/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200413.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 13, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 74

                            Headlines

ACRE MORTGAGE: Moorehead Files FCRA Suit in New Jersey
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
AMERICAN FINANCE: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss NY Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN HONDA: Susanto Sues Over Odyssey Transmission Defect

ANTHEM INC: Cobb Suit Transferred From Virginia to S.D. Indiana
APOTHAKER SCIAN: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Lawsuit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
APRIO LLP: Lechter et al. Sue over Fraud Tax Savings Scheme
ARSTRAT LLC: Mugavero Alleges Violation under FDCPA

AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certified in Raymond Suit
AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Richey Class Suit
BAILEY'S QUALITY: Faces King FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Cusack Consumer Class Suit Removed to D.N.J.
BANK OF THE WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Antenucci Suit Says

BELL BANK: Sahlberg Farms Sues Over Unlawful and Multiple Fees
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settlement in Depositor's Suit Has Final Approval
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Wants Suit by SI Financial Shareholder Tossed
BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma

BOK FINANCIAL: Oklahoma Suit Over Demand Deposit Pacts Ongoing
BURKHALTER TECHNOLOGIES: Jones et al. Seek OT Pay for Staff
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Kinney Disputes Vague Collection Letter
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Pays $700,000 to Resolve Faria Class Suit
CHAMPION HOME: Gipson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: $6.5MM Settlement in Schneider Gets Prelim. OK
CIGNA BEHAVIORAL: Pacific Recovery Sues Due to Underpaid Claims
CIGNA BEHAVIORAL: RJ Sues Over Undervalued Behavioral Health Dues
CITIBANAMEX: Amended Mexico Gov't Bonds Suit Underway

CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Ice Libor Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Michael O'Higgins Collective Proceedings Underway
CITIGROUP INC: Motion for Class Status in Gertler Suit Underway
CITIGROUP INC: Phillip Evans Collective Action Underway in UK
CITIGROUP: Settlement in Interchange Fee Litig. Under Appeal

CLEAR BLUE: Fails to Pay OT Wages and Rest Premiums, Briley Says
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Elhendi TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
COLUMBIA COUNTY, OR: Ignored COVID-19 Threat, Thompson Claims
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Shropshire Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COMCAST CORP: Shelton Sues in Pennsylvania Over Violation of FCRA

COMODO GROUP: New Jersey District Certifies Class in Johnson Suit
CORRECT CARE: Court Tosses 2 Claims in Woodcock Inmates Class Suit
COVANCE INC: Bid to Conditionally Certify Class in Mitchell Denied
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
CROWN CASTLE: Goering Hits Share Drop from Erroneous Financials

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Remand Wilson Personal Injury Suit Nixed
DATA MANAGEMENT: Mullins Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Syarto FDCPA Suit N.D. Illinois
DOLLAR GENERAL: Lewis Seeks OT Premiums for Store Staff
DOUYU INT'L: Faces Kovalenko Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price

DYNAMIC COMPUTING: Wins Summary Judgment in Bey Labor Suit
EATSTREET: Martin Sues over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Tip Credits
EDISON INT'L: Settlement Reached in Thomas & Koenigstein Fire Suit
EDISON INT'L: Settlement Reached in Woolsey Fire Litigation
EF INSTITUTE: Grabovsky Sues Over Shelved Tour, Seeks Refund

ELECTROLUX HOME: Gorczynski Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial in Nichols Suit to Begin August 2020
ENSIGN UNITED: $22.3K Attorneys' Fee Awarded in Faulkner Suit
EURO HOMECARE: Gorzkowska Seeks Conditional Class Certification
FAIR ISAAC: Monopolizes B2B Credit Score Market, Sky Federal Says

FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Phenix FLSA Suit in Texas Over Unpaid Wages
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Faces Trivison Suit Over Improper Late Fees
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Certification Denial in Wilmot Suit Reversed
FRONT YARD: Settlement in Martin Suit Wins Final Approval
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mercadal Claims

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Del. Ch. Partly Dismisses Burkhart Class Suit
GOLDEN EMPIRE: Pettis Files Suit in California
HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Faces Aranowitz Suit Over Ransomware Attack
HANMI FINANCIAL: Misleads Securities Buyers, Killyoung Oh Claims
HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces Arechiga Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

HOLLYWOOD PARK: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Charles Alleges
HUDSON LABOR: Ninth Circuit Flips Summary Judgment in Abselet Suit
ILLINOIS: Money Sues Over Risk in Spread of COVID-19 in Prisons
INDIANA: Indiana App. Affirms Final Judgment in Coalition Suit
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Consumer Suit Pending in Connecticut

INTERSTATE BLOOD BANK: Sacked Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOHNSON MARK: Faces Smith FDCPA Class Suit in District of Utah
JP MORGAN: May 26 LIBOR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
KELLOGG CO: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial in Marotto Nixed
KEYBANK NA: Sullivan Sues Over Untimely Filed Mortgage Proof

KIMPTON HOTEL: 2019 Data Breach Suit Ongoing
KIMPTON HOTEL: Accord in 2016 Data Breach Case Wins Court Final OK
KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT: Faces Smith FDCPA Suit in District of Utah
KUWAIT: Mohammad Suit Over Violation of FEHA Moved to C.D. Calif.
LEHIGH VALLEY: Steele Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA & PMWA

LOWE'S HOME: Roy Sues in Massachusetts Over Labor Law Violations
LUCKIN COFFEE: Sterckx Sues Over Decline in ADSs' Market Value
MARIN J CORP: Farmworkers Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
MARSHALLS OF CA: Gasoyan FCRA Suit Removed to in N.D. California
MATCH GROUP: Appeal Briefing in Kim Class Suit Ongoing

MDL 2672: Summary Judgment Bid in VW Clean Diesel Suit Partly OK'd
MDL 2873: Millington v. 3M Co. Over AFFF Products Consolidated
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cousins Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FDCPA Breach
MINNESOTA: Bid to Stay Jensen Suit Pending Appeal Resolution Denied
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Interest Rate Swaps Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Iowa PERS Suit
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lafaye, et al. Seek to Certify Class
NEW YORK: Certification of Injunctive Class Sought in E.M. Suit
NEW YORK: Partial Summary Judgment on Liability Granted in ADA Suit
NISOURCE INC: Settlement of Greater Lawrence Suit Under Advisement

NOVO NORDISK: NJ Dist. Certifies Class in Securities Class Suit
OCEAN SPRAY: $5.4MM Settlement in Hilsley Suit Gets Prelim. OK
OMNI PARK: Meadows-LoBue Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Home Care Aides
ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing
PALMCO POWER: Gruenert Sues in N.D. Illinois Over TCPA Violation

PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Class Action Ongoing
PARK POWER: Gruenert Sues in N.D. Illinois Over Violation of TCPA
PAYSIGN INC: Faces Smith Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
PENSKE TRUCK: Zamora Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
PHH MORTGAGE: Charges Illegal Extra Fees to Borrowers, Bell Claims

PHH MORTGAGE: Collects Unlawful Processing Fees, Morris Claims
PINNACLE PIZZA: Parnell Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Mora Asserts Breach of FCRA in New Jersey
POTBELLY SANDWICH: $561K Deal in Bryant Suit Gets Final Approval
PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Can't Compel Arbitration in Velez FLSA Suit

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued by Weber in N.Y. Over Fraud-Linked Issues
RABOBANK NA: Del. Dist. Recommends Dismissal of Recovery Fund Suit
RANDSTAD TECHNOLOGIES: Ziadeh Seeks Fines Under FLSA & Labor Code
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Steinberg Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
ROYAL BANK: Appeal in JPY LIBOR & Euroyen TIBOR Suits Pending

ROYAL BANK: Class Suit vs NWM Plc in Australia Underway
ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Reference Rate Suits in SDNY
ROYAL BANK: NWM Plc Bid for Cancellation of Service Pending
ROYAL BANK: Settlement in Principle Reached in USD LIBOR Suit
RUBY CORP: Nichols Suit Over Marketing E-Mails Moved to S.D. Cal.

RUTTER'S HOLDINGS: Faces Lavezza Suit over Credit Card Breach
SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Moya Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for PARs
SAND CASTLE: Misclassifies Inspectors, Dubois et al. Claim
SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Underway
SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed

SANDERSON FARMS: Consumer Class Action Ongoing in California
SANDERSON FARMS: Maryland Employees Class Action Ongoing
SEIU UHW -WEST: Price EFTA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
SHAKE SHACK: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Alcazar Alleges
SIX CONTINENTS: Suit over Data Breach Ongoing

SIX CONTINENTS: Suit over Keyword Search Advertising Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Guzman Class Suit in Mediation
SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit
SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE: Higginbotham Suit Removed to E.D. California

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Appellate Court Keeps Pension Trust's Suit
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Class Suits Over Accounting Review
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Zaback Sues Over Defects in Foresters/Outbacks
SUN & CHANG: Faces Bahena FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUTTER VALLEY: Faces Tinnin Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

TARY C LOOMIS-THERRIEN: Faces Williams Suit Over FDCPA Violation
TEEKAY OFFSHORE: Continues to Defend Brookfield Merger Related Suit
TENNCARE: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought in A.M.C. Case
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
TITAN MUTUAL: Charman Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Ads

TRAF GROUP: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
TRANSUNION LLC: Konig Has Leave to File Second Amended FCRA Suit
TRUGREEN INC: 2017 Summary Judgment Bid in Stevens-Bratton Granted
TUCKER ENTERTAINMENT: Harris Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Dancers
UBER TECH: Distribution of Settlement Fund in Dulberg Suit Ordered

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Pacific Recovery Sues Over Underpaid Claims
UNITED STATES: Faces AMB Suit Over Mortgage Note Sales Program
USC: Faces Jane Doe Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Misconduct
VERDE ENERGY: Metzler Sues over Robocalls
VERSA INTEGRITY: Horn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Goetz ERISA Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Nebraska Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Ongoing
WEST COAST BERRY: Underpays Farm Workers, Magana-Munoz et al. Say
WILLIS TOWERS: Court Denies Renewed Bids to Dismiss Proxy Suit
WIND CREEK: Bartakovits Sues over Unpaid OT & Unfair Tip Credit

XEROX CORP: Litigation over Fujifilm Deal Discontinued
XEROX CORP: Miami Firefighters Can't Intervene in Ribbe Suit
YES TO INC: Paper Mask Has Toxic Ingredients, Ackley Suit Claims

                            *********

ACRE MORTGAGE: Moorehead Files FCRA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acre Mortgage &
Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmyn Katherine Moorehead,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03731 (D.N.J., April 7, 2020).

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

Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc. is a mortgage company in New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregory Joseph Gorski, Esq.
   Greg Gorski Law, PLLC
   1635 Market Street, Suite 1600
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 330-2100
   Email: greg@greggorskilaw.com

   


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint in the class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California remains pending.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three
of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 25, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities
laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs
and expenses incurred in the litigation.

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (together with the
first lawsuit, the "Securities Actions").

On May 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against Align and four of its executive officers alleging similar
claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between April 25, 2018 and
October 24, 2018.

On June 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On October 29, 2019, that motion to dismiss
was granted with leave to amend.

On November 29, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint against Align and two of its executive
officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common
stock from May 23, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
was filed on January 17, 2020.

Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: ALLERGAN GENERIC DRUG PRICING
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-09449-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.),
Sjunde AP-Fonden and Union Asset Management Holding AG will move
the Court on August 17, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the
      proposed Class; and

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and
      Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel
      and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
      as Liaison Counsel.

This case asserts claims against Allergan plc (formerly doing
business as Actavis) and its top executives for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This securities class action is asserted on behalf of investors who
purchased the publicly-traded securities of Allergan from October
29, 2013 through November 2, 2016.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants reported robust financial results to the market,
attributed those results to entirely legitimate business factors
and conditions, and assured investors that both the Company's
pricing practices and the generic drug market in which it operated
were highly competitive. The Complaint alleges that, in truth,
Allergan's financial results were driven in material part by the
Company's collusion with competitors to dramatically increase the
prices of at least six generic drugs. The Complaint further alleges
that the truth about Allergan's price fixing scheme was revealed to
investors in two disclosures on August 6, 2015 and November 3,
2016.

On February 2, 2017, the Court appointed Union Asset Management as
co-Lead Plaintiff for the action. On May 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs
filed an initial Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss
that complaint. That motion was fully briefed when, on October 31,
2017, a consortium of 46 state Attorneys General filed a complaint
charging Allergan as an alleged co-conspirator in an antitrust
price-fixing conspiracy. This complaint described several "smoking
gun" calls, emails and text between Allergan executives and other
co-conspirators. On November 28, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint, which included newly discovered
information, including information revealed in the Attorneys
General's complaint.

Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss on January 22, 2018.
The motion was fully briefed in April 2018, and was argued on April
11, 2019.  On August 6, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion
to dismiss, and the case proceeded into discovery.

Allergan is an Irish-domiciled pharmaceutical company that
acquires, develops, and markets brand name drugs.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class are:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, 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: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Margaret E. Mazzeo, Esq.
          Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  mmazzeo@ktmc.com
                  jneumann@ktmc.com

               - and -

          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq.
          Michael Mathai, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1448
          E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com
                  lauren@blbglaw.com
                  michael.mathai@blbglaw.com

AMERICAN FINANCE: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss NY Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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
Defendant's motion to dismiss a stockholder lawsuit remains pending
in New York court.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which RCA shareholders acquired shares of our common stock during
the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading
information.  The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and
Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against us and Mr. Weil, and control person liability against the
Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section
15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
company's sales of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

The company believes the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no
estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are
determinable at this time.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
the company's common stock through its then effective distribution
reinvestment plan, against the company, AR Global, the Advisor,
Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr.,
Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against us, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of
the company's sale of stock or rescissory damages.

The company believes the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no
estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are
determinable at this time.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired the company's
shares during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against us, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR
Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and rescission of our sale of stock pursuant to
the registration statement.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway (the "Consolidated Cases").

The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on
the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Following a federal court's decision on the motions to dismiss in
the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in the
Consolidated Cases seeking substantially similar remedies from the
same defendants.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
December 16, 2019. The briefing with respect to the motion to
dismiss is ongoing and the Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

American Finance said, "There are no other material legal or
regulatory proceedings pending or known to be contemplated against
us."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN HONDA: Susanto Sues Over Odyssey Transmission Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERMAWAN SUSANTO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., a California corporation, and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02520 (C.D. Cal., March
16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants, in violation of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law, failed to disclose to future owners and lessees that the ZF
9HP transmission contained design or manufacturing defects that
render the 2018 through 2019 Honda Odyssey unsafe.

In September 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Honda Odyssey
from Honda of Thousand Oaks, an authorized Honda dealership in
Thousand Oaks, California.

The Plaintiff contends that the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission
design defects causes the transmission to exhibit rough, delayed,
or sudden shifting or failure to shift; grinding or other loud
noises during shifting; harsh engagement of gears; sudden or harsh
accelerations/decelerations; and sudden loss of power.

As a result of the Transmission Defect, the Plaintiff and Class
Members were harmed and suffered actual damages in that the Class
Vehicles' transmission components are substantially certain to fail
or require replacement or repair, before their expected useful life
has run, according to the complaint.

American Honda is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor
Company, Ltd. American Honda was founded in 1959.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


ANTHEM INC: Cobb Suit Transferred From Virginia to S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Shelita Cobb, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. and The
Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00897 (Filed Dec. 4,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana (Indianapolis) on March 13, 2020.

The Southern District of Indiana Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00820-SEB-DLP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sarah Evans Barker

The case is a class action complaint arising from the Defendants'
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work as Consumer
Service Associates at the Defendants' call centers.

The Defendants provide health insurance services nationwide. Anthem
is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
          Lawanda Price, Esq.
          JTB Law Group LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297

               - and -

          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          Nicholas Raymond Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297

               - and -

          Curtis Daniel Cannon, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & FINNEGAN LLC
          8401 Colesville Road, No. 630
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 589-2999
          Facsimile: (301) 589-2644

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Zeiler Hager, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 3000
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Telephone: (404) 885-3428
          Facsimile: (404) 962-6580

               - and -

          David Edward Constine, III, Esq.
          Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq.
          Harrison Scott Kelly, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          P. O. Box 1122
          Richmond, VA 23218-1122
          Telephone: (804) 697-1258
          Facsimile: (804) 698-5131


APOTHAKER SCIAN: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated v. APOTHAKER SCIAN P.C.
f/k/a APOTHAKER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; DAVID J. APOTHAKER and JOHN
DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01432-SCM (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on April 20, 2020, for an order :

   1. approving notice to be sent to the proposed settlement
class;

   2. appointing interim counsel; and

   3. scheduling a fairness hearing.

Apothaker is a law office specializing in debt collection in New
Jersey & Pennsylvania.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 US-130, Ste 101
          North Brunswick Township, NJ 08902
          E-mail: bsharma@wolflawfirm.net.

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-6328
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

Attorney for Defendants are:

          Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI, LLP
          Three Logan Square, 1717 Arch St., Suite 610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Lawsuit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas stayed the
proceedings in a consolidated class action for 90 days to allow the
parties to conduct settlement negotiations.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "the company see softer
than expected demand for its 40G solutions with one of its large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand the company expects in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas.

The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On
January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was
denied on March 28, 2019. The Company disputes the allegations, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.  

On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case.

The court granted the motion on May 16, 2019. The substantive
allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative second amended
consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On May 28,
2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and Levi
& Korsinsky as class counsel.

On July 12, 2019, the Company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed their Reply Brief. The Court has not yet ruled on the pending
motion for class certification.

On November 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be granted, to which Defendants filed written
objections on November 27, 2019. On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ objections, and on
December 16, 2019, Defendants filed their reply brief.

The court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's
Memorandum and Recommendation over Defendants' objections on
December 20, 2019. Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, Defendants filed
a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to Defendants' petition on
January 13, 2020, and Defendants filed a reply brief in further
support of the petition for permission to appeal on January 21,
2020. On January 23, 2020, Defendants filed an unopposed motion in
the Fifth Circuit requesting that the court stay further
proceedings for 90 days to allow the parties to conduct settlement
negotiations. The Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the
motion on January 24, 2020.

The case is currently in the discovery phase, and fact discovery is
scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2020.  

Applied Optoelectronics said, "At this stage, we are not yet able
to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


APRIO LLP: Lechter et al. Sue over Fraud Tax Savings Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW LECHTER; SYLVIA THOMPSON; LAWSON F. THOMPSON; RUSSELL DALBA;
and KATHRYN DALBA, Plaintiffs v. APRIO, LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI &
WYNNE, LLP; ROBERT GREENBERGER; SIROTE & PERMUTT, P.C.; BURR &
FORMAN, LLP; BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.;
SMITH, LEWIS & HALEY, LLP; DAVID C. SMITH; FOREVER FORESTS LLC;
NANCY ZAK; JAMES JOWERS; LARGE & GILBERT, INC.; CLOWER KIRSCH &
ASSOCIATES, LLC; JIM R. CLOWER, SR.; TENNILLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
ATLANTIC COAST CONSERVANCY, INC.; ROBERT D. KELLER; and GEORGIA
ALABAMA LAND TRUST, INC. f/k/a GEORGIA LAND TRUST, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga., March 26, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for the development and
implementation of a fraudulent scheme to sell a flawed and
defective tax savings strategy called Syndicated Conservation
Easement Strategy, which failed to satisfy the Internal Revenue
Service's requirements for the Conservation Easement Deeds, the
Appraisal Summary (Forms 8283), and the Baseline Documentation
Reports. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly-situated individuals paid substantial fees
and transaction costs, be exposed to interest and penalties from
the IRS, and incur additional accounting and legal fees and
expenses.

Aprio, LLP is a business advisory firm with principal place of
business at 5 Concourse Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia. It
is also formerly known as Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, LLP.

Sirote & Permutt, P.C. is a law firm with its principal place of
business at 2311 Highland Avenue South, Birmingham, Alabama.

Burr & Forman, LLP is a legal solutions provider with its principal
place of business at 420 20th Street North, Suite 3400, Birmingham,
Alabama.

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. is a law firm
with its principal place of business at 165 Madison Avenue, 20th
Floor, Memphis, Tennessee.

Smith Lewis & Haley, LLP is a law firm with its principal place of
business at 901 North Broad Street, #350, Rome, Georgia.

Forever Forests LLC is an environmental consulting firm with its
principal place of business at 1058 Dornell Road, Ball Ground,
Georgia.

Large & Gilbert, Inc. is a construction accounting firm with its
principal place of business at 6849 Peachtree Dunwoody Road NE,
Building A-2, Atlanta, Georgia.

Clower Kirsch & Associates, LLC is a limited liability company
headquartered at 289 Culver Street South, Lawrenceville, Georgia.

Tennille & Associates, Inc. is a real estate appraisal and
consulting firm with its principal place of business at 820 State
Farm Road, Suite B, Boone, North Carolina.

Atlantic Coast Conservancy, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that
provides solutions for natural resources conservation, with its
principal place of business at 72 South Main Street, Jasper,
Georgia.

Georgia Alabama Land Trust, Inc. is a nonprofit conservation
organization with its principal place of business at 226 Old Ladiga
Road, Piedmont, Alabama. It is also formerly known as Georgia Land
Trust, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Deary, Esq.
          W. Ralph Canada Jr., Esq.
          Jeven R. Sloan, Esq.
          LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75251          
          Telephone: (214) 572-1700
          Facsimile: (214) 572-1717
          E-mail: davidd@lfdslaw.com
                  ralphc@lfdslaw.com
                  jevens@lfdslaw.com

               - and -
           
          Edward J. Rappaport, Esq.
          THE SAYLOR LAW FIRM LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 3220
          Atlanta, GA 30309          
          Telephone: (404) 892-4400
          E-mail: erappaport@saylorlaw.com

ARSTRAT LLC: Mugavero Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as David J. Mugavero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARStrat, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01725 (E.D., N.Y., April 7, 2020).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   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


AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certified in Raymond Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Keith Raymond, et al. v. Avectus Healthcare Solutions,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00559-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Michael R. Barrett granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have met the requirement of
predominance of common issues under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is granted to the extent that
Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs have
not cited to a rule adopted by the Attorney General or cases which
would establish prior notice. Therefore, dismissal of the claim as
a class action is proper and Plaintiffs may proceed in their
individual capacity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is denied to the extent that Plaintiffs seek class
certification of their claim for a violation of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act. Moreover, as a general matter, injunctive
relief is not authorized in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
cases. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
denied to the extent that Plaintiff seek certification under Rule
23(b)(2)."

The Plaintiffs have brought the following claims: breach of
contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, violation of
the OCSPA, violation of the FDCPA, fraud, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and punitive damages.

Avectus provides consulting services.[CC]

AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Richey Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Douglas Richey.  

The company is a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit filed
in the District of Nevada on April 9, 2019 by Douglas Richey.

The case alleges the TASER Pulse, X2 and X26P CEDs have a faulty
safety switch based on Richey's Pulse allegedly discharging inside
its neoprene case in a jacket pocket without injury.

Any such discharge was likely due to static electricity, as
disclosed in our consumer warnings.

Axon said, "We will vigorously defend this claim and the propriety
of any class certification."

Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.

BAILEY'S QUALITY: Faces King FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD L. KING II On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BAILEY'S QUALITY PLUMBING AND HEATING LLC; and PHILIP
LEE BAILEY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00571 (N.D. Ohio, March 16, 2020),
challenges the policies and practices of the Defendants in not
paying overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the FLSA Collective regularly
worked 40 or more hours per workweek for the Defendants. For
example, during the workweek ending September 6, 2019, his paystubs
demonstrate that he worked at least 44 hours. The Defendants,
however, did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rates for all the hours he worked in
excess of 40 hours.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an hourly plumber
since January 2018.

The Defendants are owners and operators of a plumbing and heating
company operating at North Canton, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          MC DERMOTT LAW LLC
          11925 Pearl Road, Suite 310
          Strongsville, OH 44136
          Telephone: (216) 367-9181
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          E-mail: kevin@mcdermottattorney.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Cusack Consumer Class Suit Removed to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS D. CUSACK and LYNN
MARIE CUSACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
GLO-L-000113-20, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court,
Gloucester County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Camden) on March 16, 2020.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02900-JHR-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez.

The lawsuit alleges violation of consumer credit related laws.

Bank of America operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and
current account, investment and financial services, online banking,
and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues
credit card and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845-1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen Allen Loney , Jr., Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 675-4677
          E-mail: stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com


BANK OF THE WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Antenucci Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ANTENUCCI, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF THE WEST, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. CGC-20-583746 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., March 16, 2020), alleges wage and labor
violations arising out of the Defendants' failure to pay wages for
all time worked and to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and
rest periods.

The Plaintiff contends that the Bank failed to pay its employees
straight and overtime wages for time they worked loading programs
before their shift and closing programs after their shift; and
failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods to
its California non-exempt employees, in violation of California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their office in
Fresno, California, from July 1, 2019, to November 28, 2019, as a
Commercial Banking Group Loan Administrator.

