom and practice of failing to credit
and pay for overtime hours actually worked, among other violations
of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a valet parking
attendant.

BAIRES VALET PARKING is a company providing valet parking services
in West Palm Beach County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


BATTLE CREEK PIZZA: Fails to Pay FLSA Minimum Wages, Parker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
BATTLE CREEK PIZZA, INC.; KEVEN HERSHOCK; DOE CORPORATION 1-10;
JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00277 (W.D. Mich., March 27, 2020),
seeks relief from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants repeatedly violated the FLSA by failing to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby, failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked, says the complaint.
All delivery drivers at the Defendants' stores, including the
Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and
practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages
and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.

The Plaintiff worked at Battle Creek Pizza stores as a delivery
driver for the Defendants.

The Defendants operate five Hungry Howie's pizza restaurants in the
Battle Creek, Michigan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Badley K. Glazier, Esq.
          Robert M. Howard, Esq.
          BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
          990 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Phone: (616) 458-6814
          Email: bglazier@bosglazier.com

               - and –

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: 513-715-8711
          Fax: 614-340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
                 lroselle@billerkimble.com


BLAZE PIZZA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Alcazar Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLAZE PIZZA, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01971 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

Plaintiff is legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person,
and member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

According to the complaint, Defendant's website
https://www.blazepizza.com is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers. During Plaintiff's numerous
visits to Defendant's website, he encountered multiple access
barriers which denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the
facilities, goods, and services offered to the public. Allegedly,
Defendant uses standards, criteria, or methods of administration
that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the
discrimination against others.

Blaze Pizza, LLC operates restaurants that provide to the public
important goods and services and its website provides consumers
with access to a variety of fast-casual food and beverage menu
items and apparel which are available online and in restaurant
locations for purchase. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213)381-9988
          Fax: (213)381-9989
          Emails: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of $1M Award to Walmart Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Requesting Parties-Appellants, v.
CLAIMANT ID 100354107, Objecting Party-Appellee, Case No. 18-31275
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order denying discretionary review of
the appeal panel's decision affirming the compensation award of
nearly $1 million to Walmart.

In 2003, Walmart opened "supercenter" #5079 in Pass Christian,
Mississippi, just across U.S. Highway 90 from the Gulf of Mexico.
The company operated the store for approximately two years, until
Hurricane Katrina decimated Pass Christian in August 2005.  The
hurricane destroyed the store, and what was left of the building
was demolished.

In the wake of the hurricane, Walmart immediately announced plans
to reopen the store.  By early 2007, the company had purchased an
additional 34 acres of land for the purpose of expanding its Pass
Christian operation.  Construction of the expanded store began in
late 2008 and continued until Fall 2009.  All the while, from
September 2005 through early October 2009, the Pass Christian
Walmart had no revenue. In late July 2009, the City of Pass
Christian issued a new annual privilege tax license for the store,
effective Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010.  Finally, on Oct.
14, 2009, the rebuilt Walmart #5079 opened to the public.

On April 20, 2010, just six months after the Pass Christian Walmart
reopened, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf
of Mexico.  Following the spill, BP entered into the Economic and
Property Damages Class Action Settlement Agreement with entities
that suffered spill-related economic losses.

The Settlement Agreement provides several compensation frameworks
for business entities, including one for regular Business Economic
Loss ("BEL") claims and another for Start-Up Business Economic Loss
("SBEL") claims.  Both frameworks allow businesses to submit claims
for economic losses computed in part by comparing actual profits
during a post-spill "Compensation Period" to expected profits for
the same timeframe.  The "Compensation Period" is a period of three
or more consecutive months selected by the claimant from between
May 2010 and December 2010 (for regular BEL claims) or between May
2010 and April 2011 (for SBEL claims).  

A primary difference between the BEL and SBEL frameworks involves
how expected profits are calculated.  As described in Exhibit 4C to
the Settlement Agreement, regular BEL claimants recover under the
Settlement Agreement by showing that profits during the spill year
were less than profits during the preceding year(s), whereas SBEL
claimants recover by showing that profits during the spill year
were less than profits the subsequent year.

In June 2015, Walmart filed an SBEL claim for its Pass Christian
store, selecting July 2010 to January 2011 as its Compensation
Period and July 2011 to January 2012 as its Benchmark Period.
Based on financial documentation provided by Walmart, the
Settlement Program computed a total net compensation of $817,392.13
and issued an award for that amount.

BP challenged this award before an appeal panel, urging that
because the Pass Christian Walmart had a "longstanding" history
dating back to its 2003 opening, it had more than 18 months of
operating history and therefore should not have been treated under
the SBEL framework.  BP asserted that Walmart's claim properly
belonged within the BEL framework, which, according to BP, would
yield an award of $0.

The appeal panel noted BP's arguments but affirmed the award.  The
panel acknowledged a prior decision finding that a business with no
sales to customers from January 2008 until April 2009 did not
qualify for SBEL treatment, but observed that Walmart distinguished
that case while supplying several other decisions holding that
periods of dormancy did not preclude start-up treatment.  The
appeal panel agreed with the majority of the decisions and adopted
Walmart's Final Proposal.

BP promptly sought discretionary review of the appeal panel
decision in the district court.  On Nov. 14, 2018, the district
court denied BP's request without comment.  BP timely appealed.

BP argues that the appeal panel misapplied and contradicted the
Settlement Agreement by ignoring its plain language.  BP emphasizes
that nothing in the Settlement Agreement indicates that the
start-up classification requires a continuous 18-month period of
revenue generation leading up to the spill.  Pointing to Policy 381
v.3, BP asserts that a business does not count as a "start-up" if
it "commenced operations" on or before Oct. 20, 2008.  BP thus
contends that because Walmart began doing business in Pass
Christian in 2003 and had well over 18 months of operating history
by the time of the spill, its claim should have been treated under
the regular BEL framework.  Walmart responds that the appeal panel
properly applied the terms of the Settlement Agreement in light of
Policy 362 v.2's "totality of circumstances" test.

The Fifth Circuit holds that the appeal panel made a discretionary
decision not incongruent with the language of the Settlement
Agreement, Walmart's structural argument provides evidence that the
circumstance was never even contemplated by the parties to the
Settlement Agreement.  The Fifth Circuit finds it difficult to
believe that the parties intended to foreclose recovery by
businesses that suffered spill-related losses mere months after
finally resurfacing from the Gulf Coast's previous catastrophe,
Hurricane Katrina.  Quite to the contrary, the Settlement Agreement
instructs the Claims Administrator to select the framework and
information that will produce the greatest economic damage
compensation amount.  The different frameworks for BEL and SBEL
claims were not implemented to favor a particular type of business
or restrict recovery for others, but rather to account for specific
circumstances in a claimant's business that might impede its
ability to file a claim under one or the other framework.

The Fifth Circuit also discerns no split among appeal panels on the
issue presented, let alone a split likely to have a substantial
impact on the Settlement Program.  The appeal panel applied regular
BEL treatment in what it described as a "close call."  Nothing
about the outcome indicates that the panel would "likely" have
applied regular BEL treatment to Walmart's claim, where Hurricane
Katrina destroyed the store and the surrounding community, and
where over four years passed before the store managed to commence
its second operating history.  Moreover, even if BP was correct
that APD 2017-3537 contradicts both APD 2017-3813 and the decision
at issue, that would not be enough to mandate discretionary review.
Where a singular decision only possibly diverges from the others
in a fact-bound "close call," there is little likelihood of
substantial impact on the administration of the Settlement
Agreement.

Because the underlying appeal panel decision did not actually
contradict or misapply the Settlement Agreement on a pressing
question of implementation, and because there was no split among
appeal panels on the issue presented, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying review.  The Fifth Circuit
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/A3oKZ2 from Leagle.com.

Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Neal Manne -- nmanne@susmangodfrey.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Hoke Peacock, J. III -- tpeacock@susmangodfrey.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

Devin Chase Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Aaron Lloyd Nielson -- aaron.nielson@kirkland.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

George W. Hicks, Jr. -- george.hicks@kirkland.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Sarah E. Warlick, for Requesting Party-Appellant.

Daniel A. Cantor -- daniel.cantor@arnoldporter.com -- for
Requesting Party-Appellant.

David Weiner -- dweiner@wmllp.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Christian D. Sheehan -- christian.sheehan@arnoldporter.com -- for
Requesting Party-Appellant.


BR BRAND HOLDINGS: Faces Gonzalez ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BR Brand Holdings
LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. BR Brand Holdings LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02614 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020).

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

BR Brands, LLC, is a consumer packaged goods company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Violates Detainees' Rights, Savino Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Alejandra Celimen Savino, Julio Cesar Medeiros Neves, Thomas
Hodgson, and all those similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs
v. THOMAS HODGSON, Bristol County Sheriff in his Official Capacity;
STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent Bristol County House of Corrections
in his Official Capacity; TODD LYONS, Boston Field Office, Acting
Director, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in his Official
Capacity; CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security, in his Official Capacity; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy
Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director
for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his Official
Capacity; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-PBS (D. Mass., March
27, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the constitutional
rights of immigration detainees.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
immigration detainees at Bristol County Immigration Detention
Facilities to remedy alleged grave violations of their
constitutional rights that imminently threaten them with serious
illness and death and to seek a writ of habeas corpus to remedy
their unconstitutional detention in life-threatening conditions at
Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities.

Despite repeated pleas from the Plaintiffs and community advocates,
and despite clear evidence that the dangerous conditions in the
Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities where the
Plaintiffs are confined will imminently result in the uncontrolled
spread of COVID-19 and the likely death of many detainees,
including the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have continued to confine
detainees in close proximity, without adequate soap, toilet paper,
and other daily necessities; admit new detainees without COVID-19
testing or screening; deny access to testing and medical care for
Plaintiffs and other detainees; and refuse to release even the most
vulnerable detainees with medical conditions that heighten their
risk for infection, sickness, and death, according to the
complaint.

According to the Plaintiffs, these actions by the Defendants are
the result of two egregious errors: the Defendants' flawed policies
and decision-making surrounding COVID-19; and the conditions and
structure of immigration detention and confinement at Bristol
County Immigration Detention Facilities. The Plaintiffs contend
that they are subject to imminent infection, illness, and death
because of their civil immigration detention--literally trapped,
with no safe alternative available to them.

The Plaintiffs assert that facility staff has rebuffed their
inquiries about COVID-19 risks and precautions. They note that
their confinement conditions and detention treatment have created a
dangerous and hazardous situation that imminently threatens their
lives, as well as the well-being of guards and others in the
surrounding community, and the general public. They insist that
immediate relief is necessary before the coronavirus ignites the
tinderbox that is BCHOC and irreversible damage is done.

Unless the Court intervenes to order the release of the Plaintiffs,
they, along with many other detained individuals and outside
communities, will face dramatically increased chances of
contracting COVID-19, becoming seriously ill, and dying, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are immigrant detainees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Oren Nimni, Esq.
          Oren Sellstrom, Esq.
          Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR RIGHTS
          61 Batterymarch Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 988-0606
          Email: onimni@lawyersforcivilrights.org

               - and -

          Michael Wishnie, Esq.
          JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
          P.O. Box 209090
          New Haven, CT 06520
          Phone: (203) 432-4800
          Email: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org


BURROW GLOBAL: Campanaro Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATT CAMPANARO, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BURROW GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00114 (E.D. Tex., March 20, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Project Controls Manager from
approximately August 2018 through March 2020.

The complaint asserts that because of Defendant's employment
pattern, practice, and policy, Plaintiff and other hourly employees
were not properly compensated for all hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week.

Burrow Global Services, LLC is an Engineeriing, Procurement, and
Construction company that operates throughout Texas, Louisiana, and
Oklahoma and provides its services to the refining, specialty
chemicals, petrochemicals, midstream, and onshore upstream
industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUSINESS FIRST: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Pedestal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BUSINESS FIRST BANCSHARES, INC., ROBERT S. GREER, JR.,
LLOYD BENNY ALFORD, JOHN GRAVES, DAVID L. LAXTON III, ROLFE HOOD
MCCOLLISTER, JR., ANDREW D. MCLINDON, DAVID R. MELVILLE III,
PATRICK E. MOCKLER, DAVID A. MONTGOMERY, ARTHUR PRICE, FAYEZ K.
SHAMIEH, JR., KENNETH W. SMITH, ROBERT V. YARBOROUGH, THOMAS
EVERETT STEWART, JR., STEVEN G. WHITE, JACK E. BYRD, JR., N. JEROME
VASCOCU, and PEDESTAL BANCSHARES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00438-UNA
(D. Del., March 27, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Business First Bancshares, Inc. will merge with
Pedestal Bancshares, Inc.

On January 22, 2020, Business First's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Pedestal. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pedestal
will merge with and into Business First, with Business First
surviving, and shareholders of Pedestal will receive 1.745 shares
of Business First common stock for each share of Pedestal common
stock they own.

On March 4, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement/prospectus
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Prospectus, which
recommends that Business First's stockholders vote to approve the
Proposed Transaction at a special meeting scheduled for April 14,
2020, omits material information, which renders the Prospectus
false and misleading, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Prospectus.

According to the complaint, the Prospectus omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction. The
Prospectus omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Raymond James &
Associates, Inc.  The Prospectus also omits material information
regarding potential conflicts of interest of Raymond. The omissions
and false and misleading statements in the Prospectus are material
in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in
deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Because of the
false and misleading statements in the Prospectus, the Plaintiff
and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an owner of Business First common stock.

Business First, through its banking subsidiary b1BANK, operates
twenty-six banking centers in markets across Louisiana and
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


C. & M. SMITH: White Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
William White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C. & M. SMITH RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00217-CHB (W.D. Ky., March 27, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant has violated the wage laws by requiring its
hourly-paid restaurant workers to perform work off-the-clock and
altering punch time records, thereby, failing to pay the workers
for all hours worked, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the
Defendant's illegal pay policies and practices, the Plaintiff and
other hourly restaurant workers were deprived of the hard-earned
wages including overtime at a rate of not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty
per week, says the complaint.

Mr. White was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee.

The Defendant is in the business of "owning, operating, and
developing Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut branded foodservice
operations."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harvey Bradford Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS FEDERAL LAW FIRM
          601 Perimeter Drive, Suite 220
          Lexington, KY 40517
          Phone: (859) 226-2723
          Fax: (859) 273-1520
          Email: brad@harrisfederal.com

               - and -

          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (800) 274-5297
          Fax: (614) 744-2300
          Email: jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com


CANOPY ENERGY: Aussieker Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANOPY ENERGY CALIFORNIA, a California
corporation, Defenfant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02607 (C.D. Cal., March
19, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for
its alleged violation of the consumer-privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a pre-recorded
message in his cellular telephone from Defendant on January 8, 2020
which he confirmed by responding to it and he was transferred to a
live person named Frank who shortly identified himself as from
Canopy Energy. Allegedly, Defendant used automated dialers and
prerecorded messages as one of its telemarketing strategies to
solicit potential customers to use its services.

Plaintiff claims that he did not provide prior express written
consent to receive Defendant's call prior to the receipt of the
calls. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's call has invaded his
privacy and intruded upon his right to seclusion; and occupied the
capacity of his cellular phone and depleted the battery of his
cellular phone.

Canopy Energy California offers alternative energy solutions,
including solar panels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL
          Tel: (305)469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in Rael FTCA Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA HEDRICK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a DELAWARE corporation, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' amended, unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of settlement and provisional class
certification.

On Feb. 11, 2016, Plaintiff Rael brought suit on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated against The Children's Place,
Inc. ("TCP") and 50 unnamed Does.  Plaintiff Rael amended the
complaint three times and added a second Named Plaintiff, Alyssa
Hendrick.

On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint
("TAC") alleging three causes of actions for violations of (1)
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA").  In short, the Plaintiffs' three causes of
action stem from the accusation that the Defendant routinely
advertises discounted prices from false original prices to deceive
customers as to the real value of their goods and unlawfully drive
sales.

On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs also filed the initial unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of settlement and provisional class
certification.  The Court heard that motion on Feb. 8, 2018.  On
April 2, 2018, the Court stayed proceedings pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision on the petitions for rehearing en banc in In re
Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation.  It denied the Plaintiffs'
initial settlement motion on June 8, 2018 as moot.  The Parties
filed status updates during the pendency of the stay.

On June 17, 2019, the Court lifted the stay.  Then, on Oct. 31,
2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for preliminary
approval of settlement and provisional class certification.  They
included the declarations of Todd Carpenter as Class Counsel and
Carla Peak of Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC ("KCC").  On Nov.
22, 2019, TCP filed a notice of non-opposition.

On Dec. 6, 2019, the Court held a second hearing on the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion.  It then ordered the Parties supplement the
record with factual support for their assertions at the hearing.
On Jan. 3, 2020, the Parties filed three documents complying with
the Court's order: (a) another declaration by Class Counsel Todd
Carpenter dated Jan. 3, 2020; (b) the Plaintiffs' supplemental
briefing; and (c) the declaration of Vipul Jain, a TCP employee.

The Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of a nationwide class
including all individuals in the United States who, from Feb. 11,
2012 through the date the Court enters the preliminary approval
order, purchased any product bearing a discount at one of The
Children's Place retail or outlet stores.

The Plaintiffs further divide the Class into three Tiers.  "Tier 1
Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying
purchases total less than $50, or any individuals who do not submit
proof of their purchases.  "Tier 2 Authorized Claimants" include
individuals whose qualifying purchases total $50.01 to $150.  "Tier
3 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying
purchases total more than $150.  Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claimants are
required to submit proof of their purchases.  Tier 1 Claimants get
one voucher, Tier 2 Claimants get two vouchers, and Tier 3
Claimants get three vouchers.

To compensate the Class for settling the action, the Settlement
Agreement provides for a "Voucher Fund", which will contain 800,000
vouchers to be awarded to the qualifying Class Members.  Vouchers
may be used at a TCP store, outlet, or online, and come in one of
two forms: (i) $6 off a purchase (no minimum purchase) or (ii) 25%
off a purchase (of the first $100).  Vouchers are "transferable,"
valid for 6 months, and may be used on items that are on sale or
otherwise discounted.  They cannot be combined with any other
coupon or promotional offer, redeemed for cash, or replaced if
lost, stolen, or damaged.  The $6 vouchers are "stackable" while
the 25% vouchers are not.

The Settlement Agreement also permits the Named Plaintiffs and the
Class Counsel to recover fees independent of the Voucher Fund.
Each Named Plaintiff may recover an "Individual Settlement Award"
of $2,500 or less, subject to the Court's approval.  The Class
Counsel may seek up to $1.08 million in costs and fees (total),
subject to the Court's approval.  If the Court awards less than
that maximum amount in fees and costs to the Class Counsel, the
difference between the actual award and $1.08 million will go to
the Voucher Fund or, if certain criteria are met, become a cy pres
distribution to the National Consumer Law Center.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a tri-part notice structure.
First, the Claims Administrator will post the Full Notice -- a
document explaining the Settlement Agreement, the Class, the Order,
and other information critical to the Class Members -- to an
internet website specifically created for the settlement.  Second,
the Claims Administrator will use reasonable efforts to identify
those TCP customers who may be Class Members for whom it has a
valid email address and provide e-mail notice to those addresses.
Third, the Claims Administrator will start implementing an online
notice program through the Google Display Network.