Bank of the West is a regional financial services company,
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  lbrevard@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474-7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com


BELL BANK: Sahlberg Farms Sues Over Unlawful and Multiple Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sahlberg Farms LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. BELL BANK, Case No. 0:20-cv-00871-PJS-LIB (D. Minn.,
April 2, 2020), arises from Bell Bank's routine practice of
charging two or more fees, including overdraft fees and
non-sufficient funds fees, on a single item.

The Plaintiff contends that this practice breaches contractual
promises and violates the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Plaintiff says it does not dispute Bell Bank's right to either:
(a) reject a transaction and charge a single NSF Fee or (b) pay a
transaction and charge a single OD Fee on a transaction that
actually overdraws the account, but Bell Bank unlawfully maximizes
its already profitable account fees with deceptive practices that
also violate its contract. Specifically, Bell Bank unlawfully
assesses multiple fees on a single Automated Clearing House ("ACH")
transaction or check.

According to the complaint, Bell Bank breaches its contract when it
charges more than one fee on the same item, since the contract
states--and reasonable consumers understand--that the same item can
only incur a single fee. Bell Bank also breaches its duty of good
faith and fair dealing when it charges multiple fees on a single
transaction. Specifically, Bell Bank abuses its contractual
discretion by (a) processing transactions when it knows full well
that a customer's account lacks sufficient funds and (b) charging
fees upon each reprocessing of the same item.

The Plaintiff says it and other Bell Bank customers have been
injured by these practices. On behalf of itself and the Classes,
the Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief.
Bell Bank's improper scheme to extract funds from accountholders
already struggling to make ends meet has victimized Plaintiff and
thousands of other accountholders.

Plaintiff Sahlberg Farms is a citizen and resident of Clay County,
Minnesota, and holds a Bell Bank checking account.

Bell Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: 612-436-1800
          Fax: 612-436-1801
          Email: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                 jshannon@johnsonbecker.com
                 jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 871-8180
          Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                 sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
          Daniel E. Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                 tropin@kolawyers.com


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settlement in Depositor's Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court
overseeing the class action suit initiated by a Berkshire Bank
depositor has issued an order granting final approval of a
settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the case with
prejudice.  

On April 28, 2016, the Company and the Bank were served with a
complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Springfield Division.

The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor,
who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported
class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters. On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to
add purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act.

On January 4, 2019, the Parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the matter on a class-wide basis. Among other terms, the
agreement in principle provides that the Company will pay a total
of $3.0 million in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice and
release of all claims that have been or could have been asserted in
the lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class
Members.

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Parties' fully-executed
Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement") with the Court
together with her unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement. On July 24, 2019, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement, and issued an Order that
notice of the Settlement be given to all Settlement Class Members.


The Company paid $1.0 million on July 26, 2019, as required under
the Settlement to offset certain anticipated administrative costs
and expenses. The Company had an accrual of $2.0 million as of
December 31, 2019, in anticipation of the completion of the
Settlement.

On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the Settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing
the case with prejudice. The Company anticipates that the
Settlement will be completed sometime during the first six months
of 2020.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Wants Suit by SI Financial Shareholder Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the joint
motion to dismiss the class action initiated against SI Financial
Group, Inc., is still pending.

On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. ("SI Financial")
shareholder.

On June 26, 2019, the Company received notice of a verified
consolidated amended complaint in this action, which was filed
after consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed
in the same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial.

The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit
against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI
Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with
the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI
Financial.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated SI
Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the registration
statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019 contains
materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in violation
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duty to SI Financial shareholders and were
unjustly enriched by the subject merger transaction.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Of note, SI Financial merged with and into the Company on May 17,
2019, and ceased to have any further independent legal existence at
that time.

The Company and the individual Defendants deny the allegations
contained in the verified consolidated amended complaint and intend
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation, which is
still pending before the court. There are no other active cases
proceeding against the Company or the individual Defendants in
regard to the SI Financial merger.

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

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial 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 class action suits related to extended
overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA.

On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.

On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas
action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument
on October 8, 2019.

On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action. The District Court
dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and the action is pending on that motion.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New
Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial 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's
wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA, continues to defend a
putative class action in Oklahoma initiated by bondholders
representing a set of municipal securities.

On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
second putative class action representing a different set of
municipal securities.

The bondholders in this second action allege two individuals
purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the
SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60
million of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as
indenture trustee.

The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller
of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained
of in the New Jersey action. BOKF, NA properly performed all duties
as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal securities,
timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities
when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions
against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings,
and has been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to
the claims of these bondholders.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Oklahoma Suit Over Demand Deposit Pacts Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial 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 BOKF NA continues
to defend a putative class action suit in Oklahoma District Court
for Tulsa County alleging that BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit
Agreements.

On July 6, 2018, a plaintiff served a petition in a putative class
action in the Oklahoma District Court for Tulsa County Oklahoma
alleging BOKF, NA breached its Demand Deposit Agreements by
charging overdraft and not sufficient funds fees to deposit
accounts on the day of the transaction triggering the fee and by
the bank's debit hold process causing overdraft fees.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BURKHALTER TECHNOLOGIES: Jones et al. Seek OT Pay for Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARL JONES and KENNETH FLOYD, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURKHALTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
JOHN BURKHALTER, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00339-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
March 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated maintenance workers for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week and failure to include rent discounts
and commissions in their overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid
maintenance workers from December of 2019 until March of 2020.

Burkhalter Technologies, Inc. is an operator of apartment complexes
based in Arkansas. Its registered agent for service is, Newland &
Associates, PLLC, located at 2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 200,
Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Kinney Disputes Vague Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Streets Kinney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Accounts, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01459, (E.D. Pa., March 17, 2020), seeks
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Capital Accounts is a debt collector who attempted to collect an
alleged debt owed by Kinney to Jay Wardius DDS via collection
letter. Kinney alleges that said letter stated that it would report
the payment to three credit bureaus but was not stated whether the
full or settled amount will be reported. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com



CARRIAGE SERVICES: Pays $700,000 to Resolve Faria Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that company paid $700,000
with respect to the settlement agreement in Faria, et al. v.
Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County, Case No. MSC18-00606.  

On March 26, 2018, six Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the company's subsidiary,
their alleged employer, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and claim that Carriage Funeral
Holdings, Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest
breaks, provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse
employees for required expenses, and provide wages when due.

Plaintiffs also claim that Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. violated
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.  

On June 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint to add
a claim under the California Private Attorney General Act.  

On October 23, 2018, the parties mediated this matter and executed
a Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement.  

In February 2019, a Class Action Settlement Agreement was fully
executed and was approved by the Court in October 2019.

The company paid $700,000 under the settlement agreement in
November 2019.

Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and
merchandise in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


CHAMPION HOME: Gipson Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KEISHON GIPSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, INC., an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 28022 (Filed
Feb. 7, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Tulare to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on March 16, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00392-DAD-SKO to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against Defendants for violating the
California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages, meal and
rest Periods premiums, and minimum wages.

Champion Home provides construction services. The Company offers
residential and commercial construction services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          Julia A. Luster, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
                  julia.luster@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Rabia Z. Reed, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-840-3150
          Facsimile: 916-840-3159
          E-mail: rabia.reed@ogletree.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 class
action suit against the company and FTS International, Inc., is
ongoing.

In February 2019, a putative class action lawsuit in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas was filed against FTS International,
Inc. ("FTSI"), certain investment banks, FTSI's directors including
certain of the company's officers and certain shareholders of FTSI
including the company.

The lawsuit alleges various violations of Sections 11 (with respect
to certain of the company's officers in their capacities as
directors of FTSI) and 15 (with respect to such officers and the
company) of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public
disclosure made during the initial public offering of FTSI.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $1,000,000 and attorneys' fees
and other expenses.

Chesapeake said, "We intend to vigorously defend these claims."

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

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: $6.5MM Settlement in Schneider Gets Prelim. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

The Plaintiffs bring the consumer class action against the
Defendant, alleging that the Defendant's "non-GMO" claims about its
food products were false and misleading.  According to the
Plaintiffs, Chipotle consistently advertised its food products as
"non-GMO" and "GMO free."  However, these claims were purportedly
false, because as alleged, the meat and dairy products are all
sourced from animals that are fed with a genetically engineered or
GMO derived feed, and the soft drinks contain corn syrup, a GMO.
The Plaintiffs contend that had they known of the true character
and quality of the ingredients, they would not have purchased, or
would have paid less for, Chipotle's food products.

Based on those facts, the complaint asserts the following ten
causes of action: (1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2)
California's False Advertising Law; (3) California's Unfair
Competition Law; (4) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act; (5) Maryland's Consumer Protection Act; (6) New York's
Consumer Protection Statute; (7) New York's False Advertising Law;
(8) unjust enrichment; (9) misrepresentation; and (10) declaratory
relief.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and the Court granted
the motion in part and denied it in part on Nov. 4, 2016.  It
granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief, but otherwise denied the motion.  The Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's order
dismissing injunctive relief, which the Court granted.  The Court
amended its previous ruling and denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.

On Nov. 17, 2017, Chipotle filed a motion for summary judgment and
the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  The parties
also filed their Daubert motions.  On Sept. 29, 2018, the Court
denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied both
parties' Daubert motions.  

It certified the following three classes of consumers who purchased
the Defendant's products between April 27, 2015 and June 30, 2016:

     a. California: All persons in California who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients during the Class Period.

     b. Maryland: All persons in Maryland who purchased Chipotle's
        Food Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients
        during the Class Period.

     c. New York: All persons in New York who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients during the Class Period.

The Court appointed Named Plaintiffs Schneider, Deigert, Gamage,
and Parikka to represent the class and appointed their attorneys at
Kaplan Fox as the Class Counsel.  On Oct. 15, 2018, the Defendant
filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal
the Court's class certification order, and the petition was
denied.

The Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to approve the notice
administrator, class notice plan, and schedule on Jan. 9, 2019.
The Defendant opposed the motion and alleged that the notice plan
was "too vague" and misrepresented the class definitions.
Consistent with the Court's recommendation, and in an apparent
effort to address the Defendant's concerns, the Plaintiffs moved to
modify the class definitions.

The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to
modify the class definitions and certified the following classes:

     a. California: All persons in California who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients in its restaurants during the Class Period.

     b. Maryland: All persons in Maryland who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients in its restaurants during the Class Period.

     c. New York: All persons in New York who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients in its restaurants during the Class Period.

The language "in its restaurants" was added to each class
definition.  The Court also held that it did not need to add the
standard language excluding various categories of people to the
class definition itself.

The Court then directed the parties to file either a joint notice
plan or competing proposals if they could not agree on a notice
plan.  The parties filed their competing proposals, and the
Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to approve notice administrator
and class notice plan.  On April 8, 2019, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the amended administrative motion to approve
notice administrator and class notice plan.  Specifically, the
Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to provide direct email notice
to the approximately 550,000 individuals in California, Maryland,
and New York who purchased food from Chipotle in those states from
online or app menus.  It also found the Plaintiffs' proposal to
issue a press release unwarranted under Rule 23.

The Defendant filed a motion to decertify the class on April 25,
2019, briefing for which was completed on May 15, 2019.  The
parties participated in a second mediation session before the
Honorable Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) of JAMS on July 2, 2019.  They were
able to reach an agreement in principle to settle the case on a
classwide basis, and agreed to stay any pending dates, including
the hearing on the Defendant's motion to decertify the classes.
Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval on Sept. 11, 2019.

The key terms are:

     a. The Settlement Class is defined as all persons in the
        United States who purchased Chipotle's Food Products in
        its restaurants during the Class Period.

     b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will make a $6.5
        million non-reversionary payment.  The settlement payment
        includes payments to the Class Members, settlement
        administrative expenses estimated at around $400,000 to
        $600,000, incentive awards, and any attorneys' fees and
        costs awards.  The individual claims are capped at $2 each
        and subject to a pro rata decrease.  Each class member
        may only submit five valid claims without proof or
        purchase, and 10 valid claims with proof of purchase.  
        Each household is capped at 15 claims.

     c. Cy Pres Distribution: Settlement checks that are not
        cashed within 120 days of mailing will be void and those
        funds will be donated to Public Justice, a non-profit  
        legal organization, and Public Counsel, a pro bono law
        firm (each to receive 50%).

     d. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator
        will implement a digital media campaign.  The third-party
        settlement administrator will also provide for publication
        notice in People magazine and the East Bay Times
        newspaper.  The notice will include: the nature of the
        action, a summary of the settlement terms, and
        instructions on how to object to and opt out of the
        settlement, including relevant deadlines.

     e. Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to
        submit a request for exclusion is 120 days after
        preliminary approval or no less than 60 days after the
        Notice deadline.

     f. Incentive Award: The Named Plaintiffs will apply for
        incentive awards of no more than $5,000.

     g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel will file
        an application for attorneys' fees not to exceed one
        third of the settlement fund ($1.95 million), as well
        as costs.