The Parties claim that their tri-part Notice Plan will reach
approximately 70% of the class on average 2.5 times each.  TCP
agrees to bear the "administration costs, notice costs and any
other related costs (including, but not limited to, distribution),
consistent with Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement, and up $1
million.  The Parties, through the Claims Administrator, will
execute the Notice Plan within 60 days of the entry of the Order.

Judge Curiel granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement and provisional certification
of the Class.  The Settlement Agreement, including the Full Notice,
E-Mail Notice, Online Media Notice, and Claim Form, are
preliminarily approved.  The Notice Plan is approved.  The Parties
and the Claims Administrator will notify the Class Members of the
Settlement in the manner specified under Section 3.3 of the
Settlement Agreement.  The Parties will comply with Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1781(d) by giving notice of the Settlement by publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the
alleged transactions occurred as provided by law.

The Class is provisionally certified as a class of all individuals
in the United States who, within the Class Period, made a
Qualifying Purchase.  The Parties will send new CAFA Notice Packets
which include notice as to the date, time, and location for the
Final Fairness Hearing, and a copy of the Order.

Plaintiffs Monica Rael and Alyssa Hedrick are conditionally
certified as the Class Representatives to implement the Parties'
settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.  The law
firm of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP is
conditionally appointed as the Class Counsel.  The firm of Kurtzman
Carson Consultants LLC is conditionally appointed as the Claims
Administrator.

The Class Members may (i) file a Claim, as explained in Section 3.6
of the Settlement Agreement, (ii) object to the Settlement
Agreement, as explained in Section 3.9 of the Settlement Agreement;
(iii) request to be excluded from the class, as explained in
Section 3.10 of the Settlement Agreement; and (iv) appear at the
Fairness Hearing upon request as explained in Section 3.9(c) of the
Settlement Agreement.

All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines are stayed
until further notice from the Court, except for such actions as are
necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement and the Order.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on July 31, 2020, at 1:30
p.m.

All parties must adhere to the following dates:

     a. Last day for Defendant, through the Claims Administrator,
        to: (1) Send E-Mail Notice, (2) Start operating
        Settlement Website, and (3) Begin to provide Online Media
        Notice - 60 days after entry of the Order 3/31/2020

     b. Last day for Plaintiffs to file fee petition - 90 days
        after entry of the Order 4/30/2020

     c. Last day for Class Members to: (1) File a claim, (2)
        Request an exclusion, or (3) Object to the Settlement
        - 20 days after entry of the Order 5/30/2020

     d. Last day for Parties to file briefs in support of
        the Final Order and Judgment - One month before the
        6/30/2020

     e. Date of Fairness Hearing - 160 or more days
        7/31/2020 at 1:30 p.m. (to be held in Courtroom 2D
        of the Edward J. after entry of the at Schwartz
        U.S. Courthouse, 221 West Order Broadway, San Diego,
        CA 92101)

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/HY55jP from Leagle.com.

Monica Rael, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Courtney Casola,
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP, Scott Gregory Braden,
The Stone Law Group & Todd D. Carpenter --
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LLP.

Alyssa Hedrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Gregory Braden, The Stone
Law Group & Todd D. Carpenter, Carlson Lynch LLP.

The Children's Place, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Michelle C. Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP & Darcie Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish.


CLIENT SERVICES: Baranskyi Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Anatoli Baranskyi, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01620 (E.D.N.Y., March 31,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to 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. Client Services assists businesses
throughout markets in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 741-4799
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

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



CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Shields FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Karimah Shields, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01566 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 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: Stolzberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Aron Stolzberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01578 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 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:

          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) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


CMC ASSET: Valencia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos M. Valencia, and other similarly-situated individuals v. CMC
ASSET HOLDINGS, LLC THE LOCAL CUBAN, LLC a/k/a THE LOCAL CUBAN
EATERY, and JULIO MALLEA and CARMEN MALLEA, Individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-21351-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2020), seeks to recover
damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and retaliation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours every week; however, every week the Plaintiff was paid for
less than 40 hours. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
minimum wages and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half
his regular rate for every hour that they worked in excess of 40,
in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a cook, line
cook, and prep cook.

THE LOCAL CUBAN EATERY is a restaurant located in Miami Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


COBBFENDLEY INTERNATIONAL: Leal Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES LEAL, Plaintiff v. COBBFENDLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC and COBB
FENDLEY & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00372
(W.D. Tex., March 24, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to compensate Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid crew
chief from May of 2019 to the present.

CobbFendley International, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company whose registered agent for service is Allen Watson, at
13430 NW Freeway, Suite 1100 in Houston, Texas.

Cobb Fendley & Associates, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit
corporation. Its registered agent for service in Texas is
Corporation Service Company located at 211 EastA 7th Street, Suite
620, Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 s. Shackleford Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211          
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

COLBURN ELECTRIC: De La Torre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lee De La Torre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Colburn Electric Company, Case No.
4:20-cv-00127-JED-JFJ (N.D. Okla., March 27, 2020), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Pay Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff time and
one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven day workweek.

The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in numerous
seven-day workweeks as an employee of the Defendant. However, the
Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular
rate of pay for all of those hours worked over 40 in each and every
seven-day workweek in the time period relevant to the Plaintiff's
claims, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an electrician for the Defendant from May
14, 2014, to January 21, 2020.

The Defendant provides residential and commercial electrical
installation, service, and repair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 251-4157
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          Email: vaught@txlaborlaw.com


COMPASS GROUP: Bryant Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, CHRISTINE BRYANT, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC, Defendant, Case No.
19 C 6622 (N.D. Ill.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County for lack
of Article III standing.

Bryant filed the putative class action in the Chancery Division of
Cook County Circuit Court on Aug. 23, 2019.  In her complaint, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Compass Group violated her
statutory rights under two sections of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") when it required her to provide a
fingerprint scan prior to purchasing items from its vending
machine.  

The Plaintiff first alleges that the Defendant violated Section
15(b) of BIPA by collecting her biometric data at one of its
SmartMarket vending machines without obtaining her written consent.
She alleges that the fingerprint collection also violated Section
15(a) of BIPA because the Defendant obtained her fingerprint
without establishing a written retention schedule and destruction
guidelines for possession of biometric data.  The Plaintiff does
not allege that the Defendant collected her biometric data without
the Plaintiff's knowledge, shared her data with any third party, or
created a risk that her data would fall into the hands of an
unauthorized third party.

On Oct. 4, 2019, the Defendant filed a notice of removal in the
Circuit Court.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for
remand, claiming that she lacks standing because she has not
alleged an injury-in-fact as required by Article III standing
requirements.  The Defendant opposes remand, arguing that the
Plaintiff has alleged an injury-in-fact such that she has standing
to bring the claim in federal court.

The question before the District Court is whether procedural
violations of sections 15(a) and 15(b) -- without any allegation of
harm stemming from the violations or any distribution of biometric
data to third parties -- can constitute concrete injuries for
Article III standing purposes.  

The Seventh Circuit addressed an analogous question in Miller v.
Southwest Airlines Co.
In that case, union airline workers alleged that their employers
required them to use fingerprint identification without following
the procedures laid out in sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA.  The
union workers further alleged that these violations caused them
concrete harms or increased the likelihood that they might suffer
such harms.  Specifically, the workers alleged that their employers
may have shared their fingerprint data with outside administrators,
which created a "greater risk of disclosure" to "criminals who hack
into a computer system."  The workers also alleged that had they
not consented to the fingerprint identification, they faced the
prospect of a material change in the terms and conditions of their
employment.  These allegations of material harm stemming from BIPA
violations gave their claims the "concrete dimension" necessary to
establish Article III standing.

The District Court holds that it is the State's policy that an
individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect,
beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to
qualify as an 'aggrieved' person entitled to relief.  But it is the
policy of the federal courts, by contrast, that a plaintiff must
allege an "actual or imminent" injury in order to establish Article
III standing.  Had the Illinois Supreme Court instead characterized
violations of Sections 15(a) and (b) as "actual injuries," then the
Court would be obliged to construe the procedural violations
alleged in the instant case accordingly.

However, the Illinois Supreme Court explicitly indicated that BIPA
procedural violations are not themselves actual injuries.  Because
the authoritative interpreter of Illinois law has dictated that
procedural violations of Sections 15(a) and (b) are not "actual
injuries," the Plaintiff has not alleged an injury with a "concrete
dimension" as required by Miller.  The Plaintiff -- like several
plaintiffs who have alleged similar claims before other courts in
the district -- thus lacks standing to pursue her claims in the
Court.

For these reasons, Judge Kendall concludes that the Defendant has
failed to establish that the Plaintiff has Article III standing.
The Judge therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand to the
Circuit Court of Cook County.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County forthwith.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum
Order & Opinion is available at https://is.gd/71kssS from
Leagle.com.

Christine Bryant, on behalf of herself and all other persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com
-- Werman Salas P.C., Maureen Ann Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com --
Werman Salas P.C. & Zachary Cole Flowerree --
zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C.

Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Clark
Wylie, II -- joseph.wylie@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Kenn
Brotman -- kenn.brotman@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Molly K.
McGinley -- molly.mcginley@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Paul W.
Sweeney, Jr. -- paul.sweeney@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac
vice.


CORECIVIC INC: Kansas Dist. Denies Bids to Intervene in Huff Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America, and
Securus Technologies, Inc. Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied the requests
filed by pro se Movants Tywan A. Poole, Montgomery Carl Akers, and
Tyreece Gray to intervene in the class action case pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24.

The litigation arises out of a lawsuit alleging state and federal
wiretap claims against CoreCivic, Inc. ("CCA") and Securus
Technologies, Inc.  Named Plaintiffs Huff and Rapp are individuals
who were held by the United States Marshal Service at CCA beginning
on Oct. 6, 2015 and Aug. 14, 2014, respectively.  They allege that
they had numerous phone conversations with their attorneys while
housed at CCA with the understanding that their conversations were
private.  The Plaintiffs allege that CCA and Securus recorded
communications between detainees and their attorneys.  They allege
that after entry of the Court's 2016 cease and desist order in
United States v. Black, No. 16-20032-JAR (D. Kan.), the Defendants
continued to record attorney-client telephone calls for no
legitimate reason related to the facility's security or public
safety.

On Sept. 26, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement between the parties, whereby the Defendants
agreed to establish a common settlement fund in the amount of $1.45
million to be paid to the Settlement Class Members consisting of
detainees or former detainees at CCA as damages related to
recording phone calls between detainees and their attorneys.

The proposed Settlement Class consists of approximately 540
persons, many of whom remain incarcerated: All detainees at
Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014
through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls
recorded by the Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested
privatization of his or her attorney's phone number (subclass A);
(b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the
attorney's phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson's
cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S.
v. Black, Case No. 2:16-CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the
detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more
Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and
provided written notification of the attorney's phone number at
issue (subclass D).

The Class Counsel developed the Settlement Class member list by
reviewing voluminous call record information and cross-referencing
with privatization data produced by Defendants.  The Class Counsel
worked with CCA and the United States Probation Office to determine
current addresses.  Notice of the Settlement was provided and the
Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on Jan. 28, 2020.  The Class
Counsel did not identify Poole, Akers, nor Gray as members of the
Settlement Class.

The matter is before the Court on the motions of three pro se
movants to intervene in the class action case.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 24
contemplates two grounds for intervention: intervention of right
under Rule 24(a), and permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that he has satisfied
the conditions necessary for either grounds for intervention.

Judge Robinson finds that the Movants have not met their burden
under either rule.  First, the Movants have not identified any
federal statute giving them an unconditional right to intervene in
the case under Rule 24(a)(1) and cannot satisfy the third and
fourth factors established by Rule 24(a)(2).  The Defendants
represent that after extensive review, their records do not
indicate that any Movant is a member of the Settlement Class or any
of the sub-classes certified by the Court in the case, nor has any
Movant provided any evidence to establish class membership.

Because the Movants have not established class membership, they
effectively maintain no interest in the disposition of the cause
and fail to show how their respective interests would be impaired
or impeded by the denial of intervention.  In fact, adding the
Movants to the case would prejudice their interests because they
would not benefit from the Settlement.  Should the Court approve
the Settlement, this case will be dismissed with prejudice; if the
Movants are added as parties, they will receive no compensation
under the Settlement and their claims will be dismissed with
prejudice.  Further, any interest Movants do maintain, though not
described in their respective motions, can be pursued through
separate litigation.

Second, Judge Robinson agrees with the parties that the Movants'
addition to the class action litigation as pro se litigants, at
this late stage of the case, would not aid in the disposition of
the case.  Instead, intervention would only serve to unnecessarily
clutter and delay adjudication of the current proceedings.  

For these reasons, Judge Robinson denied the pro se Movants'
Motions to Intervene.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/kort7Z from Leagle.com.

Ashley Huff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Gregory L. Rapp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian C.
McCart -- bmccart@btm-law.com -- Law Offices of Brian Timothy
Meyers, Brian Timothy Meyers -- btmeyers@btm-law.com -- The Law
Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers, Joseph A. Kronawitter --
jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC & Robert A.
Horn -- rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC.

CoreCivic, Inc., formerly known as Corrections Corporation of
America, Defendant, represented by Amy D. Fitts --
afitts@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin
-- ltucker@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Michael P. Cutler --
mcutler@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC & Thomas G. Kokoruda--
tkokoruda@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Securus Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua P.
Martin, Securus Technologies, Inc., pro hac vice, Robert Ryan
Harding, Husch Blackwell LLP, pro hac vice & Tessa K. Jacob, Husch
Blackwell LLP.

Montgomery Carl Akers, Movant, pro se.

Tyreece Gray, Movant, pro se.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Taylor Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others situated v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; Case No.
2:20-cv-00655-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2020), is brought to
redress the alleged unfair business practices employed by Costco in
connection with its sale of the herbicide Roundup, which contains
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Defendant's retail stores and Web site sold various
formulations of Roundup directly to consumers despite knowledge
that Roundup may cause cancer. For example, California has
classified the active ingredient, glyphosate, as a chemical known
to cause cancer, such as Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Additionally,
glyphosate is a Class 2A herbicide, meaning the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC")
has determined it is probably carcinogenic to humans.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sold Roundup despite
California's classification and the IARC's findings. The Defendant
has also known Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides have
been banned by many countries, regions, and municipalities
throughout the world because it is dangerous to human health.
Though the Defendant has no control over the information contained
on the labels of Roundup products, it chose to sell the products
without providing consumers with any additional information on its
Web site, store shelves or at the point of sale about the products'
potential health risks, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Defendant's conduct--continuing to sell a line of weed killer
products despite knowing they may be carcinogenic and without
informing consumers about the potential health risks--constitutes
an unfair business practice under the Unfair Competition Law, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Roundup Weed & Grass Killer product
during the Class Period twice.

The Defendant is the second largest retailer in the United States
and engaged in the marketing, sale, and distribution of a product
line of herbicide Roundup.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 396-9600
          Fax: (310) 396-9635
          Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com


CR ENGLAND: Clarke Suit Transferred to Utah
-------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Clarke, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. England, a Utah
Corporation, Defendant, was transferred from the California Central
with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01411 to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah (Central) on April 1, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-00221-DB.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Other.

C.R. England is one of the largest temperature-controlled carriers
in the nation dedicated to providing a comprehensive range of
transportation solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



CREDIT CONTROL: Humphreys Files Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Shane Humphreys, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC
and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00542-MWB (M.D. Penn., April 1, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Restrictions of Telecommunications Act.

Credit Control, LLC provides financial services. The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cynthia Levin, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC.
   1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
   King of Prussia, PA 19046
   Tel: (888) 529-9111 ext 818
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Teage Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Meitta Teage, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC,
LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00312 (M.D.
Fla., March 26, 2020).

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

Credit Control, LLC, provides financial services. The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


D & A SERVICES: Faces Friedman FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC
of IL. The case is styled as Joshua Friedman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. D & A Services, LLC of
IL, Case No. 1:20-cv-02009 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2020).

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

D & A Services is a collection agency that services to the consumer
bankcard/retail industry, auto deficiency, business to business,
and financial services industry.[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


DEBT RECOVERY: Ruffin Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gusie Ruffin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Debt
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, John
Does 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-00120-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., March 26,
2020).

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

Debt Recovery Solutions is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


DEVA CONCEPTS: Faces Bolash Product Liability Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deva Concepts, LLC.
The case is captioned as Kelliann Bolash, Jules Purnell, Ingrid
Nin, Deborah Johnson, and Geneva Goldstein, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deva Concepts, LLC,
doing business as DevaCurl, Case No. 1:20-cv-02045-GHW (S.D.N.Y.,
March 6, 2020).

The suit demands $9.999 million in damages asserting product
liability tort claim. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Gregory H. Woods.

Deva manufactures hair care products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Koenig, Esq.
          HECHT, KLEEGER, PINTEL, & DAMASHEK
          19 West 44th Street No. 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 490-4800
          E-mail: koenig@lawyer1.com


DOUBLE DOWN: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Benson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON; MARY SIMONSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-36015 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying Double Down and International Game's motion to compel
arbitration.

Double Down failed to carry its burden to prove, under Washington
law, that either Plaintiff assented to the arbitration clause in
its terms of use, the Ninth Circuit finds.  The existence of mutual
assent in the online context turns on whether the consumer had
reasonable notice of the governing terms.  In the absence of actual
notice, a browsewrap agreement like the Terms of Use at issue, is
enforceable only if a reasonably prudent user would have
constructive notice of those terms.  Constructive notice, in turn,
depends on the conspicuousness and placement of the terms and
conditions, as well as the content and overall design of the
website or mobile application.

Simonson never received constructive notice of the Terms of Use.
As in Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., a user would have to closely
scrutinize Double Down's page on the Apple App Store in order to
find the Terms of Use during the downloading process.  There is no
reference to them on the opening screen of Double Down's page;
instead, they are buried at the bottom of the page and accessible
only after scrolling past multiple screens and images that a user
need not view to download the platform.

And during gameplay on Double Down's mobile platform, finding the
Terms of Use is just as much of a "hide-the-ball exercise" as it
was in Wilson: A user must first locate a small settings menu in a
corner of the screen that is obscured amongst the brightly colored
casino games, and then find the "Terms of Use" heading in the
pop-up settings menu, which is not bolded, highlighted, or
otherwise set apart from the four other headings in that menu.

Benson also never received constructive notice of Double Down's
Terms of Use.  When a user first connects to the Facebook platform,
the Terms of Use are accessible through a gray "App Terms"
hyperlink on a pop-up screen that is below and smaller than all
other text on the screen.  The pop-up screen also does not inform
users that they are bound by the Terms of Use.

The "Terms of Use" hyperlink and accompanying notification that are
accessible during gameplay on the Facebook platform do not cure the
notice problem.  Significantly, the hyperlink and notification
become visible only after a user scrolls to the bottom of the
platform.  Moreover, like the settings menu on the mobile platform,
the hyperlink and notification are obscured amongst the brightly
colored icons on the Facebook platform, id., and they are set out
in typeface that is substantially smaller than all other text on
the screen.

Double Down's remaining arguments are not persuasive.  Repeated use
of a website or mobile application does not contribute to
constructive notice because users are no more likely to stumble
upon inconspicuous hyperlinks on their hundredth or thousandth
visit than they are on their first.  Nor do the terms and
conditions that govern all transactions on the Apple App Store
place a reasonably prudent user of the mobile platform on
constructive notice of Double Down's Terms of Use.

For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling on the
motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Jan. 29, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/OeqrXA from Leagle.com.


EARNHARDT'S GILBERT: Winters Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. d/b/a
Earnhardt Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, Case No. 2:20-cv-00615-SMB (D.
Ariz., March 27, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone. While
the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant's, the Defendant did
not secure proper written consent, as is required under the 2013
telemarketing regulations. The Plaintiff did not sign a compliant
written consent form. Instead, the Defendant simply robot-dialed
all of its customers for marketing purposes in the same or similar
manner as the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Mesa, Arizona.

The Defendant operates an automobile dealership business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EISAI INC: Sued by Zottola for Selling Defective Belviq Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Zottola, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EISAI INC., ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and CVS HEALTH
CO., Case No. 7:20-cv-02600 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020), is a
brought to recover damages and restitution for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, violation of New York General Business
Law, violation of New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment,
fraudulent concealment, fraud, and conversion.

The case is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendants Eisai and
Arena's manufacturing and distribution of the weight loss
medications Belviq and Belviq XR that exposed unknowing users to a
significantly elevated risk of cancer. Worse is that Defendants
Eisai and Arena knew, from the early stages of research and
development of these medications that they exposed users to high
rates of cancer. Eisai and Arena nevertheless pushed the product to
market and sold tens of millions of dollars, or more, of these
defective medications to the Plaintiff and Class members, according
to the complaint.

Patients like Ms. Zottola and Class members, who had previously
paid substantial sums of money to purchase and use these
medications, which, incidentally, were not covered by most, if not
all, insurance companies, suffered injury as a result of using the
products, the Plaintiff contends. Without insurance coverage, a
one-month supply of Belviq Medications costs approximately $300.
The Plaintiff alleges that the dangerous nature of these
medications was known to their manufacturers, who knew about the
cancer risk from the early stages of research and development of
the medications, well before the products were brought to market.
Nevertheless, she argues, Defendants Eisai and Arena pushed the
products to market, minimizing and downplaying, and at times
obfuscating the cancer risk.

The Plaintiff asserts that she and the Class were injured by the
full purchase price of their Belviq medications because the risks
of the medications outweighed their benefits and the medications
should never have been sold in. Had Defendants Eisai and Arena been
forthright with the FDA regarding the animal studies conducted
beginning in 2007, and the true cancer risk of the medications, the
medications would never have made it to market, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was prescribed and purchased and used Belviq,
manufactured by Eisai and Arena, on several occasions over a period
of two years.

The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing,
distribution, and sale of defective Belviq and Belviq XR in the
United States, including in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: sweetcot@bursor.com


ENSIGN UNITED: Filing of Third Amended Newell Complaint Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS NEWELL, an individual, for himself and those
similarly situated; MIGUEL CALDERON, an individual, for himself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES
DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-01314-LJO-JLT
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno
Division, granted the Plaintiff leave to file a third amended
complaint with the Court without delay.  The Defendant may file its
responsive pleading no later than 30 from the filing of the third
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/MG9FZO from Leagle.com.

Louis Newell, an individual, for himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Hefelfinger --
info@calemploymentcounsel.com -- Palay Hefelfinger APC & Michael A.
Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss & Strauss, APC.

Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc., a California
corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Cooper --
dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Klein, Denatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb
& Kimball, LLP, Mayra G. Estrada -- mestrada@kleinlaw.com -- Klein
DeNatale Goldner & Olivia Vanessa Franco Chavez --
vchavez@kleinlaw.com -- Klein DeNatale Goldner.


EURO HOMECARE: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARIA GORZKOWSKA, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EURO
HOMECARE LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01773-VAB (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order:

   1. granting their motion for conditional certification and
      notice to potential Plaintiffs;

   2. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs, within 10
      days from the date of this Court's Order granting this
      Motion, the names, dates of employment, last known home
      addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of
      birth, and the last four digits of social security numbers
      of all individuals who worked for Defendants as live-in
      caregivers or companions at any time between November 7,
      2016 and the present;

   3. authorizing the Notice included with the Plaintiffs'
      Motion to be immediately issued by first class mail and
      electronic mail to those individuals whose names are
      provided, and posted at Defendants' offices;

   4. authorizing the consent to join lawsuit form included with
      Plaintiffs' Motion to be enclosed and posted with the
      Notice to Potential Plaintiffs, along with a self-
      addressed, stamped envelope; and

   5. providing the potential class members of up to 120 days
      after the mailing and/or e-mailings of the Notice to file
      a Notice of Consent to opt in to this litigation as
      plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to compensate
their live-in homecare employees in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Consequently,
these current and former employees are entitled to unpaid hourly
and overtime wages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, says the complaint.

Euro Homecare is non medical in-home care agency that specializes
in elderly care.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the putative collective are:

          Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: 301-587-9373
          Facsimile: 240-839-9142
          E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com

FCA US LLC: Melson Files Product Liability Suit in D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as Eric Melson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-00042-DLC (D.
Mont., March 27, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as motor vehicle product liability.

FCA US LLC is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. FCA designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes
vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo
brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          HEENAN & COOK
          1631 Zimmerman Trail
          Billings, MT 59102
          Phone: (406) 839-9091
          Fax: (406) 839-9092
          Email: john@lawmontana.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
          BECHTOLD LAW FIRM
          PO Box 7051
          Missoula, MT 59807-7051
          Phone: (406) 721-1435
          Email: tim@bechtoldlaw.net


FCA US: Faces Galloway Suit in Utah Over Unsolicited Phone Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US. The case is
captioned as Greg Galloway individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. FCA US, Case No. 2:20-cv-00149-DBB
(D. Utah, March 6, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David Barlow.

The lawsuit asserts claim against the Defendant for unsolicited
telephone sales.

FCA US is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. FCA designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes
vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep (TM), Ram, FIAT and Alfa
Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nancy A. Mismash, Esq.
          ROBERT J. DEBRY & ASSOCIATES
          4252 S 700 E
          Salt Lake City, UT 84107
          Telephone: (801) 262-8915
          E-mail: nmismash@robertdebry.com


FERNANDES BROTHERS: Faces Gutierrez Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fernandes Brothers,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Vicente S. Gutierrez, On
Behalf Of All others similarly situated v. Fernandes Brothers, Inc.
doing Business As Legacy Ranches and Fern Oak Farms; Joshua S.
Fernandes; and Jared R. Fernandes, Case No.VCU282364 (Cal. Super.,
Tulare Cty., March 6, 2020).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

A case management conference will be held on July 21, 2020, the
Court says.

Fernandes Brothers is an exporter of cashews.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Enrique Martinez, Esq.
          333 Hegenberger Rd., Ste. 500
          Oakland, CA 94621-1462
          Telephone: (510) 588-1000


FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Parish Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Parish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC D/B/A LA FITNESS, a
California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:20-cv-00613 (C.D.
Cal., March 27, 2020), seeks to secure redress for the Defendants'
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Defendant is an American gym chain with more than 700 clubs
across the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 agold@tzlegal.com

               - and –

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6807
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


GLASS MOUNTAIN: Faces Kennedy Suit over Recording of Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLASS MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00554-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 24, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's representative or agent called his cellular phone
number on January 26, 2019, and they discussed his personal
information including financial information related to his
impending bankruptcy. During the conversation, he was not informed
that the call was being recorded which violated his rights of
privacy pursuant to the CIPA.

Glass Mountain Capital, LLC is a debt collection agency
headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -
           
          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

GREAT DESTINATIONS: Threde Files TCPA Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Great Destinations, Inc. The
case is styled as Johnathan Threde, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Great Destinations,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02231-TSH (N.D. Cal., April 1,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over the Restrictions of Use
of Telephone Equipment.

Great Destinations, Inc. offers sales services of resort
timeshares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jon Bernhard Fougner, Esq.
   600 California Street, 11th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 577-5829
   Fax: (206) 338-0783
   Email: Jon@FougnerLaw.com

      - and -

   Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
   Paronich Law, P.C.
   350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
   Hingham, MA 02043
   Tel: (617) 485-0018
   Fax: (617) 830-0327
   Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


HANNA LAW: 6th Cir. Affirms Amended Judgment in McClain Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THEODORE McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALEN
PATRICK HANNA, I; HANNA LAW PLLC; HANNA LLP, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 19-1726 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's amended judgment for
McClain as to all counts in his complaint.  

Ordinarily, a plaintiff can't have his case and settle it too.
McClain thinks otherwise.  McClain settled his case -- without
reservation.  Yet now he wants to represent a putative class action
in the same case.

Less than a year ago, McClain sued Dalen Hanna and Hanna's two law
firms under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and an analogous
Michigan statute.  McClain brought both individual and class
claims.  Within a week, Hanna offered McClain a settlement under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.  That settlement allowed
judgment to be entered in McClain's favor "as to all counts" of his
complaint.  It also gave McClain his full damages (both actual and
statutory) as well as his litigation costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.  Four days later, McClain accepted the settlement
offer but simultaneously filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification -- apparently to preempt a mootness ruling.  Even so,
the district court found the class claims to be moot and entered a
judgment dismissing both the individual and class claims.

Yet McClain then pointed out that the court should have entered
judgment in his favor since that's what the settlement said.  So
the district court entered an amended judgment for McClain as to
all counts in his complaint.  The appeal followed.

According to McClain, the question is whether his settlement mooted
his class claims.  But there's an initial problem with that
question: the district court didn't dismiss any of McClain's claims
as moot.  In the end, it entered judgment in his favor as to all
counts.  And it did so based on a settlement agreement in which
McClain failed to reserve any right to pursue his class claims on
appeal.  As a result, the Court now need not reach the mootness
question.

For over a century, federal courts have followed a simple rule:
parties may not challenge a judgment to which they have consented.
Although people sometimes describe this rule as "jurisdictional" or
related to "standing," in reality the consent waives any challenge
on the merits.  Of course, parties may preserve their right to
challenge the judgment if they "reserve that right unequivocally.
But if they fail to do so, they may not challenge issues within the
scope of the judgment.

As applied in the instant case, that rule leads to a
straightforward result.  In their settlement agreement, the parties
agreed to have judgment entered for McClain as to all counts in his
complaint.  The settlement doesn't except any claims or interests
from the judgment.  Nor would it make much sense to read the
settlement that way since the first three "counts" of the complaint
are "class claims."  So when McClain agreed to judgment on "all
counts," that judgment unambiguously includes his class claims.
Indeed, other courts have reached the same conclusion based on
similar language in settlement agreements.  Thus, McClain has
waived any further interest in his class claims and may not pursue
those claims on appeal.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling
on McClain's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's Feb. 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/xDsUqa from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Curtis Warner -- cwarner@warner.legal -- WARNER LAW FIRM,
LLC, Corning, New York, for Appellant.

Dalen P. Hanna -- contact@hannallp.com -- HANNA LAW, PLLC,
Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Curtis Warner, WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC, Corning, New York,
for Appellant.

Dalen P. Hanna, HANNA LAW, PLLC, Birmingham, Michigan, for
Appellees.


HF FOODS GROUP: Faces Mendoza Securities Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Mendoza, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HF FOODS GROUP INC., ZHOU MIN NI, XIAO MOU ZHANG,
CAIXUAN XU, and JIAN MING NI, Case No. 2:20-cv-02929 (C.D. Cal.,
March 29, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded HF Foods securities
between August 23, 2018, and March 23, 2020, inclusive.

On August 23, 2018, HF Foods issued a press release announcing
Atlantic Acquisition Corp. (then the Company's name) recent
"consummation of its business combination with privately-held HF
Group Holding Corporation; its name change to "HF Foods Group
Inc."; and the change in ticker symbol from "ATACU", "ATAC", and
"ATACR" to "HFFG". Further, the press release announced the
following: "As a result of the completion of the business
combination, the former shareholders of HF Group will be issued
19.97 million shares of stock (representing approximately 88.5% of
the outstanding common stock) at a value of $10.00 each, based on a
$199.7M valuation of the combined company."

On August 27, 2018, HF Foods filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission a Form 8-K, signed by Defendant Jonathan Ni, which
described the merger of HF Group and Atlantic.

On November 11, 2018, HF Foods filed with the SEC its quarterly
report for the period ended September 30, 2018, signed by
Defendants Zhou Min Ni and Jonathan Ni. Attached to the 3Q 2018
Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 signed by Defendants Zhou Min Ni and Jonathan Ni attesting to
the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud. The 3Q 2018 Report also purported
to provide all related party transactions.

According to the complaint, the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) HF Foods engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) HF Foods insiders and related parties were
enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds; (3) HF Foods
was "gaming" the FTSE/Russell Index by masking the true number of
shares free floating; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
explaining that HF Foods had, among other issues, failed to
disclose: (i) transactions with related-parties; (ii) its flagrant
misuse of shareholder funds; and (iii) its gaming of the
FTSE/Russell Index criteria. On this news, shares of HF Foods' fell
$2.52 per share, or over 20%, to close at $9.80 per share on March
23, 2020, damaging investors.

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

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

HF Foods, through its subsidiaries, purports to market and
distribute fresh produce, frozen and dry food products, and
non-food products to Asian restaurants, primarily Chinese
restaurants, and other foodservice customers throughout the
Southeast, Pacific, and Mountain West regions in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


HIRSCH PIPE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Loera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL LOERA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. HIRSCH PIPE & SUPPLY CO.,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2020-01136571-CU-OE-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty.,
Mar. 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages, meal period and rest
period premiums, and minimum wages.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee, from October 2008 to April 2019. The Plaintiff and the
other class members worked over eight hours in a day and/or 40
hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants.

Founded in 1933, Hirsch is a wholesale distributor of plumbing
supplies in Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Sakiyna Pacheco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-02607 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020).

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

Immediate Credit Recovery is a private debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael 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) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


INTERSECT ENT: Continues to Defend Yaron Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Yaron v. Intersect ENT,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647.

In May 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647,
against the Company and certain individual officers and directors
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The Court has appointed the lead plaintiff and has set a schedule
for initial motions and pleadings.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

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

Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a
commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs
for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.


JACOBY & MEYERS: Summary Judgment Bid in Harding Suit Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NANCY HARDING & JEFF HARDING, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JACOBY
& MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants. BARBARA J. SMALLS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACOBY &
MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 14-5419, 15-6559
(D. N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denied
their motion to strike the Plaintiffs' expert without prejudice.

The matter arises from a dispute between Nancy and Jeffrey Harding
and their former lawyers, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP ("F&P"), and
a dispute between Barbara J. Smalls and her former lawyers, Jacoby
& Myers, LLP ("J&M").  The Hardings and Smalls retained F&P and
J&M, respectively, to represent them in their personal injury cases
for a contingency fee. Plaintiffs allege that the Law Firm
Defendants improperly charged them for work performed by Total
Trial Solutions, LLC.  Total Trial is a litigation support company
that is partially owned by Andrew Finkelstein, the managing partner
of F&P and J&M.  

The Plaintiffs claim that Total Trial's work should have been
included in the Law Firm Defendants' contingency fee rather than
billed as separate non-legal expenses.  They also allege that the
Law Firm Defendants improperly marked-up the cost of Total Trial's
work in order to make a profit.

On Dec. 7, 2017, the Harding Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to
consolidate the Harding and Smalls matters, arguing that the cases
share factual allegations, legal claims, and parties, including the
proposed classes.  The motion was granted on June 29, 2018 and the
cases were consolidated.

The Harding Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint on Dec. 21, 2017.  They sought to amend the
complaint to add allegations demonstrating that Total Trial is the
alter-ego of F&P and Finkelstein.  Their motion was granted on July
11, 2018, and the Amended Complaint was filed on July 12, 2018.
Smalls was granted leave to file an amended complaint with
virtually identical alter-ego allegations as to J&M, Finkelstein,
and Total Trial on Nov. 16, 2017, and her Second Amended Complaint
was filed on Nov. 27, 2017.

On Dec. 31, 2018, the Defendants sought leave to file a motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated matter.  In their letter
request, they discuss the Plaintiffs' claim together but explained
that they sought to dismiss the Hardings' claims on the merits and
Smalls' claims as moot.  They were granted leave to file the
instant motion for summary judgment on March 22, 2019.

The Order granting leave stated that the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is limited to the issues raised in their letter
and that if they raise additional issues, they will be disregarded
by the Court.  The Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment
on March 27, 2019.  They seek summary judgment dismissing all
claims asserted by the Plaintiffs on the merits, and also
dismissing Smalls as a Plaintiff in the matter for lack of
standing.

With respect to the Defendants' arguments as to Smalls, because the
Defendants were explicitly informed that their motion for summary
judgment must be limited to the issues raised in their letter
seeking leave to file, the Court will only consider whether Smalls
has standing in the matter.  The Court does not consider the
Defendants' arguments that seek to dismiss any claim against Smalls
on the merits.

The Defendants seek to dismiss Smalls' claims for lack of standing.
Judge Vazquez finds that Smalls' personal injury case has not yet
been resolved, and liens are negotiable and may even be waived.  As
a result, while it seems highly unlikely that Smalls will
personally recover any proceeds if her personally injury case is
ultimately resolved in her favor, the Judge cannot conclude with
absolute certainty that it will be impossible to grant any relief
to Smalls through the litigation.  The Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is therefore denied as to Smalls for lack of
standing.

The Defendants argue that the wrongful or inequitable conduct must
be separate and apart from the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint.
Their argument, however, is not supported by New York law.  Under
the alter-ego theory of veil-piercing, the corporate veil may be
pierced when multiple corporate entities disregard the corporate
form and conduct business as a single entity, and that doing so
caused the alleged harm.  That is precisely what the Harding
Plaintiffs allege.  The Harding Plaintiffs contend that Finkelstein
used Total Trial to increase F&P's profits, and that doing so was,
among other things, a breach of Finkelstein and F&P's fiduciary
duties.  There is a material issue of fact as to whether
Finkelstein and F&P breached their fiduciary duties, the Hardings'
retainer agreements, and violated GBL Section 349. Accordingly, the
Judge denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss
the alter ego allegations.

The Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing the Harding
Plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims, which are premised on violations
of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPCs").  The Court
finds that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that F&P is entitled to
its 33 1/3% recovery fee and that expenses were deducted from their
total recovery.  Thus, on its face, there does not appear to be a
violation of RPC.  There is also sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to determine that Total Trial participated in F&P
and Finkelstein's breach of their fiduciary duties as Total Trial
provided F&P with invoices that included the purportedly
unreasonable fees and expenses that were ultimately paid by the
Hardings.  Finally, professionals who owe fiduciary duties to their
client may be subject to tort liability independent from their
contractual obligations as "it is policy, not the parties'
contract, that gives rise to a duty of due care."  In such a
situation, even if the underlying wrongful conduct is the same, a
breach of fiduciary duty claim is not duplicative of a breach of
contract claim.  Thus, the Harding Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary
duty claim are not be dismissed as duplicative.