As part of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the
Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint, redefining the class
definition to be consistent with the Settlement Class.  The Amended
Complaint also removes the cause of action under Florida law, as
the only Named Plaintiff who resided in Florida dismissed her
claims.

The Court will grant the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file
their Amended Complaint.  In the event that the proposed settlement
is not finally approved by the Court or in the event that the
settlement becomes null and void by its own terms, the Amended
Complaint will be dismissed.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement, and granted their request to
file an amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs are directed to file
their amended complaint within five days.  

The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each event listed, which will be submitted to
the Court within seven days of the date of the Order:

     a. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to
        all putative Class Members;

     b. Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion;

     c. Filing deadline for incentive payment motion;

     d. Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to
        settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and
        costs and incentive payment;

     e. Filing deadline for final approval motion; and

     f. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions.

The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class
notice plan.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Al9MRk from Leagle.com.

Martin Schneider, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Sarah Deigert, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Theresa Gamage, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated & Nadia Parikka,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Donald R. Hall -- dhall@kaplanfox.com
--
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, pro hac vice, Linda
M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Mario Man-Lung Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Matthew B. George -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com --
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Angela Christine Agrusa, DLA Piper LLP, Charles C.
Cavanagh -- ccavanagh@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Adam M.
Royval
-- aroyval@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Allison Dodd --
adodd@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Jacqueline Raquel Guesno --
jguesno@messner.com -- Messner Reeves, Kristina M. Wright --
kwright@messner.com -- Messner Reeves & Sascha Von Mende Henry --
shenry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.

Melissa Cruz, Interested Party, represented by Quyen Cao Hoang, Law

Offices of Quyen C. Hoang.


CIGNA BEHAVIORAL: Pacific Recovery Sues Due to Underpaid Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Recovery Solutions d/b/a. Westwind Recovery, Miriam Hamideh
PhD Clinical Psychologist Inc. d/b/a PCI Westlake Centers, Bridging
the Gaps, Inc., Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a Summit Estate Outpatient,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CIGNA
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and VIANT, INC.,
a Nevada corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02251-JCS (N.D. Cal., April
2, 2020), seeks to recover damages for claims underpriced and/or
underpaid by the Defendants.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated out-of-network behavioral health providers that
provide Intensive Outpatient Program treatment ("IOP"), whose
claims have been systematically underpriced and/or underpaid by
Cigna and/or Viant.

Prior to treatment, each of the Plaintiffs confirmed with Cigna
that the patient had active coverage and benefits for out of
network IOP treatment services and that the claims would be paid at
a specified rate. For all the claims at issue here, Cigna
represented that the claims would be paid at a percentage of the
Usual, Customary, and Reasonable rate ("UCR" rate). In reliance
upon that representation, the Plaintiffs agreed to treat Cigna's
insureds and timely submitted accurate bills.

Despite promising to pay rates based upon UCR, Cigna did not pay
UCR amounts for any of the patient claims at issue in this
litigation, the Plaintiffs allege. Instead, Cigna engaged Viant, a
third-party "repricer", to "negotiate" drastically reduced
reimbursements. While Cigna issued, underwrote, and/or administered
every health insurance plan at issue in the present litigation,
Viant determined the reimbursement rate for every underpaid claim
in the present litigation, and that rate was not derived from a
calculation of UCR, the Plaintiffs assert.

According to the complaint, Cigna then paid the claims at the
reduced Viant amount. This reduced amount was not agreed to by any
Plaintiff and does not reflect the UCR. Viant reduced the payment
rates so much below the UCR rate that patients were often liable
for more than ninety percent of the cost of their care. Cigna and
Viant colluded to illegally withhold these out-of-network benefits.
The difference between the amount Cigna should have paid and the
amount that it did pay often ran into the tens, and sometimes
hundreds, of thousands of dollars per patient. These are amounts
that Cigna unjustly retained and used to pay a kick-back to Viant
for its role in the underpayment enterprise.

As a result of Cigna and Viant's collusion, however, the Plaintiffs
say they and those similarly situated are left bearing the cost of
the care they provide. Meanwhile, Cigna and Viant reap the benefits
of shirking their responsibilities to pay fair reimbursements. IOP
providers across the country, including the named Plaintiffs, have
been harmed by the Cigna's failure to properly pay for IOP services
that were provided to Cigna's members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are behavioral healthcare providers that treat
patients suffering from mental health and/or substance use
disorder.

Cigna manages behavioral health services for Cigna Corporation. It
is responsible for administration and payment of claims for
behavioral services covered under health plans Cigna underwrites
and administers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Wendy A. Mitchell, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          5757 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 680
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (212) 397-1000
          Fax (646) 843-7603


CIGNA BEHAVIORAL: RJ Sues Over Undervalued Behavioral Health Dues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RJ, as the representative of her beneficiary son, and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated v. CIGNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.,
a Minnesota Corporation, and VIANT, INC., a Nevada corporation,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02255 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2020), seeks to recover
damages for claims underpriced and/or underpaid by the Defendants.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff's son, SJ, (both
names are pseudonyms) whose behavioral health claims for benefits
have been systematically undervalued and underpaid by Defendants
and who, because of the Defendants' actions, owe money or have paid
out-of-pocket all or a portion of the difference between what their
insurance should have covered and what was actually paid.

SJ sought treatment for behavioral health disorders, including for
mental health and substance use disorders, from licensed,
accredited, treatment providers. SJ was a member of an active
health insurance policy offering out of network benefits that Cigna
administered on behalf of his mother's employer, Intuit, Inc. Cigna
charges higher premiums for plans like the Plaintiff's that give
their members the freedom to choose their own healthcare providers,
including those outside of Cigna's "network." For RJ and SJ, Cigna
broke this promise, punishing them for SJ seeing out-of-network
providers while reaping large profits from his supposedly premier,
gold-plated plan.

According to the complaint, Cigna and Viant colluded to illegally
withhold and systematically underpay out-of-network benefits for
SJ. They accomplished this by using a dishonest and self-serving
reimbursement scheme. Specifically, Cigna, without the Plaintiff's
consent or authority, contracted with Viant to "negotiate" the
amounts that Cigna would ultimately pay for Plaintiff's
out-of-network claims. Cigna contracted with Viant to create an
illegal enterprise to underpay out-of network benefits, shield
Cigna from the providers and insureds they cheated, and create
impenetrable, systemic, administrative barriers to circumvent
rights protected by federal laws.

Cigna and Viant's scheme forced the Plaintiff and the Class to pay
and/or be responsible for, out of their own pockets, the difference
between the amount Cigna should have paid and the amount that Cigna
did pay for services, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds
that this difference often ran into the tens, and sometimes
hundreds, of thousands of dollars per patient and is on top of the
premium paid for their healthcare plans.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against Cigna to recover the money
she unjustly overpaid or now owes for care that Cigna should have
reimbursed. The suit is also brought against Viant for the role it
played as Cigna's agent and claim profiteer in this sordid
enterprise.

Plaintiff RJ has been appointed attorney in fact to bring claims
related to health insurance by her son, SJ, who is an adult
behavioral health patient.

Cigna manages behavioral health services for Cigna Corporation. It
is responsible for administration and payment of claims for
behavioral services covered under health plans Cigna underwrites
and administers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Wendy A. Mitchell, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          5757 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 680
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (212) 397-1000
          Fax (646) 843-7603


CITIBANAMEX: Amended Mexico Gov't Bonds Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that Citibanamex has been named a defendant in
an amended complaint related to the Court-dismissed case styled, IN
RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in New York.  The
Company also said that the plaintiffs no longer assert any claims
against Citigroup and any other Citi affiliates.

Citigroup operates in Mexico as Citibanamex through the Company's
Latin America Global Consumer Banking (GCB) segment.

In 2018, a putative class action was filed against Citigroup, CGMI,
Citigroup Financial Products Inc., Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc., Citibanamex, Grupo Banamex and other banks,
captioned IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants colluded in the Mexican
sovereign bond market.

In September 2019, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
Citibanamex and other market makers in the Mexican sovereign bond
market.  Plaintiffs no longer assert any claims against Citigroup
and any other Citi affiliates.  The amended complaint alleges a
conspiracy to fix prices in the Mexican sovereign bond market from
January 1, 2006 to April 19, 2017, and asserts antitrust and unjust
enrichment claims, and seek treble damages, restitution and
injunctive relief.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Ice Libor Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action styled,
IN RE ICE LIBOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in New York remains pending,
according to Citigroup Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

In May 2019, three putative class actions filed against Citigroup,
Citibank, CGMI and other defendants were consolidated, under the
caption IN RE ICE LIBOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York.

In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants suppressed ICE LIBOR.  Plaintiffs
assert claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and unjust
enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, disgorgement and treble
damages.

In August 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the action.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Michael O'Higgins Collective Proceedings Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
A permission to commence collective proceedings against Citigroup
Inc., among other defendants, regarding European Commission's
foreign exchange spot trading infringement decision remains pending
in the U.K., according to Citigroup Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.

On July 29, 2019, an application, captioned MICHAEL O'HIGGINS FX
CLASS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, was
made to the U.K.'s Competition Appeal Tribunal requesting
permission to commence collective proceedings against Citibank,
Citigroup and other defendants.  The application seeks compensatory
damages for losses alleged to have arisen from the actions at issue
in the European Commission's foreign exchange spot trading
infringement decision (European Commission Decision of May 16, 2019
in Case AT.40135-FOREX (Three Way Banana Split) C(2019) 3631
final).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Motion for Class Status in Gertler Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2020, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that it has not yet been served with the
amended motion for certification in the Gertler suit in Israel.

In September 2019, two motions for certification of class actions
filed against Citibank, Citigroup and Citicorp and other defendants
were consolidated, under the caption GERTLER, ET AL. v. DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, in the Tel Aviv Central District Court in Israel.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the foreign exchange
markets.  The amended motion for certification has not yet been
served on Citigroup or Citicorp.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Phillip Evans Collective Action Underway in UK
-------------------------------------------------------------
An application for permission to commence Phillip Evans collective
proceedings against Citigroup Inc., among other defendants, remains
pending in the U.K., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.

On December 20, 2019, an application, captioned PHILLIP EVANS v.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, was made to the U.K.'s Competition
Appeal Tribunal requesting permission to commence collective
proceedings against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants.

The Company disclosed that the application seeks compensatory
damages similar to those in the Michael O'Higgins FX Class
Representative Limited application, which seeks compensatory
damages for losses alleged to have arisen from the actions at issue
in the European Commission's foreign exchange spot trading
infringement decision (European Commission Decision of May 16, 2019
in Case AT.40135-FOREX (Three Way Banana Split) C(2019) 3631
final).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP: Settlement in Interchange Fee Litig. Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that several merchants and merchant groups have
appealed the District Court's final order approving the settlement
with the "damages class" in the case styled as, In Re: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup, Citibank and Citicorp, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal
district courts and consolidated with other related individual
cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  This
proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND
MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard branded
payment cards as well as various membership associations that claim
to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other
things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the
price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit
card transactions and to restrain trade unreasonably through
various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California
statutes.  Plaintiffs further alleged violations of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act.  Supplemental complaints also were filed against
defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and
MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were
anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that
MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent
conveyance.

In 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the
terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, cash
payment to the class of US$6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants
participating in the damages class settlement of 10 bps on
interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and
MasterCard networks; and changes to certain network rules.  Various
objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
approval of the class settlement and remanded for further
proceedings.  The district court thereafter appointed separate
interim counsel for a putative class seeking damages and a putative
class seeking injunctive relief.  Amended or new complaints on
behalf of the putative classes and various individual merchants
were subsequently filed, including a further amended complaint on
behalf of a putative damages class and a new complaint on behalf of
a putative injunctive class, both of which named Citigroup and
Related Parties.  In addition, numerous merchants have filed
amended or new complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some
instances one or more issuing banks.  Three of these
suits—7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL.; ROUNDY'S
SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. VISA INC.  ET AL.; and LUBY'S FUDDRUCKERS
RESTAURANTS, LLC, v. VISA INC., ET AL—brought on behalf of
numerous individual merchants, name Citigroup and affiliates as
defendants.