Next, the Defendants seek to dismiss the Harding Plaintiffs' breach
of contract claims, arguing that the Defendants fully performed
under the retainer agreements.  The Court already concluded that
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
Defendants unreasonably marked-up the cost of services provided by
Total Trial, which is turn reduced the amount that the Harding
Plaintiffs ultimately recovered from their personal injury cases.
A jury may, alternatively, determine that the complained of
counduct amounts to a breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.  As a result, the Defendants' motion is denied
with respect the breach of contract claims.

In Count Three, the Harding Plaintiffs assert a claim against F&P
and Finkelstein for "deceptive business practices" under GBL
Section 349(a).  The Defendants also seek summary judgment
dismissing the Plaintiffs' Section  349 claim.  Again, the Judge
holds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the Finkelstein and F&P unreasonably marked-up non-legal fees from
Total Trial.  Accordingly, a reasonable jury may conclude that it
constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of GBL Section
349.

The Defendants also seek summary judgment dismissing the Harding
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims because the dispute is covered
by the parties' retainer agreements.  In their unjust enrichment
claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants received a benefit
through the Total Trial fees for which they were ultimately
responsible.  The parties, however, do not dispute that the
retainer agreements were valid, enforceable contracts.  Further,
the Court already concluded that the alleged wrongful conduct is
encompassed in the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.
Therefore, their unjust enrichment claim is duplicative as it is
premised on the same rights and obligations as the breach of
contract claim.  Summary judgment, therefore, is granted to the
Defendants as to Count Four.

In a separate motion, the Defendants seek to strike the Plaintiffs'
expert, Andrew Bluestone, because his report contains inadmissible
net opinions and legal opinions, and is not based upon the
evidence.  Because the Court did not rely on Bluestone's expert
report to decide the motion for summary judgment, the motion to
strike is denied without prejudice.  The Defendants may refile the
motion to strike as a motion in limine before trial.

For the reasons stated, Judge Vazquez granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The Judge denied
without prejudice their motion to strike.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/lPIgSx from Leagle.com.

NANCY HARDING & JEFFREY HARDING, Plaintiffs, represented by JOSEPH
R. SANTOLI & OLIMPIO LEE SQUITIERI, SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP.

BARBARA J. SMALLS, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JOSEPH R.
SANTOLI.

JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP, TOTAL TRIAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, ANDREW FINKELSTEIN & KENNETH OLIVER, Defendants,
represented by A. RICHARD ROSS, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & LINDSEY H. TAYLOR --
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO.


JOHN B. STETSON COMPANY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Stetson Company, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John B. Stetson Company,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01637 (E.D. N.Y., March 31,
2020).

John B. Stetson Company is located in Hoboken, NJ, United States
and is part of the Clothing Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com

JOHNS HOPKINS: $4.7MM Attorneys Fees Awarded in Kelly Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARET E. KELLY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE JOHNS
HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-2835-GLR (D. Md.),
Judge George Levi Russell, III of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Northern Division, granted the Class
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
reasonable expenses, and compensation for the class representatives
from a common fund created from the class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs commenced the class action against the Defendant,
asserting seven counts, in August 2016.  In Counts I and II, the
Plaintiffs allege the Defendant breached its duty of loyalty and
prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B) and committed
prohibited transactions under Section 1106(a)(1) by locking the
Johns Hopkins University 403(b) Plan into providing the CREF Stock
Account, regardless of its performance or fees, and locking the
Plan into TIAA's recordkeeping services.  In Counts III and IV,
they allege that the Defendant breached its duties of loyalty and
prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B) and committed
prohibited transactions under Section 1106(a)(1) by using five
vendors instead of a single recordkeeper, allowing those
recordkeepers to receive unreasonable compensation, failing to
prudently monitor and control recordkeeping expenses, and failing
to solicit bids from other recordkeepers.  Under Counts V and VI,
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached its duties of loyalty
and prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B) and
committed prohibited transactions under Section 1106(a)(1) by
failing to prudently monitor Plan investment options, resulting in
the use of high-cost and underperforming funds compared to
alternatives available to the Plan.  Under Count VII, to the extent
the Defendant delegated any of its fiduciary duties, the Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant failed to prudently monitor the actions of
those individuals.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January
2017.  On Sept. 29, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  The motion was granted to
the extent the Plaintiffs allege under Counts I, III, and V that
"Johns Hopkins acted imprudently by offering too many investment
options or higher-cost share classes in the Plan", and for Counts
II, IV, and VI, to the extent that they allege that maintaining
mutual funds or that revenue sharing from a mutual fund is a
prohibited transaction.  The motion was denied in all other
respects.

The parties have engaged in over two years of hard-fought
litigation.  On Aug. 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs then moved for
preliminary approval of a settlement, which was granted on Aug. 16,
2019.  On Oct. 23, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify the settlement class under Rule 23(b)(1) and appointed
Schlichter Bogard & Denton the Class Counsel.  The Court appointed
Named Plaintiffs Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M.
Daley, Jr., Treva N. Boney, Tracy L. McCracken, Jerrell Baker,
Lourdes Cordero, and Francine Lampros-Klein the class
representatives.

The Class Counsel has filed the first cases in history claiming
excessive fees in 403(b) plans.  Prior thereto, no case had ever
been brought by a private law firm or the Department of Labor
asserting claims of fiduciary breach for excessive fees and
imprudent investments involving a 403(b) plan.  Schlichter Bogard &
Denton pioneered this ground-breaking and novel area of litigation.
More than a decade prior, Schlichter Bogard & Denton similarly
pioneered excessive fee litigation involving 401(k) plans.  As has
been repeatedly recognized, Schlichter Bogard & Denton's work on
behalf of participants in large 401(k) and 403(b) plans has
significantly improved these plans, brought to light fiduciary
misconduct that has detrimentally impacted the retirement savings
of American workers, and dramatically brought down fees in defined
contribution plans.

The Class Counsel filed the pending motion for attorneys' fees on
Aug. 23, 2019.  The Counsel requests $4,666,667 in attorneys' fees
(one-third of the monetary recovery), reimbursement of $53,539.78
in litigation-advanced expenses, and case contribution awards of
$20,000 each for Named Plaintiffs Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen,
Jeremiah M. Daley, Jr., Treva N. Boney, Tracy L. McCracken, Jerrell
Baker, Lourdes Cordero, and Francine Lampros-Klein.  The Defendant
has not opposed the motion.

Taking into account the benefit of tax deferral and fee savings,
Judge Russell finds that the settlement is valued at $34,766,732.
Thus, the Class Counsel's requested fee is less than 7.45% of the
total benefit to the class.  This is a conservative estimate
because it does not take into account additional benefits that are
provided through other non-monetary terms.

Judge Russell approves the following hourly rates for Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton: for attorneys with at least 25 years of
experience, $1,060 per hour; for attorneys with 15-24 years of
experience, $900 per hour; for attorneys with 5-14 years of
experience, $650 per hour; for attorneys with 2-4 years of
experience, $490 per hour; and for Paralegals and Law Clerks, $330
per hour.  Within the last several months, the Class Counsel's
reasonable hourly rates were approved by district courts in similar
ERISA class action litigation, including courts in this circuit.

Using the approved rates set forth, the lodestar is $1,907,379.
The requested fee would result in a lodestar multiplier of 2.45 --
well within the range routinely approved in the Circuit.  Given the
substantial risks involved in ERISA excessive fee cases, a risk
multiplier is appropriate for the case.  It demonstrates the
reasonableness of the requested fee award.

As for reimbursement, the Class Counsel requests reimbursement of
expenses in the amount of $53,539.78.  The requested expenses are
all for legitimate costs associated with prosecuting the case and
the amounts are reasonable.  Judge Russell finds that the Class
Counsel's request is fair and reasonable and will approve it.

Finally, Judge Russell finds that the requested case contribution
award for the class representatives is reasonable and appropriate
given their contributions to the action.  The amount is consistent
with awards in similar excessive fee settlements.

Considering the foregoing, Judge Russell granted the Class
Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and case contribution awards for the named Plaintiffs.  The Class
Counsel is awarded (i) an attorney's fee of $4,666,667, to be paid
from the settlement amount; and (ii) expenses of $53,539.78, which
are to be paid from the settlement amount.  The Court also awarded
a case contribution award of $20,000 each for Class Representatives
Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M. Daley, Jr., Treva N.
Boney, Tracy L. McCracken, Jerrell Baker, Lourdes Cordero, and
Francine Lampros-Klein, also to be paid from the settlement
amount.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/HWLPdP from Leagle.com.

Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M Daley, Jr., Treva N
Boney, Tracey L McCracken, Jerrell Baker, Lourdes Cordero &
Francine Lampros-Klein, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Johns
Hopkins University 403(b) Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory
P. Care -- gpc@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP,
Heather Lea -- hlea@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton
LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome J. Schlichter -- jschlichter@uselaws.com
-- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt C.
Struckhoff -- kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and
Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Wolff -- mwolff@uselaws.com --
Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Scott T. Apking,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice & Troy A. Doles --
tdoles@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac
vice.

The Johns Hopkins University, Defendant, represented by Christopher
A. Weals -- christopher.weals@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice & Melissa D. Hill -- melissa.hill@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice.


JUN WEI INC: Faces Zhang Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wen Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JUN WEI INC. d/b/a Oriental Foot Reflexology; JUN WEI
LIU, and FUSHENG LI, Case No. 7:20-cv-02641 (S.D.N.Y., March 29,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Masseur and
Driver.

Jun Wei Inc., doing business as Oriental Foot Reflexology, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Leanghour Lim, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


KONG KEE FOOD: Loh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Keong Loh, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KONG KEE FOOD CORP. d/b/a Kong Kee Food; and KONG KEE
HOLDING CORP. d/b/a Kong Kee Food; IP WING KONG, and YUK LAU LEUNG,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01597 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour
worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a dry foods
packer.

KONG KEE FOOD CORP., d/b/a Kong Kee Food, is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Leanghour Lim, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


LANDCORP STAFFING: Wilson-Sewell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ISAAC WILSON-SEWELL,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. LANDCORP STAFFING,
an unknown business entity; LANDCORP STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, an
unknown business entity; LANDCORP MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, an
unknown business entity; LANDCORP HOSPITALITY an unknown business
entity; LANDCORP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00273937-CU-OE-23 GDS (Filed Jan.
22, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on March 6, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00241 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts class-wide claims against the Defendants for
violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime
and minimum wages and failing to pay meal period and rest period
premiums.

LandCorp is a minority-owned, family business serving the
hospitality industry.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison S. Hyatt, Esq.
          Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
          MEDINA McKELVEY LLP
          983 Reserve Drive
          Roseville, CA 95678
          Telephone: (916) 960-2211
          Facsimile: (916) 742-5488
          E-mail: allison@medinamckelvey.com
                  tim@medinackelvey.com


LOUIS LEEMAN: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louis Leeman (USA)
Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Louis Leeman (USA) Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02618 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020).

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

Louis Leeman is located in New York and is part of the Shoe Stores
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


LOYA INSURANCE: Robledo Sues in Northern District of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loya Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Raul Robledo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loya Insurance Company,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02006 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from issues relating to insurance contract.

Loya Insurance is a Texas-based Hispanic 500 car insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Andrew DiCello, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com


MANETTA ENTERPRISES: Loper Sues over Unpaid OT, Prevailing Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK LOPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MANETTA ENTERPRISES, INC.; ENRICO
L. MANETTA; ENRICO R. MANETTA; and NICHOLAS MANETTA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01532 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime premium pay and unpaid
prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits which
the Plaintiff and Class members were entitled to receive for work,
including weekend work, pursuant to contracts entered by Defendants
and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and as mandated
by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former laborer and saw cutter who worked for
Defendants on New York City roadways, pursuant to contracts with
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., from in or around
2012 through in or around 2014 and again from on or about April 10,
2017 through in or around mid-November 2018.

Manetta Enterprises, Inc. is a construction company with a
principal place of business located at 44-17 54th Drive, Maspeth,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006          
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com

MDL 2047: Court Denies Class Certification in Drywall Products Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, SECTION L (2). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft,
KG, et al., No. 14-2722, Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.),
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Defendants' Motion to Deny Class
Certification.

From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding
efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a
shortage of construction materials, including drywall.  As a
result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United
States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas
of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast.  Sometime
after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to
complain of emissions of foul-smelling gas, the corrosion and
blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking
down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes.  Many of
these homeowners also began to complain of various physical
afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall.

These homeowners began to file suit in various state and federal
courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors,
brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and
manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall.  As a
result, many homebuilders also filed suit seeking to recoup their
damages.  Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases,
the litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation.

Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases
involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court.  Since that date,
numerous cases have been consolidated, involving thousands of
individual claims; over 20,000 documents have been entered into the
record, millions of documents have been exchanged in discovery,
depositions have been taken in the United States and in China, and
over thirty Pretrial Orders have been issued; the Court has
appointed steering committees and liaison counsel for plaintiffs,
homebuilders, insurers, installers, and manufacturers, and it has
presided over monthly status conferences, hearings, and several
bellwether trials.

The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups
of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities.
The litigation has focused upon these two entities and their
downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different
tracks for the claims against each group.

The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of
building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary,
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ("KPT"), advertised and sold
its Chinese drywall in the United States.  They are named
Defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation
and litigation in state courts.

The Knauf Entities first entered their appearance in the MDL
litigation on July 2, 2009.  Subsequently, the Knauf Entities
agreed to institute a pilot remediation program utilizing the
remediation protocol formulated by the Court from the evidence in
Hernandez.  The Knauf pilot remediation program is now completed
and has remediated more than 2,200 homes containing KPT Chinese
drywall using the same general protocol.  

On Dec. 20, 2011, the Knauf Entities and the PSC entered into a
global, class Settlement Agreement, which was designed to resolve
all Knaufrelated, Chinese drywall claims.  In addition to the Knauf
Settlement Agreement and after a jury trial in a bellwether case,
numerous defendants in the chain-of-commerce with the Knauf
Entities have entered into class settlement agreements, the effect
of which settles almost all of the Knauf Entities'
chain-of-commerce litigation.  The total amount of the Knauf
Settlement is approximately $1.1 billion.

The instant matter is a purported class action filed on Nov. 13,
2014 by Elizabeth Bennett in the Northern District of Alabama.  Ms.
Bennett raises claims on her own behalf and on the behalf of a
nationwide class of similarly situated homeowners who allegedly
suffered damages due to the presence of defective Chinese drywall
in their homes.  These claimants discovered the presence of
Knauf-manufactured Chinese drywall in their homes after the Knauf
Class Settlement was executed, so they were not a part of the
census of claimants covered by the Settlement.

The Bennett Plaintiffs raise claims against the Knauf Entities for
negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express
and/or implied warranty, redhibition, violations of the Louisiana
Products Liability Act, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a
corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer
protection laws, equitable and injunctive relief, and medical
monitoring with respect to the alleged manufacture of defective
Chinese drywall.  In January 2015, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Bennett putative class
action to the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated it
with the In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Liability Litigation,
MLD 09-2047, currently pending before the District Court.

On May 4, 2018, the Bennett Plaintiffs filed the operative Fifth
Amended Complaint.  On Oct. 31, 2019, the Court granted the Bennett
Plaintiffs' amended complaint, which added several new Plaintiffs
to the action.  On that date, the Court also extended many of the
Case Management Order's deadlines.  With discovery well underway,
the Knauf Defendants have begun to file dispositive motions
targeting the claims of several individual plaintiffs in the
Bennett action, as well as the instant Motion to Deny Class
Certification.

The Defendants have filed the motion to deny class certification,
arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to timely seek
certification and that even if certification were sought, the
Bennett Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden under Rules 23(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3).  First, the Defendants argue that
although the action has been pending for years, the Plaintiffs have
failed to seek class certification in a manner that complies with
Rule 23(c)(1)'s requirement that certification be determined "at an
early practicable time.  Second, they argue that even if
certification was timely sought, the proposed class in the Bennett
action is not certifiable under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) because the
case involves individual issues that predominate over any common
ones.  Lastly, they argue that an MDL transferee court is
authorized to address class certification, and that the Court has
in fact done so in the MDL.

After hearing oral argument on the matter, the Court holds that the
commonality requirement is satisfied.  The commonality requirement
under 23(a) merely requires that the resolution of one or more
issues will affect a significant number of class members.  All the
proposed class members' claims involve the Defendants' defective
drywall.  The Court has previously found the commonality
requirement under 23(a) satisfied in other aspects of the MDL,
citing the JPML's consolidation of drywall claims based on
commonality of facts.

Satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a) is, however, not
enough to justify class certification.  Rule 23(b) must also be
satisfied.  Rule 23(b) provides that a class action maintainable
under Rule 23(a) must also satisfy one of three distinct,
additional, requirements.

The Court finds because the Bennett claimants seek primarily
monetary relief from Knauf, certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is
inappropriate.  The case also does not involve a limited fund from
which all recoveries must be paid, and there has been no argument
made that the disposition of any individual Chinese drywall claim
would impact another claimant's ability to recover.  Accordingly,
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is inappropriate.

Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs raise a variety of
claims, including claims for property damage, personal injuries,
negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of
warranty, redhibition, Louisiana Products Liability Act, private
nuisance, and negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, as well
as injunctive relief.  The Plaintiffs are domiciled in five
different states, and accordingly their claims arise under five
different states' laws and are subject to various applicable
burdens of proof and defenses.  

The District Court heeds the Fifth Circuit's warning that in a
multi-state class action, variations in state law may swamp any
common issues and defeat predominance.  Based on the variety in the
individual claims and the fact that, were the cases to go to trial,
they would involve different theories of liability, different state
laws, different applicable defenses, and different damage
calculations, the Court is not convinced that the common issues of
liability predominate over the individual issues.

Considering the foregoing, Judge Fallon granted the Defendant's
Motion to Deny Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/Qx4MUh from Leagle.com.

Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.

Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso, Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller --
kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.

Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM
entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg --
harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MERCK & CO: Faces Seals Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax
------------------------------------------------------------
INEZ JEAN SEALS v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01292-HB (E.D. Pa., Mar. 5, 2020), alleges that
Merck failed to warn the Plaintiff and other consumers of the
defective condition of Zostavax, which carry the risk of serious
side effects, such as those suffered by her and other similarly
situated patients.

Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the
intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the
varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that
causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes
chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous
system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such
as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by
vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve
cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin
served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus.

In May 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved
the Zostavax vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States
by Merck. Zostavax was initially indicated for "the prevention of
herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older
when administered as a single-dose." FDA approval was based in
large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS)
supported by Merck. The results of the SPS were published in the
New England Journal of Medicine on June 2, 2005. The paper was
titled "A Vaccine to Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic
Neuralgia in Older Adults". N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;
352(22):2271-84.