On December 13, 2019, the district court granted the damages class
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a new settlement with the
defendants.  The settlement involves the damages class only and
does not settle the claims of the injunctive relief class or any
actions brought on a non-class basis by individual merchants.  The
settlement provides for a cash payment to the damages class of
US$6.24 billion, though that amount has been reduced by US$700
million based on the transaction volume of class members that
opted-out from the settlement.  Several merchants and merchant
groups have appealed the final approval order.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CLEAR BLUE: Fails to Pay OT Wages and Rest Premiums, Briley Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRENTON BRILEY, BRYANT COOPER, MICHAEL KRUM, CARLOS MELENDREZ,
MOISES MELENDREZ, ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, JOHN CORDOVA and DANNY
GUTIERREZ each as an Individual, and on behalf of the general
public for all those similarly situated v. CLEAR BLUE ENERGY CORP.,
a California Corporation, DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV10495 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
wages and overtime wages, to pay prevailing wages on public works,
to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees, and to provide or
otherwise compensate for missed meal and rest breaks.

The Plaintiffs were employed on public works projects in
California. The Plaintiffs, and each of them, worked for Clear Blue
as non-exempt employees performing the work of Inside Wireman.

Clear Blue is a full service energy savings company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          William E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile (714) 953-1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  icamilleri@donahoo.com
                  wdonahoo@donahoo.com


CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Elhendi TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED ELHENDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:20-cv-00532-DOC-ADS (C.D.
Cal., March 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and
market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that beginning in December of 2018, the
Defendants contacted him on his cellular telephone number ending in
-3322, in an attempt to collect a debt. The Defendants used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to place their call to him.
CMRE is a debt recovery company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom 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


COLUMBIA COUNTY, OR: Ignored COVID-19 Threat, Thompson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL THOMPSON, individually, on behalf of a class of
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, SHERIFF
BRIAN PIXLEY, and LT. BROOKE MCDOWALL, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00490 (D. Ore., March 24, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged willful failure to provide medical care to persons in the
Columbia County Jail in response to public health threat of the
global pandemic COVID-19.

According to the complaint, people across Oregon and across the
world are suffering from the pandemic spread of COVID-19, which is
most likely causing serious illness or death to older adults and
those with certain underlying medical conditions. Unfortunately,
Plaintiffs fall into those categories of persons with heightened
vulnerability.

The complaint asserts that Defendants deliberately disregarded the
threat of the pandemic by creating a health care system that denies
Plaintiffs access to prevention, proper testing, and treatment for
COVID-19, thereby violating the Constitutions of the United States
of America and Oregon.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Rules
23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Sheriff Brian Pixley is the elected sheriff of Columbia County and
is directly responsible for ensuring that the County's jail health
program complies with State and Federal laws.

Lieutenant Brooke McDowall is a correctional supervisor of CCJ and
employee of Columbia County Sheriff's office.

Columbia County is a political subdivision of the State of Oregon
and operates CCJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan C. Chavez, Esq.
          Oregon Justice Resource Center
          PO Box 5248
          Portland, OR 97208
          Tel: 503-944-2270
          Fax: 971-275-1839
          Email: jchavez@ojrc.info

                - and -

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE
          707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Tel: 503-228-6474
          Fax: 503-228-2556
          Email: david@sugermanlawoffice.com


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Shropshire Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Shropshire, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-01189 (S.D. Tex., April 2, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for the
Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But the Defendant did
not pay them overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by
the FLSA, the Defendant improperly paid the Plaintiff and the Day
Rate Inspectors a daily rate with no overtime compensation.

Plaintiff Shropshire worked for Columbia as a Utility Inspector.

Columbia provides gas transportation and storage services
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


COMCAST CORP: Shelton Sues in Pennsylvania Over Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Everett Shelton, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMCAST CORPORATION and COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01763 (E.D. Pa., April 2,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

On June 22, 2018, Comcast contacted the Plaintiff via telephone in
an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase services through
Comcast. During the call, the Plaintiff says he was never advised
that Comcast desired to review his credit report, nor did the
Plaintiff consent in any respect to have his credit report accessed
and reviewed by Comcast. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff was then
shocked to learn that Comcast had initiated an inquiry to access
his Equifax credit report without his consent or knowledge.

The Plaintiff alleges that his credit reports were procured by
Comcast without a permissible purpose or consent after receiving
telephone solicitations from Comcast. Comcast consciously engaged
in this conduct as a matter of practice to surreptitiously obtain
consumer's credit reports without their knowledge resulting in an
invasion of privacy to consumers and harm to their credit
reputation and scores, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania.

Comcast Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Gorski, Esq.
          GORSKI LAW, PLLC
          1635 Market Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 330-2100


COMODO GROUP: New Jersey District Certifies Class in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMODO GROUP, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-4469 (SDW) (LDW) (D. N.J.), Judge
Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (i) denied in part Comodo's Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, (ii) denied its
Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert, and (iii) granted Johnson's
Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23.

Between 2012 and 2016, the Defendant made cold sales calls for its
then affiliate, Comodo CA Ltd., which was in the business of
issuing/selling Secure Sockets Layer ("SSL") Certificates to
website owners.  SSL Certificates are encryption keys that enable
website owners to securely transfer data to and from their
customers.  Each Certificate contains expiration date information
and often contains the user's (i.e., website operator's) name and
telephone number.

The Defendant used an automated computer program to crawl the
internet to compile a database of SSL Certificates, their
expiration dates, and their users' names and telephone numbers.
When contact information was not immediately available on a
Certificate, the Defendant supplemented the information by scanning
the target website or manually searching the WHOIS Registry, an
online database.  Using this process, it formulated sales leads
containing phone numbers for soon-to-expire Certificates.  The
Defendant's sales department would then load the leads into a
dialing platform called "VICIdial."

VICIdial is a "predictive dialer" that automatically called stored
leads throughout the day when it expected that one of the
Defendant's sales agents was available to take an already dialed
and connected call.  VICIdial is able to dial leads randomly,
sequentially, or by some internal rank—this setting can be
changed by pressing a button.  The Defendant used the "internal
rank" setting.  VICIdial also permits sales agents to leave
prerecorded messages by pressing a button.  The Defendant's sales
agents only used this option when calls were sent to voicemail.

In May and June 2016, the Defendant called Plaintiff via VICIdial
seven times and left a prerecorded voicemail three times.  The
Plaintiff was not a Comodo customer and did not consent to these
calls.  In fact, he answered the phone on June 16, 2016, and
requested no further calls, resulting in the sales agent marking
his number as "do-not-call."  Nonetheless, the Plaintiff received
another call on June 29, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed suit on July 22, 2016.  In the operative
complaint, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, filed Sept.
5, 2018, alleges: (1) violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") (Count I) and (2) willful violations of the
TCPA (Count II).

The Plaintiff moved for class certification on Jan. 11, 2019.  The
Defendant opposed and filed its motion to exclude on May 28, 2019.
The Defendant moved for summary judgment on Aug. 23, 2019, and all
briefs were timely filed.  Because the Defendant's summary judgment
motion attacks the constitutionality of the TCPA, the United States
intervened on Nov. 8, 2019, in support of the statute's
constitutionality.  The Defendant responded to the Government's
position on Nov. 18, 2019. The Court heard oral arguments on the
three motions on Dec. 19, 2019.

The Defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate because:
(1) it did not violate the TCPA because (a) VICIdial is not an ATDS
and (b) prerecorded voicemails do not violate the statute; (2) if
it did, any violations were not willful (Count II only); and (3)
any violations are not actionable because the TCPA is
unconstitutional.

Judge Wigenton finds that the predictive dialers are ATDS under the
statutory language itself.  That VICIdial only had the capacity to
autodial telephone numbers from a stored list of SSL
Certificate-holders (instead of randomly or sequentially generated
telephone numbers) is of no moment, as any legal use of an ATDS
under the TCPA can only autodial cellular numbers from a stored
list of numbers that have given express consent.  The Judge will
therefore deny the Defendant's motion for summary judgment that it
did not violate the TCPA because VICIdial is not an ATDS.

The Judge will also will the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment that its prerecorded voicemails did not violate the TCPA.
Even if the Defendant only intended to call potential business
customers, nothing in the TCPA exempts calls made to individuals at
a business telephone number instead of a residential number.
Furthermore, the record contains evidence that (1) the Defendant
knew it was making calls to recipients who did not consent, and (2)
it was warned by VICIdial's creator, during a training session, to
subscribe to a cell phone filtering service or otherwise risk a
TCPA lawsuit.  Despite the warning, the Defendant did not filter
cell phones during the relevant time period.  Thus, a jury could
determine that the Defendant "knew or should have known" that its
conduct violated the TCPA.  Summary judgment on Count II will
therefore be denied.

The Court will reserve decision on the constitutional issues.  At
oral argument on Dec. 19, 2019, the Court declined to reach the
merits of the constitutional issues because the exception for
government-backed debt collections has no impact on the remainder
of the statute and can be severed, as was done by the Fourth and
Ninth Circuits.  However, on Jan. 10, 2020, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari in Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, sub nom.
Barr v. Political Consultants, No. 19-631, 2020 WL 113070, to
address whether the government-debt exception to the TCPA's
automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and
whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to
sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.

The Defendant moves to exclude Ms. Verkhovskaya on the bases that
her proposed methodology is not testable or reliable, her
methodology is incapable of identifying putative class members, and
she is not qualified to opine on the issues.

The Court rejects these arguments in turn.  First, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff's methodology is testable, reliable, and
sufficiently capable of identifying putative class members.  It has
already been used in other TCPA class actions.  Second, Ms.
Verkhovskaya is clearly qualified to opine on TCPA issues.  There
is nothing special about the case that the counsels a different
course of action.  The motion to exclude Ms. Verkhovskaya's
testimony will therefore be denied.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following class:
(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number Comodo made a telemarketing call (3) using the
ViciDial ATDS or a prerecorded voice (4) within four years of the
filing of the complaint.

The Court finds that the Rule 23(a) requirements are met.  Beyond
ascertainability, the other requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)
certification are also met.  There are no substantial questions
affecting only individual members, and any such questions are
predominated by the common questions of fact and law specified
above in connection with the commonality requirement.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Wigenton (i) denied in part the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ii) denied the
Defendant's Motion to Exclude, and (iii) granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Js5RLZ from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by SOFIA BALILE, LEMBERG LAW,
LLC.

COMODO GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY S. JACOBSON,
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP, LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP & PAUL
ANDREW ROSENTHAL -- prosenthal@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP.

UNITED STATES, Intervenor, represented by JONATHAN KOSSAK, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


CORRECT CARE: Court Tosses 2 Claims in Woodcock Inmates Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN WOODCOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No.
3:16-cv-00096-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
Central Division, Frankfort, granted the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Counts One and Two of the Plaintiffs'
Complaint.

The case is primarily about the adequacy of medical treatment for
state inmates with chronic Hepatitis C ("HCV") viral infections.
The Plaintiffs challenge whether the failure of current Kentucky
Department of Corrections ("KDOC") policies and protocols to timely
provide Direct Acting Antiviral drugs ("DAA") to treat all HCV
inmates constitutes deliberate indifference to their serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,
or otherwise constitutes negligence or gross negligence.

The case began in 2015 in Franklin Circuit Court in Franklin
County, Kentucky.  Plaintiff Ruben Salinas filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus against then-Commissioner LaDonna Thompson, asking
the Court to order treatment for his HCV infection.  On Nov. 14,
2016, Mr. Salinas filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, naming
additional Plaintiffs and Defendants.  The case was removed to the
Kentucky District Court on Dec. 7, 2016.

On Aug. 18, 2017, Jessica Lawrence moved to intervene, adding James
Erwin, former Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of
Corrections (KDOC), as an additional Defendant.  Magistrate Judge
Edward B. Atkins permitted intervention.  On March 1, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed motions to certify their class under Rule
23(b)(2).  

On July 12, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order
that certified the Plaintiffs' class of all inmates in Kentucky
prisons who have been diagnosed, or will be diagnosed, with chronic
hepatitis C virus (HCV) for the purpose of injunctive relief.
Also, the Court appointed Plaintiffs Salinas and Lawrence as the
class representatives, appointed the Plaintiff Class' counsel, and
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction.

The Plaintiffs in the matter are inmates, incarcerated with the
Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC).  Each of them have been
diagnosed with the HCV.  The Defendants are various official and
nonofficial entities, all sued in their individual capacities,
charged with managing the HCV treatment plan for and providing care
to inmates.

The Plaintiffs believe they have not been provided constitutionally
adequate treatment for their HCV infections.  According to their
complaint, the Defendants did not employ qualified individuals, did
not adequately train these employees, and did not create or enforce
necessary policies and procedures to ensure proper care.

The Defendants do not contest the facts surrounding the care the
Plaintiffs have received, but disagree that such care is
inadequate.  The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants on four separate
theories.  First, they sue the Defendants under Section 1983 for
violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.  Also, they claim the Defendants violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1978
for failure to reasonably accommodate their infections.  Based on
the failure to meet the standard of care, the Plaintiffs also
believe the Defendants acted with negligence and gross negligence.
Finally, the Plaintiffs sue for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress.  They seek both injunctive relief for care and damages
for lack of treatment.

The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Woodcock and Bramblett failed
to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing the
action.  In addition, it has also been discovered that Plaintiffs
Woodcock and Bramblett have been cleared of HCV.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence
that contradicts the Defendants' arguments and only request that
the Court stays Woodcock's and Bramblett's claims pending
exhaustion.  However, due to the fact that neither Defendant is
able to be apart of the class and failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies according to KRS 454.415, all claims by
Woodcock and Bramblett against the Defendants must be dismissed.

Next, the Court finds that the past revisions to the KDOC HCV
Guidance are improvements from the past protocols that closely
mirror the FBOP Guidelines.  Most notably, changes in the priority
scale in the KDOC 2018 plan include a reduction of the patient's
APRI score to trigger a referral to the patient for further
evaluation and consideration of antiviral therapy.  The KDOC
Guidelines establish a flexible prioritization system, that allows
the medical providers to make exceptions based upon their
individual medical judgments, thereby giving access to DAA
treatment to patients outside the guidelines.  The changes to the
2018 KDOC HCV Guidance were incorporated to increase the number of
HCV inmates treated with DAAs, as the Defendants have shown more
inmates are currently being treated or have been approved for DAA
treatment.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
objective component of the Eighth Amendment analysis.

The Plaintiffs have not also presented any proof that Dr. Frederick
Kemen nor any of the other medical providers acted with a culpable
state of mind equivalent to criminal recklessness.  Because the
record reflects and the Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence
in opposition, Dr. Kemen, along with the other medical providers
have consciously exercised KDOC's HCV treatment policies and
protocols and the Judge cannot conclude that the KDOC medical
providers have acted or will act with a culpable state of mind
regarding the inmates' HCV treatment.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs
have not met their burden of establishing the subjective element of
their Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants.

The Defendants have set out legally compelling and sound arguments
for summary judgment on the claims arising under the Rehabilitation
and Americans with Disabilities Act.  However, the Plaintiffs have
failed to respond to these arguments in their Response to Summary
Judgment.  The Court holds that the failure to provide medical
treatment to a disabled prisoner, while perhaps raising Eighth
Amendment concerns in certain circumstances, does not constitute an
American with Disabilities Act violation.  Thus, the Defendants
have adequately shown that no genuine issue of fact exists in
regard to the Plaintiffs' claims arising under the American with
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.

Having already dismissed the claims arising under federal law, any
remaining state law claims are best reserved for the state courts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims related to Negligence and
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress arising under Kentucky
law in Counts Three and Four of the complaint are properly
remanded.

Finally, the Plaintiffs also are not entitled to punitive damages
against any the Defendant, the Court notes.  Punitive damages are
only available in an action brought under Section 1983 "when the
defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or
intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the
federally protected rights of the plaintiff."  The Court has found
that the evidence presented does not support a finding that any
Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights, and there has certainly been no evidence
presented of an evil motive or of callous indifference to their
rights.  Thus, no reasonable jury could award punitive damages to
the Plaintiffs on their federal claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Van Tatenhove granted the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts One and Two of
the Plaintiffs' Complaint.  Counts Three through Four of the
Plaintiffs' Complaint regarding state law violations are remanded
for further consideration by the state court.  The Court denied as
moot the pending motions.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to Seal
a Document is granted.  The case is stricken from the Court's
active docket.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/VDr6sc from
Leagle.com.

Brian Woodcock, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Ruben Rios Salinas, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Keath Bramblett, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Camille Bathurst -- camillebathurst@aol.com -- Belzley Bathurst,
Attorneys & Gregory Allen Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Belzley
Bathurst, Attorneys.

Correct Care Solutions, LLC & Dr. Frederick Kemen, MD,
Individually, Defendants, represented by William Ellis Sharp --
wsharp@bdblawky.com -- Blackburn, Domene & Burchett PLLC.

James Erwin, Individually, Defendant, represented by Allison R.
Brown, KY Department of Corrections - General Counsel, Barry L.
Dunn, Dunn Law PLLC & Megan Handshoe Kinsolving, Kinsolving Law
PLLC.

LaDonna Thompson, Individually, APRN Denise Burkett, Doug Crall,
MD, Individually, Cookie Crews, Individually & Rodney Ballard,
Individually, Defendants, represented by Allison R. Brown, KY
Department of Corrections - General Counsel & Edward A. Baylous,
II, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet.

Kentucky Department of Corrections, for Injunctive Relief Only,
Defendant, represented by Edward A. Baylous, II, Justice & Public
Safety Cabinet.


COVANCE INC: Bid to Conditionally Certify Class in Mitchell Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LARHONDA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COVANCE, INC. and
CHILTERN, INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-02877 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied without
prejudice Mitchell's motion to conditionally certify a collective
action.

Larhonda Mitchel, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, alleges that Covance violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") by misclassifying some "Startup Specialists" employees
as exempt, failing to pay them overtime, and instructing them to
not report overtime hours worked.  To that end, Mitchell proposes
the conditional certification of all Startup Specialists who have
been employed by Covance and classified as exempt at any time since
three years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of
final judgment in the matter.

Covance is a global drug development company and contract research
organization that employs thousands of employees worldwide.  From
November 2016 through June 2019, Mitchell was employed by Covance
as a "Startup Specialist" and assigned to its King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania, branch.  Covance classifies some Startup Specialists,
including Mitchell, as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 213.

Mitchell claims that she and the other Startup Specialists whom
Covance classified as exempt were misclassified because they
primarily performed nonexempt tasks.  Therefore, Mitchell claims,
she and those Startup Specialists were improperly denied overtime
pay.  Mitchell also claims that Covance, to avoid paying overtime
wages owed, instructed the misclassified Startup Specialists to not
report overtime hours worked.  Although Startup Specialists are
assigned to particular offices throughout the country, they
primarily work remotely from their homes or at clients' sites.

Mitchell filed the suit to recover unpaid overtime compensation.
She alleges Covance misclassified her and some of its other Startup
Specialists as exempt.  She then moved for conditional
certification of her collective action.  Therein, Mitchell moved
the Court to (1) order Covance to produce the names, last known
physical and email addresses, and last known telephone numbers for
each individual who worked for Covance as a Startup Specialist
during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of
her Complaint; and (2) to order opt-in notice of the collective
action to all these individuals.  Covance opposed the motion.

Mitchell offers three pieces of evidence in support of her claim
that there are other Startup Specialists who are similarly situated
to her.  First, she provides a "Startup Specialist III" job
description.  Mitchell describes the job description as a true and
accurate copy of the job description that was applicable to her at
the time she was hired.  This job description fails to allege, much
less show, that any other Covance employee was subject to the job
description beyond Mitchell.

Second, Mitchell provides in her declaration that she was not paid
overtime wages, that she was told not to report overtime hours,
that she asked some other Startup Specialists if they also were not
paid overtime wages, and that those other Startup Specialists told
her they did not receive overtime wages.  Although the declaration
names several individuals, aside from Nickerson, Mitchell provides
no indication of what locations these individuals worked at, nor
any indication of whether they were paid on a salaried or hourly
basis. Further, because the declaration does not explain who, if
any, of the listed individuals were payed on a salaried basis, the
Court is unable to determine if the individuals would even fit
Mitchell's proposed collective as amended.

Third, Ms. Tamera Nickerson's declaration provides no help in
clarifying whether other Startup Specialists are similarly situated
to Mitchell.  The declaration is filled primarily with the same
formulaic assertions from Mitchell's declaration.  And while
Nickerson's declaration states that she was "assigned" to work at
two locations - a King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, location and a
second location somewhere in North Carolina - the declaration does
not state at which location, or locations, Ms. Nickerson worked as
a Startup Specialist.  Nor does it identify which location Ms.
Nickerson was assigned to when she allegedly was told not to report
overtime hours.

Considering all of the evidence produced by Mitchell, Judge Robreno
concludes that she fails to make a modest factual showing to
support a potentially nationwide collective action.  Therefore, the
Court denies without prejudice Mitchell's motion for conditional
certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/2vLWL0 from Leagle.com.

LARHONDA MITCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN W. CHASE --
jwc@lawkm.com -- RUPPERT MANES NARAHARI.

COVANCE, INC. & CHILTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants,
represented by DANIELLE GOEBEL -- dgoebel@dilworthlaw.com --
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP, DIANA R. HAMAR -- dhamar@kelleydrye.com --
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP, GREGORY F. CIRILLO --
gcirillo@dilworthlaw.com -- DILWORTH PAXSON, KATHARINE VIRGINIA
HARTMAN -- khartman@dilworthlaw.com -- Dilworth Paxson LLP, MARK A.
KONKEL -- mkonkel@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP &
ROBERT I. STEINER -- rsteiner@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TROY FONDREN v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 20-CV-393-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered granted
Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for
class certification.

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

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

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

Credit Management is a debt collection agency.[CC]


CROWN CASTLE: Goering Hits Share Drop from Erroneous Financials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dewey Goering, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Crown Castle
International Corp., Jay A. Brown and Daniel K. Schlanger,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02943, (D. N.J., March 17, 2020), seeks
to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Crown Castle owns, operates and leases out more than 40,000 cell
towers and more than 75,000 route miles of fiber supporting small
cells and fiber solutions across every major U.S. market. Crown
Castle's securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "CCI."

Goering claims that Crown Castle failed to disclose that its
internal control over financial reporting and disclosures controls
and procedures were ineffective and materially weak and its
financial accounting and reporting was not in accordance with GAAP,
with its net income, adjusted EBITDA and AFFO inflated in the year
ended December 31, 2018 and for the first three quarters in the
year ended December 31, 2019.

On this news, shares of Crown Castle fell $14.29 per share, or
8.78%, to close at $148.40 per share on February 27, 2020, damaging
investors. Goering owns Crown Castle shares. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Remand Wilson Personal Injury Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied the motion filed by Plaintiffs Brandy
Wilson, Janis Morgan, Laquinta Carter, Dwayne Pierce, and
Dareranica Duplessis to remand the case, JOSHUA AKEEM, et al., v.
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et al., SECTION M (3), Civil Action No.
19-13650 (E.D. La.), to the Civil District Court, Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana.

The matter is a putative class action brought by tenants of the
Laguna Run Apartments (formerly known as Hidden Lake Apartments)
against the complex's owners and managers.  Prior to Dec. 14, 2017,
Eastlake Development owned the complex and it was managed by
Defendants Latter & Blum Property Management, Inc., KFK Group,
Inc., and KFK Development, L.L.C.  The Plaintiffs allege that
during Eastlake Development's tenure as owner, the property was in
a state of disrepair that included widespread water intrusion
issues, mold growth and exposure, and plumbing problems, along with
an infestation of roaches and other insects and inadequate lighting
conditions.  The Plaintiffs claim that negligence on the part of
Eastlake Development and its property managers created these
unreasonably dangerous conditions.

On Dec. 14, 2017, Eastlake Development sold the property to RH East
Lake, LLC, which contracted with Dasmen to manage the property.  In
September or October 2019, RH East Lake replaced Dasmen with
defendant Lind Property Management, LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the poor conditions worsened after the change in ownership and
management, adding that the ceilings are falling, there is
inadequate security, and the plumbing problems have resulted in
human waste running down the walls and ceilings.  The Plaintiffs
claim that these unreasonably dangerous conditions were created and
persist due to the negligence of RH East Lake and its property
managers.

The Plaintiffs filed the action in the CDC seeking to represent a
class consisting of Louisiana residents who are current and former
residents and/or maintenance workers of the Hidden Lakes and Laguna
Run Apartment Complex located at 7001 Martin Drive, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70126, who have suffered damages as a result of the
negligent ownership, operation and management of the apartment
complex, including but not limited to, bodily injuries, emotional
distress, loss of use and enjoyment, and economic loss.