According to the complaint, Merck failed to exercise ordinary care
in making representations concerning its product and its
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and
distribution in interstate commerce. Merck negligently and/or
carelessly misrepresented and intentionally concealed the truth
regarding the high risk of the product's unreasonable, dangerous
and adverse side effects associated with the administration, use,
and injection of the product.

Merck breached its duty in representing to her, her physicians and
healthcare providers, and the medical community that Merck's
product did not carry the risk of serious side effects, the
Plaintiff contends.

On March 2, 2016, Mrs. Seals was inoculated with the Defendants'
Zostavax vaccine for routine health maintenance and for its
intended purpose: the prevention of shingles. Shortly after
receiving Defendants' Zostavax vaccine, Ms. Seals suffered sudden
pain in right flank and abrupt onset of a skin rash. The Plaintiff
was diagnosed with herpes zoster with postherpetic polyneuropathy,
says the complaint.

As a direct and proximate result of Merck's defective Zostavax
vaccine, Mrs. Seals' symptoms have resulted in physical limitations
not present prior to using Merck's product, according to the
complaint. Mrs. Seals also experiences mental and emotional
distress due to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of
her condition.

As a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion,
distribution and/or sale of Zostavax, Mrs. Seals also alleges that
she sustained severe and permanent personal injuries. She adds that
as a tragic consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, she suffered
serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable injuries, as well as
significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional
distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and
injury.

The Seals case is being consolidated in the multidistrict
litigation titled in RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY, MDL No. 2848. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Harvey
Bartle, III.

Merck & Co. developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States. Merck Sharp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck &
Co.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Love, Esq.
          Michael Goetz, Esq.
          T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4737
          E-mail: NLovettn@ForThePeople.com
                  MGoetzn@ForThePeople.com
                  Mmorgan@ForThepeople.com


MIKE KELLY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rommel A. Ramirez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. MIKE
KELLY CONSTRUCTION, INC., AEG INSTALLATION CORP. MICHAEL KELLY, and
ADA D. ORTIZ, individually, Case No. 6:20-cv-00538 (M.D. Fla.,
March 27, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, and retaliatory damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours during one or more weeks on or after November 2019, without
being properly compensated. The Defendants willfully failed to pay
the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime hours at the rate of time
and one-half his regular rate for every hour that they worked in
excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a
construction/remodeling worker.

MIKE KELLY CONSTRUCTION, INC. and AEG INSTALLATION CORP. are
respectively a construction/remodeling company, and installation
company specialized in the installation of commercial appliances
and furniture for the hotel industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MOLLY MAID: Underpays Maids-Team Leads, Leyva-Ugalde et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMELIA LEYVA-UGALDE, MARISOL ROMERO, JAZMIN DIAZ, and LUZ MARIA
DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TEN TWENTYEIGHT, INC., d/b/a MOLLY MAID OF GOLD COAST
AND NEAR NORTH; and ARNOLD MAYSTER, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01957 (N.D. Ill., March 24, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for improperly paying the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated workers less than the required minimum wage,
failing to pay them for all compensable work time, and failing to
pay them for earned overtime in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum
Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs Camelia Leyva-Ugalde, Marisol Romero, Jasmin Diaz,
and Luz Maria Diaz were employed by Defendants as maids and later
as team leads in Chicago, Illinois from January 2016 through
January 2020, July 2019 through December 2019, August 2017 through
January 2020, and early 2016 through the present, respectively.

Ten Twentyeight Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based operator of a
residential home cleaning service. It is also doing business as
Molly Maid of Gold Coast and Near North. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max Barack, Esq.
          Haskell Garfinkel, Esq.
          THE GARFINKEL GROUP LLC
          1640 W. Julian
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: (847) 767-0362
                     (312) 404-3792
          E-mail: max@garfinkelgroup.com
                  haskell@garfinkelgroup.com

MYLAN INC: Faces Rochester Drug Suit Over EpiPen Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. MYLAN INC., MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P.,
(collectively, "Mylan") CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, CAREMARKPCS HEALTH
LLC, CAREMARK LLC, CAREMARK RX LLC, collectively, "CVS Caremark"),
EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, EXPRESS SCRIPTS INC., MEDCO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC., (collectively "Express Scripts"), UNITED HEALTH
GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., OPTUM INC.,
OPTUMRX HOLDINGS, LLC, and OPTUMRX INC., (collectively, "the PBMs"
or "the Defendant PBMs"), Case No. 0:20-cv-00827-ECT-TNL (D. Minn.,
March 29, 2020), seeks to recover overcharges due to Mylan's and
the PBMs' alleged illegal anticompetitive conduct, which led to the
artificial inflation of the list prices for EpiPen and Mylan-sold
generic EpiPen in the United States.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf a proposed class of direct
purchasers of EpiPen, EpiPen Jr., EpiPen 2-Pak, and EpiPen Jr.
2-Pak, and generic versions of those products (collectively or
individually, "EpiPen" or "EpiPens"), seeks to recover damages
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Epinephrine auto-injectors ("EAIs") are devices that allow a
patient to quickly self-administer a prescribed amount of the drug
epinephrine through a spring loaded needle as an emergency
treatment for severe allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis).
EpiPens (which are marketed and distributed by Mylan) are the
best-selling EAI in the United States during the relevant events in
this case.

The action arises out of an alleged scheme by Mylan to maintain
and/or increase the volume and dollar amount of its EpiPen sales by
paying bribes and kickbacks to the Defendant PBMs (pharmacy benefit
managers), namely Defendants Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, and
OptumRx (and other, unnamed PBMs) in exchange for: (a) favorable
placement of Mylan's EpiPens on the PBMs' formularies (and the
exclusion or restriction of competing EAI's on the PBM's
formularies); and (b) the elimination of price constraints that
enabled Mylan to dramatically raise its prices without fear of PBM
penalties.

According to the complaint, it was improper and illegal under one
or more state and federal laws for Mylan to pay bribes and
kickbacks to the Defendant PBMs to act contrary to the interests of
their health plan/insurer clients and to conceal same. Because
Mylan's bribes and kickbacks (and accompanying fraud in concealing
that its list price increases were part and parcel of the bribes
and kickbacks) enabled and caused tremendous EpiPen list price
increases that would not have happened absent the misconduct
alleged herein, Mylan's illegal conduct allowed it to improperly
maintain and extend its monopoly pricing power in the EAI market.

The Plaintiff (and the other class members) are direct purchasers
of Mylan's branded and generic EpiPens. They buy directly from
Mylan at the list price. They were overcharged by Mylan's and the
Defendant PBMs' scheme because absent the scheme they would have
paid lower list prices for the EpiPens they purchased, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased branded and generic EpiPens directly from
Mylan.

Mylan Inc. is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Phone: (612) 594-5933
          Fax: (612) 584-4470
          Email: rpaul@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          One Penn Center, Suite 1550
          1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 277-5770
          Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                 jlukens@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Noah Silverman, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 398-0055
          Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                 nsilverman@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: dsorensen@bm.net

               - and -

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 522-0077
          Email: stuart@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          David Golub, Esq.
          Steven Bloch, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: (203) 325-4491
          Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                 sbloch@sgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Segura, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
          221 Ansley Blvd.
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Phone: (318) 445-4480
          Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com
                 draphael@ssrllp.com


NATIONAL COURT: Curran Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert M. Curran, on his own behalf and for all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONAL COURT REPORTERS, INC., Case No. CV 20 931505
(Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahiga, Cty., March 27, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for unlawful collection of fees.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's agents improperly
collected an Administration Fee from the Plaintiff and other
consumers, without disclosing that these charges would be added to
the final invoice. Because the Defendant's contract with the
Plaintiff and the class did not provide for the subject fee, the
Defendant breached its contract in collecting the fee, the
Plaintiff asserts. Alternatively, he adds, because the Defendant
and its agents failed to disclose the Administration Fee when the
Plaintiff hired the Defendant, the Defendant was unjustly
enriched.

On January 13, 2020, the Defendant offered services to the
Plaintiff in a contract quote for rates for the Defendant's
services whereby it would find and coordinate court reporting
services for transcription of depositions. The Plaintiff accepted
the contract on the terms set forth in the quote and retained the
Defendant for its services based thereon. After those services were
performed, and the deposition took place, the Defendant added to
the bill an Administration Fee in the amount of $79 in the invoice
it sent to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that that fee was not in the contract, and he
paid it under protest solely to avoid collection attempts by the
Defendant. The Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of this
undisclosed Administration Fee, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert M. Curran is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

National Court Reporters, Inc., is a for-profit corporation
conducting business activities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Phone: (440) 352-3391
          Fax: (440) 352-3469
          Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                 nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                 fbartela@dworkenlaw.com


NATIONAL DEBT: Thompson Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karestin Thompson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02868 (C.D.
Cal., March 27, 2020), seeks to enforce the consumer privacy
provisions afforded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a
federal law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing
practices.

The Defendant placed unsolicited calls to her cellular telephone in
violation of the TCPA, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that the
Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with
non-emergency advertising and marketing calls without prior express
written consent.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Ventura,
California.

National Debt Relief is a debt settlement company that negotiates
settlements with creditors on behalf of individuals and
families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 800.400.6808
          Facsimile: 800.520.5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          Email: yana@kazlg.com


NATIONAL TIRE: Florida Southern Dist. Narrows Claims in Exum Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bruce Exum, Jr., and Emilie Palmer, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Tire and Battery, and TBC Corp., Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-80121-Matthewman (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge William
Matthewman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.

The case revolves around a federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. Section
574.8, enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ("NHTSA").  Under the Regulation, independent tire
dealers are required to register with the manufacturer new tires
they sell to consumers in one of three ways.  The Regulation does
not provide for a private right of action to enforce it.  Moreover,
the statute that authorizes the promulgation of the Regulation, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, likewise does not
provide for a private right of action.

Nonetheless, undeterred by the lack of a private right of action to
enforce the Regulation, the Plaintiffs allege that they purchased
tires in Virginia from Defendant NTB and that NTB -- and its parent
company, Defendant TBC -- failed to comply with the Regulation's
tire registration requirements, thereby depriving them of the
benefit of their bargains, subjecting them to a materially
increased risk of harm, and unjustly enriching the Defendants.
Because of the Defendants' alleged noncompliance with the
Regulation, the Plaintiffs seek relief in the putative class action
under various legal theories.

In essence, the Plaintiffs claim that even though the Regulation
does not provide for a private right of action, it does establish a
duty on independent tire dealers to comply with the Regulation's
tire registration requirements.  Because the Defendants allegedly
violated this duty, the Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability under Virginia state law (Count
I); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II);
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(Count III); unjust enrichment (Count IV); common law negligence
(Count V); negligence per se (Count VI); and injunctive relief
(Count VII).

The Defendants seek to dismiss the putative class action with
prejudice on four primary bases.  First, they assert that the
Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III standing because they have
failed to adequately allege that they suffered an injury in fact
resulting from the Defendants' alleged noncompliance with the
Regulation.  Second, the Defendants argue that neither Congress nor
any agency created a private right of action to enforce the
Regulation and accordingly it creates no duty on the part of
independent tire dealers that the Plaintiffs can enforce.  Third,
the Defendants assert that the Complaint contains mere conclusory
allegations that they've not complied with the Regulation.  And
fourth, they assert that each separate cause of action is
deficient.

The threshold issue for the Court to resolve is whether the
Plaintiffs have standing under Article III to even bring the suit
at all.  Resolution of the issue requires the Court to analyze the
lawsuit under the Supreme Court's opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, the
Eleventh Circuit's opinions in Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., and
Ayres and other applicable law.  Complicating the resolution of the
standing issue is the fact that one of the primary Eleventh Circuit
opinions that the Plaintiffs rely on, Muransky v. Godiva
Chocolatier, Inc., -- which found Article III standing in a case
brought under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act -- was
recently vacated and is currently pending en banc review by the
Eleventh Circuit.

Further complicating resolution of the Article III standing issue
is the dearth of case law specifically addressing the Regulation at
issue.  The parties' research, and the Court's own independent
research, found only one case, Thorne v. Pep Boys - Manny, Moe &
Jack Inc., which addresses Article III standing in relation to the
Regulation.  In Thorne, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice, finding that, under the allegations of
the complaint filed in that case, Article III standing was lacking.
Clearly, the Article III standing inquiry in the case raises
difficult and complex issues.

The Court must also determine whether the lack of a private cause
of action in both the Safety Act and the Regulation necessarily
precludes the Plaintiffs' claims.  And then finally, the Court must
address whether the Plaintiffs' Complaint is adequately pleaded
both as a pleading matter under the Iqbal-Twombly pleading standard
and as a matter of law as to the legal sufficiency of each of the
asserted claims.

After very carefully reviewing the applicable case law and the
facts alleged in the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Matthewman finds
that (1) the Plaintiffs have standing under Article III to bring
the suit; (2) the lack of a private right of action in the Safety
Act and the Regulation does not necessarily preclude the
Plaintiffs' claims; (3) the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts to support their claims; and (4) the Plaintiffs have
adequately pleaded Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI.  Counts III and
VII, however, must be dismissed.

As for Count III, the Court finds that the Complaint is devoid of
any allegations that the Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive
practices against the Plaintiffs within the State of Florida.  The
Plaintiffs' FDUPTA claim must be dismissed. Such dismissal is
without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to amend its FDUPTA
cause of action to address any defects in Count III.

Count VII, asserts a claim for "injunctive relief."  Injunctive
relief, however, is a remedy, not a separate cause of action.
Thus, Count VII must be dismissed.  The dismissal is without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to seek injunctive relief
based upon a properly pleaded cause of action.

In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Matthewman granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Counts III and VII of the
Plaintiffs' Complaint are dismissed without prejudice.  These
dismissals are without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to file
an Amended Complaint.  The remainder of the motion is denied.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/wBi7qS from Leagle.com.

Bruce Exum, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Emilie Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan Thompson --
brendant@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher C. Kessler -- cck@kesslerlawfirmpllc.com -- The Kessler
Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Eric N. Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com
-- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, J. Olin McDougall, II --
lin@mlf.law -- McDougall Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice, Robert K.
Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP, pro hac vice, Yifei Li -- evelyn@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Jordan Lucas Chaikin --
jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com -- Chaikin Law Firm PLLC.

National Tire and Battery & TBC Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Alexandre S. Drummond -- adrummond@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Daniel M. Blouin -- dblouin@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro ac vice.


NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Recovery
Systems, LTD, et al. The case is styled as Marilyn Jenkins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD, Pendrick Capital Partners II,
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00321 (M.D. Fla., March 27,
2020).

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

Nationwide Recovery Systems (NRS) provides debt recovery,
collections and EBO services for the healthcare and commercial
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


NCU: Falsely Markets Doctoral Program, Katzakian Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN KATZAKIAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY, and DOES 1–10,
inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00808 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., March 4,
2020), is brought under the California False Advertising Act,
Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
seeking to stop the Defendants' practice of falsely advertising
their doctoral program.

The Plaintiff contends that the University represents the program
she signed up for would cost around $20,000, when this is, in fact,
false. She later found out that, although the University promised
that the program would cost about $20,000 to complete, the actual
cost of the program was approx. $60,000. She adds that the
University intentionally misrepresented the length of time needed
to complete its doctoral programs and misrepresented the tuition
she was supposed to incur when completing the program.

The University's misrepresentations to the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated caused them to purchase the University's
services, which they would not have purchased absent these
misrepresentations by the University, says the complaint.

On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff registered with the University
to complete her Doctorate Degree in Marriage and Family Counseling.
The Plaintiff was enrolled in a doctoral program through the
University from 2017 to 2018.

The Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for a California class of
consumers who changed position, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and misleading
advertisements.

NCU is engaged in the marketing, supplying, and providing education
services that are accompanied by alleged deceptive billing
practices that are not disclosed at the time consumers sign up for
the services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, 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
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Rosenfeld FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Elisheva Rosenfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00370 (W.D.N.Y.,
March 27, 2020).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael 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) 281-7601
          Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


OUTLAW LAB: Stores' Bid to File 3rd Amended Counterclaims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:18-cv-840-GPC-BGS, consolidated with No. 3:18-cv-1882-GPC-BGS
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied Counterclaimant Roma
Mikha, Inc., and third-party Plaintiffs NMRM, Inc., and Skyline
Market ("Stores")'s motion for leave to file third amended
counterclaims and a third-party complaint which seeks to add a
counterclaim/third-party Defendant, Boss Law PLLC, and a
third-party Plaintiff, Eureka and Inkster Shell.

As a threshold matter, the Court must consider whether it is
appropriate under Rule 19 or 20(a)(1) to join Shell as a
third-party plaintiff.  The Court concludes that it is not and
denies Shell's joinder.  Shell is not a "required party" to the
litigation, and thus need not be joined under Rule 19(a).
Likewise, Shell's participation in the instant litigation is not
necessary to protect its interests.

The Court also finds that Shell should not be permissively joined
under Rule 20.  Also, the fact that Shell is an additional victim
of the alleged Enterprise's scheme as a third-party plaintiff is
not dispositive.  Consequently, the first prong of Rule 20 fails
because Shell does not assert a "right to relief arising out of the
same transactions or occurrences" as the extant counterclaims.

Similarly, the Court must consider whether it is appropriate under
Rule 19 or 20(a)(1) to join Boss as a third-party Defendant.  The
Court concludes that it is not and denies Boss' joinder for the
following reasons.  Boss is not a "required party" to the
litigation, and thus need not be joined under Rule 19(a).  While
there are some alleged common questions of law and fact, it is not
clear that Boss' conduct arises from the same transaction or
occurrence as the conduct animating the counterclaims or the
underlying suit.  Consequently, the Court finds that Boss may not
be permissively joined as a third-party Defendant under Rule
20(a)(2).

Even if there were some doubt as to Boss or Shell's joinder under
Rules 19 or 20, the proposed countercomplaint would also not pass
muster under Rule 15 as the factors identified by the Supreme Court
in Foman weigh in favor of denying the instant motion.  At first
blush, the Stores' motion does not suffer from undue delay, bad
faith, or repeated failures to cure pleading deficiencies.
Nonetheless, the addition of two parties from distant jurisdictions
may unfairly prejudice the Counterclaim Defendants, which now
include a law firm accused of engaging in racketeering, by
threatening to complicate an already lengthy discovery process.
Moreover, given the skimpy details as to the "who, what, when and
where" of Boss's alleged actions, it is a foregone conclusion that
a motion to dismiss the RICO cause of action will further delay
these proceedings.

Considering these various factors together, the Court denies the
motion to amend the counterclaims because introduction of the new
parties would unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff Outlaw and the
Third-Party Defendants by further delaying a nearly two-year-old
case with inevitable motions to dismiss and new discovery, and
where the Parties have proven to be litigious, have been unwilling
to cooperate in resolving discovery issues, and have engaged in
scorched earth practices.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel denied the Stores' motion
to file third amended counterclaims and third-party complaint.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/fhrRhk from Leagle.com.