The Plaintiffs assert causes of action for strict liability against
Eastlake Development and RH East Lake, and res ipsa loquitor and
negligence against Eastlake Development, RH East Lake, Latter &
Blum, KFK Group, KFK Development, Dasmen, and Lind.  Further, the
Plaintiffs allege an intentional tort against all the Defendants on
behalf of maintenance workers, and that all of the torts are
continuing in nature.  RH East Lake and Dasmen timely removed this
matter alleging subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiffs argue that the matter should be remanded to the CDC
for three reasons.  First, the Plaintiffs argue that RH East Lake
and Dasmen removed the action as a "mass action," when it is
actually a "class action" brought under Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure articles 591.  Next, the Plaintiffs argue that the
removing the Defendants did not demonstrate in the notice of
removal that the amount in controversy is satisfied, specifically,
that at least one Plaintiff's damages total more than $75,000,
which the Plaintiffs contend is required for removal as a "mass
action."  Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that even if the Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, the Court must remand the
case pursuant to the local controversy exception.

In opposing the motion to remand, RH East Lake and Dasmen argue
that the matter was removed as both a "mass action" and a "class
action," but that the distinction is irrelevant because CAFA
provides for removal of both.  With respect to the amount in
controversy, the removing Defendants argue that they provided
enough information in their notice of removal to demonstrate that
there is more than $5 million in controversy, and the Plaintiffs
failed to affirmatively plead that the jurisdictional threshold is
not met.  Further, they argue that a prepetition settlement demand
from a putative class member demonstrates that there is at least
one Plaintiff whose claims exceed $75,000.  Finally, the removing
Defendants argue that the local controversy exception is
inapplicable because the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
local Defendants' alleged conduct formed a "significant basis" of
the claims asserted or that the Plaintiffs seek "significant
relief" from the local Defendants.

Judge Ashe finds that RH East Lake and Dasmen have shown that it is
facially apparent from the Plaintiffs' complaint that the amount in
controversy is satisfied.  The sum total of the alleged problems
with the building, when combined with the sheer number of potential
Plaintiffs, establishes that more than $5 million is in
controversy.  Thus, the removing Defendants have established that
the Court has CAFA jurisdiction over the action.

The putative class consists of "Louisiana residents" who are
present and former tenants and maintenance workers of an apartment
complex located in New Orleans who were exposed to substandard
conditions that allegedly resulted from the negligence of the
owners and managers.  Thus, all of the putative class members are
alleged to be Louisiana citizens and the principal injuries from
the alleged conduct are said to have occurred in Louisiana.
Therefore, Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I) & (III) is satisfied.

The Plaintiffs argue that the alleged conduct forms a significant
basis for the claims asserted by the proposed Plaintiff class.
They alleged that the conditions at the apartment complex resulted
from the combined negligence of all owners and managers, and thus,
the Louisiana Defendants necessarily played a significant role.
These allegations are inadequate to sustain the Plaintiffs' burden
because they clearly lack a comparison of the local Defendant's
conduct in relation to all the claims asserted in the litigation
and to that of the out-ofstate Defendants.

Indeed, the Plaintiffs expressly allege that the conditions
worsened under the ownership and management of the out-of-state
Defendants (RH East Lake and Dasmen), which implies that they would
be more culpable as to more current residents, and the amended
petition fails to allege the duration of the local defendants'
actionable conduct.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not carried
their burden of proving that the local controversy exception
applies, and the Court will retain CAFA subject-matter
jurisdiction.  As such, the Plaintiffs' motion to remand willl be
denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Ashe denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  Eastlake Development's motion to
dismiss, or alternatively, for summary judgment is dismissed as
moot.  Any motion to dismiss or other motion is to be re-filed and
directed to the amended complaint to ensure that all current claims
are addressed in one motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/mgggOV from Leagle.com.

Joshua Akeem, Brandy Wilson, Janis Morgan, Laquinta Carter, Dwayne
Pierce & Dareranica Duplessis, Plaintiffs, represented by Suzette
Peychaud Bagneris -- sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com -- Bagneris
Firm, LLC, Emile Anthony Bagneris, III, The Bagneris Firm, Matthew
Landry -- mlandry@legershaw.com -- Leger & Shaw & Walter John
Leger, Jr. -- wleger@legershaw.com -- Leger & Shaw.

RH Copper Creek, LLC, RH Eastlake, LLC & Dasmen Residential
Management, LLC, Defendants, represented by Ernest Paul Gieger,
Jr., Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Emily E. Eagan, Gieger,
Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Michael Edward Hill -- mhill@glllaw.com
-- Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Nicholas Stephen Bergeron --
nbergeron@glllaw.com -- Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & Tucker
Tyler Bohren -- tbohren@glllaw.com -- Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse,
LLC.

Eastlake Development, LLC & KFK Development, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Jonathan M. Walsh, Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles LLP,
Cassie E. Preston, Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles LLP & Victoria J.
Cvitanovic, Louisiana Department of Justice.

Wilshire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E.
Michel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Dakota Kyle Chenevert,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Mary Kerrigan Dennard, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Tabitha Robertson Durbin, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

KFK Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan M. Walsh,
Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles LLP, Cassie E. Preston, Deutsch Kerrigan
& Stiles LLP, David Scotton, Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier,
Finn, Blossman & Areaux & Victoria J. Cvitanovic, Louisiana
Department of Justice.


DATA MANAGEMENT: Mullins Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mullins, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Data Management Co.; Tarik Daoud; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe
1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00214-MWM (S.D. Ohio, March 16, 2020), seeks
relief based on the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff contends that all delivery drivers at the Defendants'
LaRosa's stores, including him, have been subject to the same or
similar employment policies and practices.

The Defendants operate 11 LaRosa's Pizza locations in the
Cincinnati area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
                  lroselle@billerkimble.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Syarto FDCPA Suit N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants, Inc. The case is captioned as John D. Syarto,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Diversified Consultants, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01812 (N.D. Ill.,
March 16, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

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

Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts
receivable management functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Lewis Seeks OT Premiums for Store Staff
-------------------------------------------------------
DANIELA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02219-JPM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., March 26, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure and refusal to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers at least the
federal minimum wage for every hour worked and overtime premiums
for all hours worked over 40 in any given workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Lewis was employed by the Defendant at its 2939 Lamar Avenue,
Memphis, Tennessee store as a Lead Sales Associate from October 18,
2019 until March 12, 2020.

Dollar General Corporation is a Tennessee-based operator of a chain
of variety stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Oliphant, Esq.
          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103          
          Telephone: (800) 403-7868
                     (901) 737-7740
          Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com

DOUYU INT'L: Faces Kovalenko Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAVEL KOVALENKO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, SHAOJIE CHEN,
WENMING ZHANG, CHAO CHENG, MINGMING SU, HAO CAO, TING YIN, HAIYANG
YU, XI CAO, XUEHAI WANG, ZHAOMING CHEN, ZHI YAN, MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CMB
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED, RICHARD
ARTHUR, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Case No. 651703/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
March 13, 2020), seeks to recover damages under the Securities Act
of 1933 on behalf of investors, who purchased stock in the initial
public offering pursuant and traceable to the offering documents
used by the Defendants to conduct the IPO.

On April 22, 2019, the Company filed a registration statement with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form F-1, which, after
several amendments, was declared effective on July 16, 2019.
Thereafter, on July 18, 2019, DouYu filed a prospectus for its IPO
on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement, issuing 67,387,110 American Depository
Shares, representing 6,738,711 ordinary shares, to the investing
public at $11.50 per ADS (the Offering Price), for anticipated
gross proceeds of $774,951,765.

The IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus that DouYu and the
other Defendants used to ultimately secure over $489 million in net
proceeds from investors, however, concealed massive problems at the
Company, including DouYu's risks related to its top streamers had
materialized, and DouYu did not ensure that all of its products
were fully compliant with current regulatory requirements before
those products became available online, the Plaintiff alleges.

Since the IPO, the price of DouYu's ADSs has plummeted, trading as
low as $7.01 per ADS, representing a nearly 40% decline from the
Offering Price.

The Plaintiff purchased DouYu ADS pursuant or traceable to the
Offering Documents and was damaged thereby.

DouYu is one of China's top two live-streaming video-game
platforms. The Individial Defendants are officers and directors of
the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: 212-233-6444
          Facsimile: 212-233-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  jzimmerman@scott-scott.com


DYNAMIC COMPUTING: Wins Summary Judgment in Bey Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska issued
an Order and Opinion granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned DEBRA BEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC
COMPUTING SERVICES (DCS) CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-00120
JWS, (D. Ak.).

Dynamic Computing Services (DCS) hired Plaintiff in April 2015 to
work as a Go-Live Support consultant at Alaska Regional Hospital.
It is, however, undisputed that Plaintiff was responsible for
accurately recording her own time and submitting her time reports
to DCS's payroll department for processing. Plaintiff was paid at
the rate of $45 per hour. DCS classified Go-Live Support
consultants as exempt computer employees for purposes of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and therefore Plaintiff was not paid
more than her hourly rate for any hours worked above the standard
40-hour week.

DCS argues that Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law because
she filed her complaint after the standard two-year statute of
limitations, and there is no evidence of wilfulness or recklessness
on its part that would support applying the extended three-year
statute of limitations.

DCS also argues that, regardless of the statute of limitations,
summary judgment is warranted because Plaintiff was an exempt
employee as a matter of law due to the nature and duties of her
position and therefore was not entitled to overtime pay under the
FLSA.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that there are issues of fact
surrounding the willfulness of DCS's failure to pay Go-Live
consultants overtime. She also argues that whether her position
qualified as an exempt one under the FLSA is a factual issue for
the jury given the conflicting evidence in the record. Plaintiff,
however, concedes that her claim cannot proceed as a class action
and has agreed to proceed individually.

The issue here is whether the classification of Plaintiff's
computer-related position as exempt, and therefore not subject to
overtime pay requirements, was willful. There is no evidence that
DCS had awareness that the pay arrangement with Go-Live Support
consultants risked violating the FLSA given the exemption for
computer-related employees under the statute.  

The classification of the Go-Live Support position, whether or not
ultimately correct, was at least reasonable given the record
provided regarding the job description and duties performed.

There is no evidence that DCS had previously misclassified
employees as exempt. There is no evidence that there were possible
classification issues or complaints or accusations related to any
of its other positions or types of employees in the past. More
specifically, there is no evidence of red flags surrounding the
issue of whether the actual duties of the Go-Live Support
consultants fit within the statute's exception for computer
consultants. The only evidence supporting DCS's notice of the
potential FLSA issue is set forth in Plaintiff's affidavit, where
she states as follows:

  "I along with several of my colleagues, complained to our
supervisors about not being paid properly, specifically not
receiving time and a half for all hours worked over forty each
week. When I complained to my supervisor, Kimberly Lowe, in person,
that I was not receiving overtime compensation, I was told that I
was only contracted to work straight time."

The statement is not supported by any details or supporting
evidence. There is no identification of a DCS manager or other
adminstrative employee to whom she and her colleagues complained,
in what form those complaints were made, and when such complaints
were made. There is no supporting deposition testimony and no
emails or other documentary evidence to support her statement. A
self-serving affidavit, without more, is simply not enough to
withstand summary judgment.

DCS's motion for summary judgment is thus granted, the Court
rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 19, 2019 Order
and Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/r8qdyzh from
Leagle.com

Debra Bey, individually and on behalf of all others similiary
situtated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Christopher Ficzko ,
Stephan Zouras, LLP, 100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150, Chicago, IL
60606, pro hac vice, Daniel Ian Pace , Pace Law Offices, 101 E 9th
Avenue, Suite 7A, Anchorage, AK, 99501,James Bill Zouras -
jzouras@stephanzouras.com  - Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice &
Ryan Stephan Stephan , Stephan Zouras, LLP, 100 N Riverside Plaza,
Suite 2150, Chicago, IL 60606, pro hac vice.

Dynamic Computing Services (DCS) Corp., Defendant, represented by
Christina A. Rankin , Guess & Rudd P.C, 1029 W. 3rd Avenue, Suite
400, Anchorage, AK 99501


EATSTREET: Martin Sues over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Tip Credits
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOFFER MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. EATSTREET, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00279 (W.D. Wis., March 26, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for its violations pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin wage and hour laws including failure to
pay the Plaintiff and all similarly-situated delivery drivers the
mandated minimum wages rates for all hours worked, failure to
reimburse for expenses incurred in the use of their personal
vehicles in performing their job duties, and failure to meet tip
credit requirements.

Mr. Martin was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver since
March 26, 2017.