In Re OUTLAW LABORATORIES, LP LITIGATION, Plaintiff, represented by
Sean Reagan, Leyh Payne & Mallia, PLLC.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiff,
represented by Matthew J. Smith -- matt.smith@taulersmith.com -- &
Robert Tauler -- rtauler@taulersmith.com -- Tauler Smith LLP.

Kachi Enterprises Inc., a California Corporation, Main Calif, Inc.,
a California Corporation, R&M Palm, Inc., a California Corporation,
Zaya Enterprises Inc., a California Corporation & Fountain Trading
Corp., a California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mark
Poe -- mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw --
rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song -- ssong@gawpoe.com --
Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng -vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP.

Pacific Beach Gas, Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert K. Butterfield -- rbutterfield@bsllp.com --
Butterfield Schechter LLP.

Eashou, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song,
Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe
LLP.

Midway M3, Inc., a California Corporation, Kalyana Inc., a
California Corporation, Big City Liquor, a California Entity Form
Unknown, HH Eagles Market, a California Corporation, Little Brown
Jug Liquor, a California Entity Form Unknown, Blaze Smoke Shop, a
California Entity Form Unknown, Midway Cigars & Smoke Shop, a
California Entity Form Unknown, Point Loma Liquor, Inc., a
California Corporation, Sunset Mini Mart, a California Corporation,
Servall Market, Inc., a California Corporation, Hillcrest Smoke
Shop, a California Entity Form Unknown, Magic Market, a California
Entity Form Unknown, Criscola's Liquor Store, a California Entity
Form Unknown, F&F Food Bargain, Inc., a California Corporation,
Greene Cat Liquors, a California Entity Form Unknown, Bel Air
Market, a California Entity Form Unknown & Cardiff Gas, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw &
Poe LLP &Flora Vigo -- fvigo@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP.

EBM Jr Market, a California Entity Form Unknown & Ideal Market, a
California Entity Form Unknown, Defendants, represented by Flora
Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

NMRM, Inc. & Skyline Market, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora
Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented byMatthew J. Smith.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora
Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Counter
Defendant, represented byMatthew J. Smith & Robert Tauler, Tauler
Smith LLP.


PAM TRANSPORT: Browne Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BROWNE, ANTONIO CALDWELL, and LUCRETIA HALL, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., et al. Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5366
(W.D. Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in
part and denied in part both (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the
Declaration of Dustin Mixon.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dustin
Mixon, a risk supervisor at PAM.  The initial Declaration was filed
by the Defendants in support of their Motion to Decertify and their
Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  Mr. Mixon's Declaration offers testimony on
three main topics: the findings of an audit he conducted after the
commencement of the litigation ("expanded audit"), the PAM
Passenger Program, and PAM's yards and facilities.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Mixon Declaration, arguing that
because it did not lay a foundation for Mr. Mixon's personal
knowledge of these topics, it constituted untimely and
impermissible expert testimony.  In their Response to the Motion to
Strike, the Defendants included a Supplemental Declaration offering
the same factual testimony but intended to cure the foundational
issues raised by the Plaintiffs by expounding the basis for Mr.
Mixon's lay opinions.  The Plaintiffs' Reply argues that the Court
should still strike Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration because
Defendants failed to timely produce the documents that Mr. Mixon
claims to have reviewed as the basis for his testimony, in
violation of Rule 26(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and that his testimony contradicts the Defendants' other
discovery responses, disclosures, and designee testimony.

The paragraphs of Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration addressing
the number and nature of PAM's yards and facilities across the
country and the headquarters in Tontitown specifically will not be
stricken, the Court opines.  The Supplemental Declaration asserts
that these opinions are based on Mr. Mixon's "personal knowledge
and a review of information and documents maintained in the normal
course and scope of PAM's business operations."  The Court
concludes that the opinions offered in these paragraphs are
"rationally based on [Mr. Mixon's] perception" from his physical
presence at the headquarters in Tontitown and his review of
information and documents produced in the normal course of
business.

The paragraphs of Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration regarding
the expanded audit, however, will be stricken, the Court opines.
His testimony on this topic cannot be considered lay testimony even
with the additional foundation provided in the Supplemental
Declaration.  The conclusions offered in paragraphs 15 through 19
of the Supplemental Declaration cannot be reached by a simple
review of records created in the ordinary course of business or
"mere tabulation" of data in such records.

For the same reason, the paragraph and spreadsheet addressing PAM's
Passenger Program will also be stricken, the Court adds.  To the
extent that PAM now wishes to offer these documents to support
their contention that drivers are not on duty the entire time they
are on a tour or that drivers engage in personal activities while
logged "on duty," the data had to be disclosed in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(1)(ii).  PAM offers nothing to suggest its failure to
disclose was substantially justified, and allowing Defendants to
introduce new evidence in support of a defense regarding a central
dispute of the case after the close of discovery and only two
months before trial cannot be considered harmless.  Therefore, any
reference to PAM's Passenger Program is also stricken.

In summary, Mr. Mixon's initial declaration, appearing at Doc.
157-3 and Doc. 167-12, is stricken, the Court rules.  The Court
also strikes paragraphs 11 through 20 of Mr. Mixon's Supplemental
Declaration, Doc. 205-1.

The Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on some of their claims for
minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), as well as claims under the
Arkansas Wage Payment Collection Law.

The Court finds that PAM has made a sufficient showing of specific
facts establishing a genuine dispute for trial regarding its driver
policies.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs are denied summary judgment on
their claim that drivers must be paid minimum wage for 16 hours of
every day they are on tour, the Court notes.  The Court also finds
that the evidence creates, perhaps, some question of accuracy, but
does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
drivers' logs allow for a "just and reasonable inference" regarding
the measure of their damages for time logged as "driving" and "on
duty not driving."

In addition, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to
the compensability of breaks of twenty minutes or less logged as
"off duty" or "sleeper berth," and the Plaintiffs are entitled to
summary judgment on this claim.  And while the Plaintiffs have
offered evidence indicating that PAM's violation of minimum wage
law was willful and the Defendants have failed to address the issue
in their briefing, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law
based on the record before it that PAM's violation of the FLSA was
willful and not the result of good-faith error.  The Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment on this claim is therefore denied, the
Court rules.

As it finds no indication that a different interpretation is
required by the language of the AMWA, the Court concludes that
violations of the AMWA accrue the pay day for the period, as they
do under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment on their claims under the
Wage Payment Collection Law.  First, the Plaintiffs claim that
PAM's practice of charging a $10 fee for a $75 wage advance
violates Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 11-4-402(a).  Second, they allege that
PAM's practice of holding monies deducted from wages in an escrow
account for 90 days after a driver is discharged is a violation of
Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-405(b).

The Court concludes that while Section 11-4-402(c) also establishes
criminal fines for violations of the statute, the reference to
usury demonstrates the legislature's intent to invoke and make
available the remedies for usury available under the state
Constitution as well.  PAM's practice of charging a $10 fee for a
wage advance up to $75 violates Section 11-4-402 and constitutes
usury.  Therefore, any agreement between PAM and any Plaintiff to
that effect is "void as to principal and interest" and the
Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of the advance and
the $10 fee.

The Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs have not provided any
facts to establish that there are class members who: (1) were
discharged by PAM before July 24, 2019; (2) made a valid demand for
their wages within seven days of termination; and (3) did not
receive those wages with seven days of their demand.  These are the
necessary elements of a claim under the prior version of the
statute.  The Plaintiffs also have not provided any facts to
establish that there are class members who: (1) were discharged by
PAM on or after July 24, 2019, and (2) did not receive the wages
owed them within seven days of the next regular payday, which are
the necessary elements for a claim under the current version of the
statute.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary
judgment on their claim under either version of Section 11-4-405,
the Court finds.

In sum, the Court granted in part and denied in part (i) the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dustin Mixon, and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  The
Clerk is directed to strike Doc, 157-3 and Doc. 167-12, along with
paragraphs 11 through 20 of the Supplemental Declaration appearing
at Doc. 205-1.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/E8Zoai from Leagle.com.

David Browne, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Antonio Caldwell, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated & Lucretia Hall, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua S.
Boyette -- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swudler LLC, pro hac
vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swidler LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Swartz --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice &
Travis Martindale-Jarvis -- tmartindale@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swudler LLC, pro hac vice.

PAM Transport Inc, Defendant, represented by Amber Prince --
aprince@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, Martin D. Holmes --
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid
Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC,
Peter Fredrick Klett -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Robert L. Jones, III -- bjones@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, K. Scott Hamilton -- khamilton@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Kerri E. Kobbeman -- kkobbeman@cwlaw.com --
Conner & Winters, LLP.

John Does, Defendant, represented by Martin D. Holmes, Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter
Fredrick Klett, Dickinson Wright PLLC & K. Scott Hamilton,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Verrett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PELICAN WASTE AND DEBRIS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01035
(E.D. La., March 27, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked (and
continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant
has knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked in excess of
forty each week on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the
Defendant's regular practice--including during weeks when the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked in excess of 40
hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock")--was (and is) to
automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff's
daily time even though they regularly worked (and continue to work)
"off-the-clock" through their respective meal-period breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt Waste
Disposal Driver.

Pelican is a full-service solid waste company providing waste
collection, recycling and disposal services to commercial,
industrial and residential customers across the state of
Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com

               - and –

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com


POLK COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Class Certification in Case Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONRAD CASE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRADY JUDD, in his official
capacity as Polk County Sheriff, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-607-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Conrad Case initiated the putative class action on March 11, 2019.
Before Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd responded, Case filed an
amended complaint, which Judd moved to dismiss.  With leave of
court, Case filed a second amended complaint on May 15, 2019,
alleging claims due to Judd's violations of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Act ("USERRA").

Case seeks relief on behalf of himself and a proposed class that
includes current and former employees of the Polk County Sheriff's
Office with military backgrounds who were passed over for
promotions due to their membership in the uniformed services.  In
Count I, Case alleges Judd violated the USERRA by (1) denying him
and other class members promotions due to their military service,
and (2) denying veteran preferences under Florida Statutes, Chapter
295.  In Count II, Case alleges Judd discriminated against him in
violation of 38 U.S.C. Section 4316 by not counting periods of
military leave toward continuous service with the Sheriff's
Office.

Judd filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed to Count
I, arguing no private cause of action exists for a purported
failure to give veteran preferences under Florida law or the
USERRA.  On Oct. 23, 2019, the Court granted Judd's motion in part,
finding that veteran's preference policies set forth in Florida
Statute Section 295.09(1)(a) are not "benefits of employment" under
USERRA.  In so ruling, the Court entered judgment in Judd's favor
on Count I to the extent that the claims in Count I are predicated
on Judd's alleged failure to apply Florida's veteran's preference
in promotional decisions.

Case filed the instant Motion on Nov. 4, 2019, and Judd has
responded.  With leave of court, both sides filed documents under
seal containing personal identifying information of individuals not
party to the suit.

Case seeks certification of a class of individuals of veterans and
active military members who were passed over for promotions in
violation of the USERRA while employed with the Polk County
Sheriff's Office.   Case proposes the following class definition
for certification: Any current or former employee of the Defendant,
Polk County Sheriff, who is/was (1) a member of the uniformed
services as defined by USERRA; and (2) who was denied a
promotion(s) to the position of Sergeant and/or Lieutenant due to
their membership in the uniformed services.

The Court concludes that Case fails to satisfy the requirements of
Rules 23(a) and (b).  Case seeks to demonstrate commonality by
pointing to other alleged common issues, such as Judd's failure to
treat military-related absences as continuous employment.  The
issue is the subject of Count II, which is not asserted on behalf
of the class, nor does it form the basis for the proposed class
definition.  Accordingly, Case fails to satisfy the commonality
requirement, the Court opines.  Moreover, no amendment to his class
definition would resurrect his bid for certification because, as
the Class Plaintiff, Case fails the typicality requirement.

Typicality is lacking because Case's absences may give rise to a
non-discriminatory explanation that would be inapplicable to the
remainder of the proposed class and therefore potentially
jeopardize the class's claims.  Because his situation markedly
differs from that of other members of the putative class, Case
fails to satisfy the typicality requirement.

In sum, the Court denies Case's Rule 23 Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/nVaDJd from Leagle.com.

Conrad Case, on behalf of himself and all others similary situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Gray, Florin Gray Bouzas
Owens, LLC, Wolfgang M. Florin, Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC &
Gregory A. Owens, Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC.

Grady Judd, in his official capacity as Polk County Sheriff,
Defendant, represented by Phillip J. Harris --
pharris@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, Robert J.
Aranda, Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda PA & Jonathan Barnet Trohn
-- j.trohn@cttalaw.com -- Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda PA.


POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in Asst. Managers' Suit Finally Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the settlement in the
Assistant managers' class action suit has been finally approved.

In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL
by not paying overtime compensation to the company's assistant
managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-hours pay.

The Complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective action" under
the FLSA and as a "class action" under NYLL. Since the filing of
the Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a proposed amended complaint
removing the NYLL class claim, but adding a proposed Illinois state
law class action.

In May 2019, the parties participated in a mediation and resolved
the claims, which received final court approval on February 4,
2020.

All charges related to the claims are reflected in the statement of
operations.

Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works,
Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly
Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Faces Gonzalez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Proctor & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Proctor & Gamble
Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02616 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020).

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

The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Case v LogistiCare Certified as Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
court granted conditional certification in the class action suit
involving LogistiCare Solutions, LLC.

On April 1, 2019, a purported class action was filed against
LogistiCare in Texas alleging that the Company's policy with
respect to timekeeping for hourly employees constituted violations
of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as wage
and hour laws in South Carolina and Texas.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on a
nationwide basis, which LogistiCare contested. The court granted
the conditional certification motion on January 22, 2020.

The Company filed an appeal of the conditional certification order.
The Company also plans to vigorously contest the allegations on the
merits as the plaintiffs have mischaracterized the method by which
employees clock in to work.

Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it
is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiffs will
prevail on their claims, or what they might recover."

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Meher
Patel.

On March 1, 2019, Meher Patel filed suit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Tuolumne County, on
behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserting violations under the California Labor
Code relating to the alleged failure by LogistiCare to comply with
certain applicable state wage and related employment requirements,
as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties, as well as certification as a class action. On September
6, 2019, Ms. Patel amended her complaint to add Provado Mobile
Health, a Company subsidiary, as a party to the suit.

The Company and Provado Mobile Health have removed the case to the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. No amounts
have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as
management cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation
or any potential losses.

The Company and its subsidiary intend to defend the litigation
vigorously.

Providence Service said, "Although the outcome of such matter is
inherently uncertain and may be materially adverse, based on
current information, we do not expect the case to have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus in Calif. Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Ride
Plus is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Lynch v. Ride
Plus et al.

In Lynch v. Ride Plus et al., a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
California, a former Ride Plus driver (trade name for Provado
Mobile Health) has sought to represent all Ride Plus drivers in
California on claims identical to the Patel action.

Provado Mobile Health has only recently been served on this matter,
and it plans to remove the case to federal court and combine it
with the Patel action or move to stay the case while the Patel
action is pending, as the two actions cover the same subject
matter.

Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it
is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiff will
succeed in getting the court to certify a class, whether she and
the class will prevail in their claims, or what they might
recover."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Talarico Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH TALARICO, individually and on behalf Of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC,
d/b/a PCG, PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-2165
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted PPL's Motion for
Summary Judgment and dismissed the action in its entirety.

The Plaintiff filed the Collective Action and Class Action
Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("MWA") and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL").
Specifically, Talarico alleges that PPL failed to pay him and
thousands of other similarly situated employees overtime wages to
which they are entitled for work performed as direct care workers
in the Federal Medicaid program.  PPL contends that it is not the
Plaintiff's employer, thus, is not in violation of any of the
referenced statutes.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are
thousands of workers who performed services under PPL's contract
with Pennsylvania relating to a federal Medicaid program called the
Home and Community-Based Services ("HCBS") waiver program.  The
HCBS waiver program is a Medicaid program administered at the
federal level by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
("CMS") under Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act, and in
Pennsylvania by the Department of Human Services Office of Long
Term Living ("OLTL").

OLTL applied to CMS for a waiver to provide an array of options
under the HCBS waiver program umbrella.  CMS approved the
application and OLTL now administers the options in the
Commonwealth.  One specific waiver program administered by OLTL,
the Independence Waiver Program, authorizes "Self-Directed Personal
Assistance Services" to Participant-Employers ("PEs") who are
between the ages of 18 and 60 with physical disabilities.  OLTL's
Application for a Section 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services
Waiver describes its administration of the HCBS waiver program in
detail.

When a Direct Care Worker ("DCW") goes to work for a PE under the
program, PPL provides the DCW with an application that must be
completed, as well as the DCW Agreement that must be signed; PPL
also provides an instruction manual and a customer service helpline
for questions associated with the application and agreement.

CMS regulations authorize states to provide financial management
services on behalf of PEs who elect the Self-Directed Services
option.  PPL pays DCWs directly and is later reimbursed by the
state for those wages.  DCWs report their time to PPL using
timesheets or an online portal.  PPL handles all payroll functions
and unemployment and tax withholdings.  PPL plays no role in
disciplining any DCW and uses standardized paperwork to enroll PEs,
who must complete the paperwork before PPL will pay their DCWs.

All PEs signed a Direct Care Worker Agreement with their DCWs that
acknowledged that the DCW was employed by the PE and not by PPL.
PPL completes a criminal history background check on all DCWs that
are hired.  Further, the DCW Agreement states that the results of
the criminal background check are provided to the PE, at which time
the PE can still move forward and choose to hire the DCW.

PPL moves for summary judgment on all claims brought by the
Plaintiff, arguing that Plaintiff's claims must fail because PPL is
not and has never been his joint employer.

In order to determine whether a defendant is a joint employer under
the FLSA, courts apply the In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour
Emp't Practices Litig. test.  The Enterprise test examines: (1) the
alleged employer's authority to hire and fire the relevant
employees; (2) the alleged employer's authority to promulgate work
rules and assignments and to set the employees' conditions of
employment; compensation, benefits, and work schedules, including
the rate and method of payment; (3) the alleged employer's
involvement in day-to-day employee supervision, including employee
discipline; and (4) the alleged employer's actual control of
employee records, such as payroll, insurance or taxes.  At summary
judgment, if no reasonable juror could conclude a joint employer
relationship existed, the defendant is entitled to summary
judgment, even if some of the factors do not favor that defendant.

Judge Schmehl holds that review of the case shows that PPL clearly
has no control over hiring and firing DCWs.  Accordingly, the
Enterprise factor weighs against a finding of joint employment in
the matter.  First, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's argument
that DCWs are required by PPL to complete certain documentation
before a PE can begin working to be evidence of PPL's control over
the hiring process to be unpersuasive.  PPL has a contract with
Pennsylvania to administer the Self-Directed Services Option and
that contract requires PPL to use certain paperwork.  PPL does not
independently decide what forms need to be completed, nor does it
develop those forms.  Rather, the state directs PPL in that
regard.

Next, as to the fact that PPL performs a criminal background check
on all DCWs before they can begin work, the fact that PEs can still
opt to hire a DCW following a positive criminal background check is
fatal to the Plaintiff's argument.  Further, the Court finds the
Plaintiff's argument that PPL has control over hiring because a DCW
cannot work or be paid until they get PPL's "good to go" to be
misleading.  Nothing prevents a DCW from working and being paid by
the PE personally prior to receiving the "good to go" from PPL.
DCWs simply cannot be paid with Medicaid funds from this program
until PPL gives the go ahead.

The second prong of the Enterprise test examines whether the
purported employer sets work rules, makes assignments and sets
conditions of employment such as compensation, benefits or work
schedules.  The Court finds that all the evidence presented by the
Plaintiff fails to satisfy the second factor of the Enterprise test
as to PPL's alleged joint employer status.  PPL does not tell PEs
the amount that they should pay DCWs, does not tell PEs how many
hours a DCW can work and has no input as to the necessity of
overtime.

As for the third factor, the Court finds that the Plaintiff cannot
put forth any evidence to support this factor of the Enterprise
test, as PPL clearly has no involvement in the day to day
supervision of the DCWs.  All functions of supervision, evaluation,
and discipline are the sole responsibility of the PEs.  PPL does
not manage the DCWs on a daily basis.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff
also fails to meet this factor of the Enterprise test for joint
employment.

Lastly, under the Enterprise test, courts examine whether the
alleged employer controls employee records.  After a thorough
review of the record in the matter and an analysis of the four
Enterprise factors, the Court concludes that no reasonable jury
could find that Plaintiff was an employee of PPL.  The conclusion
is further supported by all of the program documents in the matter,
which all state that the PE is the employer of the DCW, not PPL.
All evidence points to the conclusion that PPL is merely a fiscal
agent for the PEs for payroll purposes only, as contemplated in
PPL's contract with OLTL.  Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment is granted and the Plaintiff's FLSA claims are
dismissed.

The Plaintiff also alleged that PPL committed violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  As stated by the Plaintiff, the
parties agree that Pennsylvania follows the FLSA in many respects,
including determining the existence of an employer or joint
employer relationship for the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  The
Court's finding is that PPL is not the Plaintiff's employer under
the economic realities test contained in the FLSA.  Therefore, PPL
is also not the Plaintiff's employer under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act and the Plaintiff's MWA claims are dismissed.

Finally, as no contract exists between the Plaintiff and PPL, the
WPCL claim must be dismissed.  The Plaintiff argues that his WPCL
claims against PPL are appropriate despite the lack of a contract
with PPL.  The argument must fail, as several courts in the
district have found that "a contractual obligation remains
necessary for a WPCL claim."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schmehl granted the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/QM37iX from Leagle.com.

RALPH TALARICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by MIRIAM R. NEMETH --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,
RACHHANA T. SREY -- srey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER PLLP, RICHARD A.
KATZ, ARNOLD BEYER & KATZ, ROBERT L. SCHUG -- schug@nka.com --
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & CHRISTINE E. WEBBER --
cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, doing business as PCG PUBLIC
PARTNERSHIPS, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN R. NADLER --
jnadler@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC &
WALTER M. FOSTER -- wfoster@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS
CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC.


R.A. ROGERS INC: Faces Kramarsky FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.A. ROGERS, INC. The
case is styled as Ahron Kramarsky, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. R.A. ROGERS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-03303 (D.N.J., March 26, 2020).

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

R.A. Rogers Inc. is a full-service and nationwide collection agency
that provides services to credit unions, banks, commercial,
property management, and medical facilities.[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


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jara TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MARIA JARA, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals Plaintiff, v.
REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 C 4532 (N.D.
Ill.), for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff Jara, on behalf of herself and a putative class, filed an
amended class action complaint against the Defendant, asserting a
claim for relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").    In 2018 and 2019, Defendant Redbox sent three SMS text
messages to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative class.
It sent all of the texts from the number "727272," which is an SMS
short code operated by Redbox.

The first text message read: "Redbox On Demand: New Users Get 50%
OFF your rental when you long in.  RENT Crazy Rich Asians, The Meg
& more. Stream Now: http//m.rbx.me/G5NLAP Ends 12/4/18.  The
Plaintiff received similar SMS text messages from Redbox on Jan.
10, 2019 and June 26, 2019.  Each of these texts encouraged the
recipients to enroll in Redbox's services and to use promotion
codes.

The Plaintiff asserts that she did not, at any time, consent to
receiving these text messages.  She also asserts that Redbox sent
these non-personalized messages to members of the putative class
using an automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS").  In support
of her assertion that Redbox used an ATDS to send these messages,
Jara alleges that Redbox sent the messages from a short-code
telephone number and that the hardware and software used by the
Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to store,
produce, and dial random or sequential numbers, or receive and
store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en
masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.

On Oct. 1, 2019, Redbox filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim on the grounds that Jara fails to plausibly allege
that Redbox used an ATDS.

Judge Kendall holds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient
factual allegations explaining why she believes the messages were
sent via an ATDS that her assertion that the Defendant used an ATDS
cannot fairly be described as a bare allegation.  For example, she
alleges that Defendant sent the messages using a dedicated SMS
number.  She also alleges that the messages were of a generic
nature, clearly meant to be sent to a large group of consumers and
included automated instructional commands like "txtSTOP2stop,"
suggesting that these were mass marketing messages sent in an
automatic fashion.  These allegations, if proven, constitute
circumstantial evidence that the Defendant utilized an ATDS to send
the text messages to the Plaintiff.

At this stage, Judge Kendall holds that without the benefit of
discovery, it would be nearly impossible for the Plaintiff to make
any more specific allegations about the system the Defendant used
to send her the text messages she received.  She will not require
the Plaintiff to achieve a near impossibility to satisfy the
pleading standards.

Judge Kendall concludes that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged
that the Defendant used an ATDS to send her unsolicited text
messages.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim is therefore denied, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/bTXs8N from
Leagle.com.

Maria Jara, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Frank S. Hedin --
fhedin@hedinhall.com -- Hedin Hall LLP, pro hac vice & Eugene Y.
Turin -- info@mcgpc.com -- Mcguire Law, P.C.

Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Margaret Marcia Schuchardt --
info@jaszczuk.com -- Jaszczuk P.C. & Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk,
Jaszczuk, P.C.


ROMEO & JULIETTE: Gonzalez Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Romeo & Juliette,
Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Romeo & Juliette, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02617 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020).

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

Romeo & Juliette Inc/United States was founded in 1985. The
Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Seeks OT Pay for Medical Personal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENNETH DENNIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. SANDHILLS EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, P.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00273 (M.D.N.C., March 24, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated medical personnel overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and also off-the-clock
work hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Advanced Practice
Provider from March 2018 until December 31, 2019.

Sandhills Emergency Physicians, PA is a medical firm that provides
services at hospitals located in North Carolina including
Pinehurst, Troy, and Rockingham. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
          Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277          
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: jason@gibbonsleis.com
                  phil@gibbonsleis.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com

SELIP & STYLIANOU: Raksin Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou,
LLP. The case is styled as Yaakov Raksin, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Selip &
Stylianou, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01660-SJF-AYS
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2020).

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

Selip & Stylianou is a licensed debt collection law firm that has
both attorneys and debt collectors on their staff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SEMINOLE TOTAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Pauley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Pauley, Courtney Mawyer, and Rikki Quillon, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. SEMINOLE TOTAL HEALTH,
INC. SCOTT WAGNER, and KRISTIN NORMAN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00014-GEC
(W.D. Va., March 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay their hourly
employees overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without receiving all the compensation they were due under the
FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were denied the timely
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as hourly-paid employees.

Seminole Total Health, Inc., which does business as Scott Wager
Chiropractic & Sports Medicine, is a health care provider of
chiropractic services in Central Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Thomas, Esq.
          MICHIEHAMLETT
          310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor
          P.O. Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Phone: 434-951-7224
          Fax: 434-951-7244
          Email: dthomas@michiehamlett.com


SI SOHO LLC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Si Soho LLC. The case
is captioned as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Si Soho LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02072 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities
Act.

Si Soho is doing business in supply chain industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ST. TROPEZ INC: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Tropez, Inc. The
case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. St. Tropez, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02615 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020).

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

St. Tropez is a self-tan brand, specializing in self-tan, skin
finishing treatments and bronzing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


STERLING BANCORP: Orr Sues Challenging Decline in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Orr, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STERLING BANCORP, INC.; GARY JUDD, THOMAS LOPP; MICHAEL
MONTEMAYOR; BARRY ALLEN; JON FOX; SETH MELTZER; SANDRA SELIGMAN;
PETER SINATRA; BENJAMIN WINEMAN; LYLE WOLBERG; PIPER SANDLER
COMPANIES AND AMERICAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-10788-VAR-APP (E.D. Mich., March 27, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of violating securities laws that resulted in the
decline of the price of Sterling's shares.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all other persons and entities,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling common stock from
November 17, 2017, through and including March 17, 2020, seeking to
recover damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

This action also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of members of the Class that purchased or otherwise acquired
Sterling common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering, which commenced on November 17, 2017. Under the
Securities Act, the Defendants are strictly liable for the material
misstatements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus and
these claims specifically exclude any allegations of knowledge or
scienter. The Securities Act claims also expressly exclude and
disclaim any allegation that could be construed as alleging fraud
or intentional or reckless misconduct.

The Company's largest lending product was its Advantage Loan
Program. As of September 2019, the Advantage Loan Program
constituted more than four fifths of its residential loan
portfolio, and two-thirds of total loans. The Advantage Loan
Program is a lower-documentation, higher-down-payment mortgage.

On October 19, 2017, Sterling filed its initial registration
statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
attempting to register its shares for its IPO. The Company
ultimately filed three amendments to its Registration Statement,
the last one being on November 13, 2017. Sterling filed its
prospectus with the SEC on Form 424B4 on November 17, 2017. These
documents are collectively referred as the "Registration
Statement."

On November 17, 2017, the Company commenced its IPO through which
fifteen million shares of common stock were offered at a price of
$12.00 per share, including 7,692,308 shares of common stock sold
by the Company and 7,307,692 shares sold by selling shareholders.
The underwriters exercised their overallotment option of an
additional 2,250,000 shares from the selling shareholders, the
sales of which were completed on December 4, 2017. The total IPO
size, including the overallotment, was 17,250,000 shares for total
proceeds of $207 million, including 9,557,692 shares sold by the
selling shareholders for proceeds of $114,692,304.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period and in
connection with the Company's IPO, the Defendants made untrue
statements and omitted facts necessary to make the statements that
were misleading and failed to disclose material facts concerning,
inter alia, the Company's loan underwriting, risk management and
internal controls, including repeatedly touting its strict
underwriting, asset quality and the Advantage Loan Program. In
addition, after the market closed on June 21, 2019, the Company
filed another 8-K announcing that director Jon Fox was resigning
from the Board of Directors.

Upon this news, including the attempts to minimize it, Sterling's
stock price dropped $0.16, or 1.59%, from a close of $10.06 on
Friday, June 21, 2019, to a close of $9.90 on Monday, June 24,
2019.

On March 6, 2020, Sterling filed a Form 8-K disclosing the
preliminary results of the investigation of its Special Committee,
which found that Sterling's employees engaged in misconduct in
connection with the Company's loan origination process, including
its income verification and documentation practices. On this news,
the price of Sterling's shares declined from $6.67 on Friday, March
6, 2020, to a close of $4.88 on Monday, March 9, 2020, a decline of
$1.79, or 26.84%, on heavy trading volume, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased shares of Sterling common stock pursuant to
or traceable to the IPO.

Sterling is the unitary thrift holding company of Sterling Bank and
Trust F.S.B. The Company specializes in residential mortgages but
offers a broad suite of product.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
          Fisher Building
          3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Phone: (313) 800-4170
          Facsimile: (646) 293-7992
          Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
          Email: clevis@lowey.com
                 afiorilla@lowey.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-507-6085
          Fax: 267-507-6048
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Briggs Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SUBARU OF AMERICA
INC. The case is styled as Lorri L. Briggs, Lisa Dehaven, Carrie
Johnson, Elle Rydbom, Eric Tetuan, Michelle Vorberger formerly
known as: Michele Cunningham, on behalf of themselves and all
others in the State of Pennsylvania similarly situated v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00067-RAL (W.D. Pa., March 27,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Subaru of America, Inc., based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United
States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary
of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kurt D. Mitchell, Esq.
          KDM LAW FIRM PLLC
          106 S. Armenia Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Phone: (941) 465-9253
          Email: kmitchell@hoglaw.com


TAKEDA PHARMA: Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as IN RE ACTOS END-PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
IN RE ACTOS DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case Nos.
13-CV-9244 (RA), 15-CV-3278 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted Takeda's request to certify for interlocutory appeal,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), the Sept. 30, 2019 Opinion
and Order filed in In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, No.
13-cv-9244 ("EPP Order"), and the Oct. 8, 2019 Opinion and Order
filed in In re Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No.
15-cv-3278 ("DPP Order").

Takeda filed its motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under
Section 1292(b) in both cases on Nov. 22, 2019.  The indirect
purchasers ("End-Payor Plaintiffs" or "EPPs") and the direct
purchasers ("Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs" or "DPPs") together filed
an opposition on Dec. 13, 2019, and Takeda filed its reply on Dec.
24, 2019.

In the Orders, the Court denied Takeda's motion to dismiss the
monopolization claims asserted against it, holding that the
Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Takeda engaged in
anticompetitive behavior by falsely representing to the FDA that
its '584 and '404 patents in connection with the ACTOS NDA were
accurately described in the Orange Book as drug product patents for
the ACTOS NDA.

Takeda now seeks an interlocutory appeal with respect to the
Court's interpretation of Section 355(b)(1) -- and, in particular,
the meaning of the word "claims" in that provision.  Although Judge
Abrams remains of the view that the plain meaning of "claims" in
Section 355(b)(1) applies in the phrase "claims the drug," while
the infringement meaning of "claims" applies in the phrase "claims
a method of using such drug," he nevertheless concludes that Takeda
has made the requisite showing to certify the Orders for
interlocutory appeal.

First, both Orders involve a controlling question of law.  Second,
although his reading of the word "claims" in Section 355(b)(1)
remains unchanged, the Judge recognizes that there exists a
substantial ground for difference of opinion on the issue.
Finally, an intermediate appeal would materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Abrams granted Takeda's motion to
certify for interlocutory appeal the EPP and DPP Orders, and denied
as moot Takeda's request for oral argument.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ihlg7Q from Leagle.com.

Meijer, Inc. & Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented
by David P. Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., Gregory Thomas
Arnold, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph M. Vanek, Vanek,
Vickers & Masini PC, Paul Ethan Slater, Sperling & Slater, P.C. &
Thomas Matthew Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Cesar Castillo, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
J. Demuth, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum
Law Group, P.C. & Thomas Matthew Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Takeda America Holdings, Inc.,
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. & Takeda Development Center
Americas, Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam R. Lawton --
karen.lent@skadden.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac
vice.

Actavis PLC & Watson Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Steven Craig Sunshine -- steve.sunshine@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Defendants, represented by Stacey Anne Mahoney,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Katherine R. Katz -- katherine.katz@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & Ross Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine
R. Katz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn -- john.oquinn@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & Ross Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terrill Outsourcing
Group, LLP. The case is styled as Sakiyna Pacheco, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terrill Outsourcing
Group, LLP, Doing business as: Superlative RM, Case No.
2:20-cv-00656-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2020).

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

Terrill Outsourcing Group, doing business as Superlative RM, is a
financial and business services 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


TOUCHSTONE MEDICAL: Katt ADA Suit Moved to District of Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touchstone Medical
Imaging, LLC. The case is captioned as David Katt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Touchstone Medical
Imaging, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00626-STV (D. Colo., March 5,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Scott T. Varholak.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the American With Disabilities
Act.

Touchstone Medical provides diagnostic imaging services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Nava Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARITO CASTANON NAVA, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 C
3757 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for
failure to state a claim.

Five Individual Plaintiffs (Nava, John Doe, Miguel Cortes Torres,
Guillermo Hernandez Hernandez, and Erick Rivera Sales) and two
Organizational Plaintiffs (the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and
Refugee Rights and Organized Communities Against Deportations)
filed the putative class action to ensure that Defendant U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement complies with its clear
statutory obligations under 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2) when
conducting warrantless arrests.  Plaintiffs Nava, Hernandez, and
Sales also seek, on behalf of a proposed sub-class, to ensure that
ICE complies with the Fourth Amendment when making traffic stops.

The Plaintiffs allege that in recent months, ICE has been
conducting indiscriminate, large-scale immigration sweeps,
principally targeting states and localities that have adopted
so-called 'sanctuary laws,' which limit state and local
participation in civil immigration enforcement.  The lawsuit arises
from a large-scale ICE enforcement action that occurred in the
Chicago area during a week-long period in May 2018.

The Plaintiffs allege that ICE arrested 156 people during that
time.   They further allege that by ICE's own account, 106 of the
arrests were "at-large collateral arrests" -- meaning "arrests of
individuals for whom ICE lack[ed] an arrest warrant.  According to
the Second Amended Complaint, the collateral arrests included those
of the Individual Plaintiffs in the action, all of whom have lived
in the Chicago area for at least four and as many as 30 years.
They allege that ICE arrested and detained each Individual
Plaintiff without a warrant or an individualized determination that
he is a flight risk, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2).
They allege, further, that ICE's actions reflect a widespread
policy and practice of violating the INA in the manner.  In Count I
of the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for
violations of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class ("Main Class") under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) comprising all current and
future persons whom ICE arrests or has arrested without having a
warrant, within the area of responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field
Office, who remain detained.

Plaintiffs Nava, Hernandez, and Sales -- each of whom ICE arrested
and detained following a traffic stop -- also seek to represent a
sub-class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(5) comprising
all members of the Main Class who were subject to a traffic stop
initiated by ICE officers within the area of responsibility of the
Chicago Field Office.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, including an order stating
that the challenged conduct violates the INA and the Fourth
Amendment; injunctive relief, including orders prohibiting
Defendants from engaging in the challenged conduct and requiring
them to adopt policies that will ensure they follow the relevant
laws; and attorneys' fees and costs.

In their briefs on the motion, the Defendants report that ICE
executed arrest warrants for the Individual Plaintiffs after they
took them into custody, and later initiated proceedings to remove
each of them from the United States.  ICE ultimately released the
Individual Plaintiffs from custody on bond, but the Defendants
assert that none of the five named plaintiffs is a citizen or
national of the United States, and they are all unlawfully present
in the United States.  The Plaintiffs do not respond to these
contentions, and the Court presumes that the Individual Plaintiffs'
removal proceedings remain pending.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative,
for failure to state a claim.

Judge Pallmeyer concludes that Section 1252(b)(9) does not deprive
it of jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Judge
holds that the Plaintiffs in the case do not challenge their
removability.  If anything, the Defendants' cited cases reinforce
the concept that removal proceedings have a singular focus --
removability -- and are not structured to provide declaratory and
injunctive relief aimed at system-wide reforms.

Next, the Court holds that Section 1252(g) does not strip the Court
of jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims, which do not challenge
the government's decision to "commence proceedings, adjudicate
cases, or execute removal orders" against any alien.  The
Plaintiffs challenge ICE's actions and policies -- or lack thereof
-- regarding the manner in which it stopped and arrested the
Plaintiffs.  The cases Defendants cite in support of its contrary
position do not change the her conclusion because each of those
cases constituted a challenge to a final removal order.

The Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the
Plaintiffs' APA claim because the INA precludes judicial review.
Judge Pallmeyer has concluded that the INA does not preclude
judicial review.  The Defendants next contend that the court lacks
jurisdiction under the APA because by Defendants' account, the
agency actions at issue are not "final" and the Plaintiffs have an
adequate remedy in immigration court.  This argument falls flat as
well because the requirements set forth in Section 704 of the APA
are not jurisdictional.  The Defendants advance these same
arguments in moving to dismiss the Plaintiffs' APA claim under Rule
12(b)(6).

The Defendants move to dismiss the Organizational Plaintiffs'
claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.  The Court denies
their motion.  The Court finds that the Plaintiffs seek injunctive
and declaratory relief that does not require suppressing evidence
in immigration court proceedings or enjoining removal proceedings
altogether.  Accordingly, the Defendants' argument that the Court
can redress the Organizational Plaintiffs' alleged injuries only by
violating the INA lacks merit, the Court opines.

Finally, the Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' APA
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The
Defendants contend that if the Court finds the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded final agency action, "every immigration
arrest" would be collaterally attacked and litigated in Federal
District Court, rather than in Immigration Court and petitions for
review in Circuit Court as provided by Congress.  But, where claims
raise factual and legal issues that are remote from the issue of
removability, the INA does not channel them into immigration court
and limit review to consideration of final removal orders.
Accordingly, the Court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs have
identified final agency action should have no effect on the INA's
jurisdiction-channeling function.  The Plaintiffs have pleaded
final agency action subject to judicial review, and the Court
denies the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' APA claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pallmeyer denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/92agZT from
Leagle.com.

Margarito Castanon Nava & John Doe, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark M.
Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, Aaron J. Siebert-llera,
Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Dan Huy Hoang --
dhoang@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn Llp, Ivan Michael Poullaos
-- ipoullao@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Karen A. Sheley,
Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Katherine E. Melloy
Goettel, National Immigrant Justice Center, Keren Hart Zwick,
National Immigrant Justice Center, Nasir Hussain --
nhussain@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Rebecca Kim Glenberg,
Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. & Zachary L. Sorman --
zsorman@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn Llp.

Miguel Cortes Torres, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee
Rights, Organization Communities Against Deportations, Guillermo
Hernandez Hernandez & Erick Rivera Sales, Plaintiffs, represented
by Aaron J. Siebert-llera, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc.,
Karen A. Sheley, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Rebecca
Kim Glenberg, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. & Zachary L.
Sorman, Winston & Strawn Llp.

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, & Ricardo Wong, Field
Office Director (FOD) of the ICE Chicago Field Office, Defendants,
represented by Linda Y. Cheng, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Division, Office of Immigr, Sarah Abigail Byrd, U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Wisecup Lloyd Jason,
United States Department of Justice, Craig Arthur Oswald, United
States Attorney's Office, J. Max Weintraub, U.S. DOJ Office of
Immigr. Litigation & William Herrick Weiland, Department of
Justice, Civil Division.

Ronald D Vitiello, Defendant, represented by J. Max Weintraub, U.S.
DOJ Office of Immigr. Litigation & William Herrick Weiland,
Department of Justice, Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: Medicare Beneficiaries Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL A. LEWIS, et al. v.
ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health
and Human Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929-RBW (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons whose claims for Medicare continuous glucose
      monitor (CGM) coverage (whether Part B or Part C) were
      denied on the grounds that a CGM is not "durable medical
      equipment", and not subsequently reversed on appeal, from
      December 13, 2012 through the conclusion of this case";
      and

   2. appointing their counsel as class counsel.

The case relates to claims for CGM coverage denied by Medicare.

The United States Department of Health & Human Services, also known
as the Health Department, is a cabinet-level department of the U.S.
federal government with the goal of protecting the health of all
Americans and providing essential human services.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 753-3800
          Facsimile: (202) 753-3838
          E-mail: jblumenfeld@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          James C. Pistorino, Esq.
          PARRISH LAW OFFICES
          788 Washington Road
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Telephone: (412) 561-6250
          Facsimile: (412) 561-6253
          E-mail: james@dparrishlaw.com

USPI HOLDING: Andrews Sues Over Breach of Stock Incentive Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. USPI HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00344-UNA
(D. Del., March 9, 2020), seeks to recover damages resulting from
USPI's breach of its 2015 Stock Incentive Plan.

The Plaintiff contends that USPI failed to meet its obligation to
set the Company's fair market value and instead deliberately
devaluing USPI as ordered by USPI's parent company Tenet Healthcare
Corporation and its Chairman and CEO Ron Rittenmeyer; and failed to
determine the Company's fair market value and, thus, the value of
the Plaintiff's stock options in good faith.

Jeff Andrews is a former Market President of USPI. Mr. Andrews
earned 44,116 2015-Issued Stock Options, 28,000 2016-Issued Stock
Options, 30,000 2017-Issued Stock Options, 8,000 of part 1 of the
2018-Issued Stock Options, and 42,058 of part 2 of the 2018-Issued
Stock Options.

USPI is a privately-owned operator of ambulatory surgical centers,
i.e. health facilities, that host surgeries that do not require an
overnight hospital stay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Griffith, Esq.
          WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.C.
          Renaissance Centre, Suite 500
          405 King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801-3700
          Telephone: (302) 357-3254
          Facsimile: (302) 357-3274
          E-mail: dgriffith@wtplaw.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: Dunphy Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Wireless
Services, LLC. The case is styled as David Dunphy, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, a division of Verizon
Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02075 (N.D. Ill.,
March 31, 2020).

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

Verizon Wireless offers mobile phone services through a variety of
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
   Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
   Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
          mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
          osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Opheim Class Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, et al. The case is captioned as MATTHEW OPHEIM,
GRETA OPELA, KIA HOLYFIELD, KENNETH ELDRIDGE, CARL POPOLO, KEN
BARTON, MATTHEW KIERAN BYRNE, WILLIAM HENDRA, MADELEN TEJADA,
ALEXANDER BELL, MELISSA GALLO, SAARA MASSAHOOD, ROBERT MILLS, IVAN
CUGEL, KATHY MADORE, LISA LAPRADE, and KELLEY MORGAN v. VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02483-KM-ESK (D.N.J., March 6, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

The lawsuit alleges violation of contract-related laws.

Volkswagen, known internationally as the Volkswagen Group, is a
German multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered
in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


WELDO INDUSTRIAL: Underpays Mechanics & Welders, Alcalar et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD ALCALAR, GREG EVANS, and of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. WELDO INDUSTRIAL, INC. and ARMONDO
BADILLO, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01028 (S.D. Tex., March 20,
2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Texas Labor Code.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as mechanics and welders within
the last two years and were misclassified as independent
contractors, but were properly non-exempt employees under the FLSA
and Texas Labor Code.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants failed to:

     -- pay them an overtime premium wages;

     -- pay all wages due upon separation from employment;

     -- provide itemized earnings statements; and

     -- pay minimum wage for all time worked by providing a bona
fide meal period.

Armondo Badillo is the supervisor and director of Plaintiffs and
exercised control over the nature and structure of the employment
relationship.

WeldO Industrial, Inc. is an industrial company that provides
mechanical and welding services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Cruickshank, Esq.
          Joshua Estes, Esq.
          THE ESTES LAW FIRM, P.C.
          716 S. Union St.
          Richmond, TX 77469
          Tel: (281)238-5400
          Fax: (281)238-5015
          Emails: john@cruickshank.attorney
                  joshuaestes@estespc.net


WESTROCK COMPANY: Reyna Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA REYNA individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. WESTROCK COMPANY, a
corporation; WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company;
WESTROCK CONSUMER PACKAGING GROUP, LLC, a limited liability
company; WESTROCK MWV, LLC, a limited liability company; WESTROCK
CALIFORNIA LLC, a limited liability company, formerly known as
WESTROCK CALIFORNIA, INC.; WESTROCK CP, LLC, a limited liability
company; WESTROCK PACKAGING SYSTEMS, LLC, a limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19CV004600
(Filed Nov. 14, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Monterey, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 6, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01666 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are collectively liable
to the Plaintiff and Class Members for failure to provide meal
periods and rest periods, and failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

WestRock is an American corrugated packaging company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          Scott P. Jang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: 213 689 0404
          Facsimile: 213 689 0430
          E-mail: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com
                  Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com


WRIGHT TRUCKING: Bid for Protective Order in Leeson Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID LEESON and LUCY LEESON, individually and as
Parents and Next-Friends of NIAMH LEESON, a minor child and RUBY
LEESON, a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. THE WRIGHT TRUCKING COMPANY
INC., a foreign corporation, DW EXPEDITING INC., a foreign
corporation, and CHRISTOPHER PUERTO, Defendants, Case No. CV
19-0086 WJ/JHR (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied
Defendants' DW Expediting and Puerto's Emergency Motion for
Protective Order.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Personal Injury on Jan.
30, 2019.  Factually, they assert that on April 7, 2017, Defendant
Puerto was driving eastbound through New Mexico on Interstate 40
when the tractor-trailer he was driving had a tire blow-out near
mile marker 241.  After the blow-out, Defendant Puerto allegedly
lost control of the tractor-trailer, swerved into the westbound
lane, and crashed into the front of the 2016 Nissan operated by
David Leeson and containing his wife, Lucy, and their children,
Niamh and Ruby.  As a result of the collection collision, the
Plaintiffs suffered serious bodily and emotional injuries,
resulting in damages including, but not limited to their pain and
suffering, past medical expenses, emotional distress, future
medical expenses, future pain and suffering and lost wages for
David Leeson and Lucy Leeson.  Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs
bring negligence and negligence per se claims against all the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are domiciled in the United Kingdom.  However, they
filed suit in the United States, and venue is proper in the
district, because the collision occurred in New Mexico.  Despite
this, on Oct. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel served the
Defendants with a Notice of Deposition for Plaintiff Lucy Leeson to
take place on Oct. 24, 2019, in Manchester, United Kingdom, at 1:00
p.m. (GMT), which is approximately 6:00 a.m. (MST).  Due to the
Plaintiffs' failure to coordinate the deposition with the
Defendants and serve timely notice under the Court's Local Rules,
the Defendants seek a protective order precluding Lucy's
deposition.  More precisely, the Defendants seek an order requiring
the Plaintiffs, including Lucy, to travel to New Mexico for their
depositions.  They argue that they will be prejudiced if they are
denied the opportunity to examine Lucy, and the Plaintiffs
generally, in person.

Substantively, the Plaintiffs respond that they should not be
required to travel to New Mexico from their home in Manchester.
They point out that the burden on Lucy, in particular, would be
unwarranted because her injures are serious enough that such travel
will impose a significant physical burden on her.  Lucy apparently
suffered a burst fracture of her L1 vertebrae in the incident and
underwent a seven-level fusion (T10-L4) and three-level laminectomy
(T12-L2) operation as part of her acute treatment to avoid
permanent paralysis.  David and Lucy also argue that they cannot
leave Niamh and Ruby, who are in school, for an extended period to
travel to New Mexico for their depositions.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs offer to cover the cost of the live video conference
needed to secure their virtual depositions and point out that
similar methods have already been used to depose five fact
witnesses in the case, including a treating physician.

In their Reply, the Defendants argue that Lucy is not as injured as
the Plaintiffs allege as, according to the individuals already
deposed in the matter, Ms. Leeson has traveled to Cyprus, Greece,
twice, to the Cannery Islands, along with other trips since the
time of the accident.  The Defendants further counter the
Plaintiffs' reliance on the depositions already taken in the case
because, they assert, Lucy's deposition will require referring to
documents (whereas none of the others apparently had to refer to
documents during their depositions).  They also point out that the
time difference between New Mexico and Manchester makes
coordinating depositions more difficult.  The Defendants conclude
by pointing out that the Plaintiffs chose to file in New Mexico and
asserting that travel to the United Kingdom to take the depositions
in person would be prejudicially expensive.  Most importantly, they
posit that video depositions of the Plaintiffs in the case will be
"insufficient."

The matter comes before the Court on Defendants' DW Expediting and
Christopher Puerto's Emergency Motion for Protective Order, filed
Oct. 22, 2019.  The Plaintiffs' response brief was due Nov. 5,
2019, but was not filed until Nov. 15, 2019, seven days after the
Court ordered the parties to file a notice of completion of
briefing because the time for filing a response had elapsed.  In
their reply brief, the Defendants confirm the Court's suspicion
that no extension to respond to the Motion was sought or granted.
For this reason alone, the Court could grant the Defendants'
Motion.

Magistrate Judge Ritter will not do so in this instance.  The Judge
holds that the Court has the authority to waive the Local Rules,
including the time limits they set forth, to avoid injustice.  The
Local Rules encourage the Court to construe them consistently with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are themselves to be
construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties
to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding.  Additionally, courts prefer to decide cases
on their merits rather than technicalities.  Therefore, while the
Plaintiffs and their counsel are admonished to comply with the
Local Rules, the Judge will decide the Motion on its merits.

At issue in the Motion is whether the Plaintiffs must travel to New
Mexico to give their depositions in light of their place of
residence (the United Kingdom), Plaintiff Lucy Leeson's claimed
injuries resulting from the crash underlying this case, and the
electronic alternatives to in-person examination available to tge
Defendants.  While the general rule appears to be that non-resident
plaintiffs ordinarily (and quite reasonably) submit to certain
inconveniences, such as appearing for hearings, depositions and
trial, in the district where they file suit, the rule is not
without its exceptions.  The Judge will deny the Defendants' Motion
and order them to at least attempt to coordinate and take the
Plaintiffs' depositions via videoconference.

In sum, Magistrate Judge Ritter denied the Defendants' Motion for a
Protective Order because it finds that the burden of requiring the
Plaintiffs to travel from their home in the United Kingdom to New
Mexico for their depositions is outweighed by the benefit
obtainable via use of videoconference and other electronic means.
The parties will work in good faith to coordinate the Plaintiffs'
depositions in accordance with the provisions of the Order and the
applicable Federal Rules.  If the Defendants continue to have
concerns after the depositions, they may re-file their motion and
submit a copy of the video recording at issue.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/QEo1EE from
Leagle.com.

David Leeson, next friend & Lucy Leeson, Individually and as
Parents of Niamh Leeson and Ruby Leeson, minor children,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Patrick Doyle --
mdoyle@doylelawfirm.com -- Doyle LLP, Patrick Dennis --
pdennis@doylelawfirm.com -- Doyle LLP & Dathan Weems, Dathan L
Weems Attorney at Law.

DW Expediting, Inc., a foreign corporation & Christopher Puerto,
Defendants, represented by Allison M. Beaulieu --
ambeaulieu@btblaw.com -- Butt Thornton & Baehr PC & Raul P. Sedillo
-- rpsedillo@btblaw.com -- Butt, Thornton & Baehr, PC.


XALER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Derval TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX DERVAL et al., Plaintiff, v. XALER et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-01881-ODW (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class in the action seeking relief for Defendant Xaler's alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Xaler is a cannabis delivery company operating in Los Angeles
County, in Santa Monica, Venice, West Los Angeles, Beverly Hills,
Culver City, and Marina Del Rey.  The Plaintiffs contend that Xaler
has a uniform policy of causing text messages to be sent to
consumers' cellular telephones on Xaler's behalf without prior
express consent.  They assert they and the class they seek to
represent have received numerous such unwanted messages despite
requests that the messages stop and that these automated text
messages violate the TCPA.

Xaler responds that it sends its text message advertisements only
to customers who have consented to receive messages from Xaler.
The messages include the option to text "STOP" and stop receiving
the messages.  However, an issue unique to AT&T customers prevents
a "STOP" request from processing and requires AT&T users to
manually opt-out through an online web portal.  AT&T users continue
to receive the text messages until they opt-out through the web
portal.

In March 2019, the Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action
asserting two causes of action against Xaler for negligent and
willful violation of the TCPA.  They seek statutory damages and
injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons
within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a
cellular telephone service, who received at least one text message
using an automatic telephone dialing system from Xaler between the
date of filing the action and the four years preceding, where such
text messages were sent and placed for the purpose of marketing
where the recipient did not give their express consent to be
contacted by Xaler.  The Motion is fully briefed.

Judge Wright finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion fails at the first
step, numerosity.  Although the Court need only make a reasonable
judgment based on the Plaintiffs' pleadings and supporting
evidence, reasonable judgments cannot be made out of thin air;
sufficient information to make such a judgment is a required
preliminary step.  The Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient
information and, accordingly, have failed to satisfy the numerosity
requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), the Court opines.

The Court does not address the remaining requirements for class
certification as it finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet
the numerosity requirement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/rZP3xl from Leagle.com.

Alex Derval, and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Morgan Simmons, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Farmon Javad Rahimi -- jay@LALSLaw.com
-- Los Angeles Legal Solutions APLC, Jared M. Hartman --
jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com -- Semnar and Hartman LLP &
Sara F. Khosroabadi, SKB Law APC.

Xaler, a cooperative corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Berke -- robert@berkelegal.com -- Berke Law Offices Inc.


XP INC: Acerno Says SEC Registration Info False & Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ACERNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XP INC., GUILHERME DIAS FERNANDES BENCHIMOL,
BRUNO CONSTANTINO ALEXANDRE DOS SANTOS, BERNARDO AMARAL BOTELHO,
CARLOS ALBERTO FERREIRA FILHO, GABRIEL KLAS DA ROCHA LEAL,
FABRÍCIO CUNHA DE ALMEIDA, GUILHERME SANT’ANNA MONTEIRO DA
SILVA, JULIO CAPUA RAMOS DA SILVA, MARTIN EMILIANO ESCOBARI
LIFCHITZ, GERALDO JOSÉ CARBONE, FRANCISCO EDUARDO DE ALMEIDA
PINTO, MARIA HELENA DOS SANTOS FERNANDES DE SANTANA, JARED WILSON,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, XP INVESTMENTS US, LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC.,
BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01502 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of
the Federal Securities Laws, the Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiff purchased XP's securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the initial public offering (IPO).

The complaint arises from a Form 424B1 filed by XP on December 11,
2019 with SEC as its final prospectus for IPO and as part of its
initial Registration Statement on Form F-1 filed on or about
November 15, 2019. Allegedly, the statements on the Registration
Statement were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operational and financial results.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan &
Stanley & Co. LLC,, XP Investments US, LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., Bofa Securities, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, UBS Securities LLC are
investment banking firm that acted as an underwriter of XP's IPO.

Individual Defendants are board of directors. Each of them signed
the Registration Statement, solicited the investing public to
purchase securities, hired and assisted the underwriters, planned
and contributed to the IPO and Registration Statement, and attended
road shows and other promotions to meet with the present favorable
information to potential Sundial investors.

XP Inc. is a technology-driven financial services platform and a
trusted provider of low-fee financial products and services in
Brazil. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212)686-1060
          Fax: (212)202-3827
          Emails: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***