EatStreet, Inc. is an independent online and mobile ordering and
delivery services provider with its principal place of business
located in Madison, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com

EDISON INT'L: Settlement Reached in Thomas & Koenigstein Fire Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International 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 Southern California
Edison Company (SCE) and Edison International have reached a
settlement with certain local public entity plaintiffs in the
Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire and Montecito Mudslides litigation
under which SCE paid those local public entity plaintiffs parties
an aggregate of $150 million and, the plaintiffs released SCE and
Edison International from all claims and potential claims in the
Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire and Montecito Mudslides litigation
and/or related to or arising from the Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire
or Montecito Mudslides.

In December 2017, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of the
Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory,
causing loss of life, substantial damage to both residential and
business properties, and service outages for SCE customers. The
Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) have determined that the
largest of the 2017 fires originated on December 4, 2017, in the
Anlauf Canyon area of Ventura County (the investigating agencies
refer to this fire as the "Thomas Fire"), followed shortly
thereafter by the Koenigstein Fire.

According to CAL FIRE, the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires burned over
280,000 acres, destroyed or damages an estimated 1,343 structures
and resulted in two fatalities.

As of February 24, 2020, SCE was aware of at least 328 lawsuits,
representing approximately 4,845 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas
and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a defendant. One Hundred
Forty-two of these lawsuits also name Edison International as a
defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE. At
least four of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions.

The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other
things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes. The lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Three categories of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against SCE and
Edison International relating to the Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire
and Montecito Mudslides: individual plaintiffs, subrogation
plaintiffs and public entity plaintiffs. An initial jury trial for
a limited number of plaintiffs, sometimes referred to as a
bellwether jury trial, on certain fire only matters is scheduled
for June 15, 2020.

In November 2019, SCE and Edison International reached a settlement
with certain local public entity plaintiffs in the Thomas Fire,
Koenigstein Fire and Montecito Mudslides litigation under which SCE
paid those local public entity plaintiffs parties an aggregate of
$150 million and, the plaintiffs released SCE and Edison
International from all claims and potential claims in the Thomas
Fire, Koenigstein Fire and Montecito Mudslides litigation and/or
related to or arising from the Thomas Fire, Koenigstein Fire or
Montecito Mudslides.

Certain of the local public entity plaintiffs will retain the right
to pursue certain indemnity claims against SCE and Edison
International. Edison International and SCE did not admit liability
as part of the settlement.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Edison International, incorporated on April
20, 1987, is the holding company of Southern California Edison
Company (SCE).


EDISON INT'L: Settlement Reached in Woolsey Fire Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edison International 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 Southern California
Edison Company (SCE) and Edison International have reached a
settlement with certain local public entity plaintiffs in the
Woolsey Fire litigation under which SCE paid the local public
entity plaintiffs an aggregate of $210 million and those local
public entity plaintiffs released SCE and Edison International from
all claims and potential claims in the Woolsey Fire litigation
and/or related to or arising from the Woolsey Fire. Edison
International and SCE did not admit liability as part of the
settlement.

In November 2018, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of the
Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory and
caused substantial damage to both residential and business
properties and service outages for SCE customers.

The largest of these fires, known as the Woolsey Fire, originated
in Ventura County and burned acreage located in both Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties. According to the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the Woolsey
Fire burned almost 100,000 acres, destroyed an estimated 1,643
structures, damaged an estimated 364 structures and resulted in
three fatalities. Two additional fatalities have also been
associated with the Woolsey Fire.

As of February 24, 2020, SCE was aware of at least 193 lawsuits,
representing approximately 3,605 plaintiffs, related to the Woolsey
Fire naming SCE as a defendant. One Hundred Twenty-nine of these
lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its
ownership and alleged control of SCE.

At least two of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions.
The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things,
negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death,
trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities
and health and safety codes. The Woolsey Fire lawsuits have been
coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Three categories of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against SCE and
Edison International relating to the Woolsey Fire: individual
plaintiffs, subrogation plaintiffs and public entity plaintiffs.

In November 2019, SCE and Edison International reached a settlement
with certain local public entity plaintiffs in the Woolsey Fire
litigation under which SCE paid the local public entity plaintiffs
an aggregate of $210 million and those local public entity
plaintiffs released SCE and Edison International from all claims
and potential claims in the Woolsey Fire litigation and/or related
to or arising from the Woolsey Fire. Edison International and SCE
did not admit liability as part of the settlement.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California. Edison International, incorporated on April
20, 1987, is the holding company of Southern California Edison
Company (SCE).


EF INSTITUTE: Grabovsky Sues Over Shelved Tour, Seeks Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Grabovsky, an individual person on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EF Institute for
Cultural Exchange, Inc. and EF Education First International, AG,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00508, (S.D. Cal., March 17, 2020),
seeks restitutionary damages, an injunction to enjoin EF from
enforcing the "No Public Heath Health Emergency Refund Clause"
allowing them to refuse to make a full cash refund. Plaintiff also
seeks an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such
other and further relief under California's Unfair Competition
Law.

EF promotes, markets, and sells tours involving air travel, ground
transportation, hotel, food, sightseeing, etc. that leave from
various points of origin in the United States and go to various
places all over the world. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc.
is a California corporation while EF Education First International,
Ltd. is a Swiss corporation.

Grabovsky's minor child was scheduled to go on an EF Tour that was
canceled by EF as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. EF invoked the
"No Public Heath Health Emergency Refund Clause". [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William McGrane, Esq.
      Matthew Sepuya, Esq.
      MCGRANE PC
      4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 292-4807
      Email: william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com
             matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
      REALLAW, APC
      1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 359-7500
      Email: mjhassen@reallaw.us


ELECTROLUX HOME: Gorczynski Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as THOMAS GORCZYNSKI, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10661-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(3):

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who purchased a "Microwave" in New Jersey
      since May 10, 2012."

   2. appointing himself as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel.

Microwave is a defined term to include each of following microwave
models Electrolux sold into New Jersey: FFMV152CLW; FFMV162LW;
FFMV154CLS; FFMV164LS; LFMV164QF; FGBM205KF; FGMV174KF; FGMV174KM;
FGMV154CLF; FGMV175QF; and FGMV205KF.

Electrolux manufactures and distributes electrical appliances. The
company offers refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum
cleaners, cookers, air-conditioners, and microwave ovens.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class are:

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial in Nichols Suit to Begin August 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health 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
has scheduled the trial to begin August 10, 2020, in the class
action suit entitled, Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

In July 2019, the company entered into settlement agreements with
all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an
aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million. The remaining
plaintiff alleges that the company, some of its former officers,
and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and
misrepresent its earnings and financial position. The plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005.
However, the complaint has been amended from time to time,
including to request certification as a class action.

Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court.
The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court.

On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were
derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations.

On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial
court's dismissal on March 23, 2018.

On April 6, 2018, the company filed an application for rehearing
with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama
Supreme Court denied the company's application for rehearing and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The court has scheduled the trial to begin August 10, 2020.

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

Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based
post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home
Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth
Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in
January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama.


ENSIGN UNITED: $22.3K Attorneys' Fee Awarded in Faulkner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICKIE FAULKNER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENSIGN UNITED
STATES DRILLING INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
16-cv-03137-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted (i) the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Application for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and
Expenses, and (ii) the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release.

The Defendant is an oilfield services company located in Denver,
Colorado that has operations in North Dakota.  Named Plaintiff
Faulkner has worked for defendant as a rig manager in North Dakota.
Mr. Faulkner claims that rig managers typically worked more than
40 hours each week.  As compensation, Mr. Faulkner claims that he
and other rig managers were paid a day rate regardless of the
number of hours they worked.  He alleges that defendant knowingly
or recklessly classified him and other rig managers as exempt
employees, and therefore not eligible for overtime pay, in order to
avoid compensating them for all hours worked.  Mr. Faulkner claims
that, had rig managers been appropriately classified, they would
have been entitled to overtime premium pay.

On Dec. 20, 2016, Mr. Faulkner filed the case against the
Defendant, bringing a claim for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a claim for violation of North Dakota
Administrative Code Section 46-02-07.  Mr. Faulkner brings his FLSA
claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Mr. Faulkner alleges that he and the Defendant's other rig managers
are similarly situated because they performed the same or similar
work and were subject to the same compensation scheme.  Three
individuals subsequently joined the collective action as opt-in
Plaintiffs, bringing the total number of members of the putative
collective action to four.

The Parties advised Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix that they had
reached a settlement on July 16, 2018.  On July 31, 2018, the
Parties jointly moved for a court order approving the settlement
agreement and dismissing the matter with prejudice.  On March 12,
2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the first
motion.  

It granted final collective action certification for a collective
of all current and former rig managers of Ensign United States
Drilling Inc. classified as exempt from overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for at least one week during the
two-year period prior to the date the Court authorizes notice to
the present.

However, the Court held that, because the first motion did not
include any evidence that the opt-in members were given notice of
an opportunity to object, it could not approve the settlement
agreement.  The Court also determined that (1) the settlement
agreement is the result of a bona fide dispute, (2) the settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable, and (3) the settlement agreement
does not undermine the purposes of the FLSA.  Finally, the Court
concluded that the parties had not provided sufficient evidence to
approve (1) the requested $2,500 service payment for the named
Plaintiff, Mr. Faulkner, and (2) the requested attorney's fee award
of $16,666.65 plus expenses of $5,712.

On June 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant notion,
requesting that the Court approves the proposed service payment and
fee award.  Although the instant motion does not explicitly request
that the Court approve the settlement agreement, the Court
construes the motion as implicitly requesting approval of the
settlement agreement.  On Jan. 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
evidence that the parties have provided the opt-in Plaintiffs with
notice of the settlement and an opportunity to object.

The settlement provides for a $2,500 service payment to the named
Plaintiff, Mr. Faulkner, which represents 5% of the total
settlement amount.  Judge Brimmer finds that a service payment of
$2,500 for Mr. Faulkner is reasonable and commensurate with
incentive fees awarded in other cases in the district.  

The Court must consider whether the counsel's requested award of
$16,666.65 plus expenses of $5,712 -- a total fee award of
$22,378.65 -- is reasonable.  The Court finds that the factors
relevant in this case weigh in favor of approving the requested fee
award.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer granted the Plaintiffs'
Renewed Application for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses.  The
Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to an award of $22,378.65 in
attorney's fees and costs.  The Court also granted the Parties'
Settlement Agreement and Release.

The case is dismissed without prejudice.  The Parties are directed
to notify the Court whether the settlement has been funded pursuant
to the terms of the settlement agreement.  Once the settlement is
funded, the Court will enter an order dismissing the case with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/5a2B2g from Leagle.com.

Rickie Faulkner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Simiarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Wayne Hodges, Kennedy
Hodges, L.L.P., William M. Hogg -- whogg@schneiderwallace.com --
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Don J. Foty --
DFoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges, LLP.

Ensign United States Drilling Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth
Ann Lennon -- blennon@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard,
L.L.C.
& Brooke A. Colaizzi -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C.

Brent Heim, Interested Party, represented by Don J. Foty, Kennedy
Hodges, LLP & William M. Hogg, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP.


EURO HOMECARE: Gorzkowska Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Maria Gorzkowska, Maria Drwiega, Patrycja Martinez, and
Barbara Drelichowski ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional class certification of:

      "current and former employees which are entitled to unpaid
      hourly and overtime wages, statutory damages, and
      reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs."

   2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs, within 10 days
      from the date of this Court’s Order granting this Motion,
      the names, last known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of those individuals who worked for Defendants
      as live-in homecare workers at any time between November
      7, 2016 and the present;

   3. authorizing Notice included with 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 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. directing the potential class members to have 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 Defendants failed to compensate their
live-in homecare employees in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

Euro Homecare offers non-medical home care for seniors, disabled,
and chronically ill patients.[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

FAIR ISAAC: Monopolizes B2B Credit Score Market, Sky Federal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sky Federal Credit Union, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-02114 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
monopolizing the market for the sale of credit scores to lenders,
financial institutions, and other businesses for risk management
decisions, known as the B2B Credit Score Market.

The lawsuit is brought under the Sherman Act and state laws against
the Defendant for redress of the injury and damages resulting from
its monopolizing, conspiring to monopolize, and otherwise
unreasonably restraining trade from at least as early as January 1,
2006, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of the
Defendant's violations of law shall have ceased, but in any case no
earlier than the present.

"Credit Scores" are three digit numbers that rank or "score"
creditworthiness within a range by applying certain algorithms to
credit histories. There are two distinct markets for Credit
Scores in the United States: (1) the market for the sale of Credit
Scores to lenders, financial institutions, and other businesses for
risk management decisions (the "B2B Credit Score Market"); and (2)
the market for the sale of Credit Scores directly to consumers to
monitor their own credit records (the "business-to-consumer" or
"B2C Credit Score Market").

According to the complaint, the case concerns the B2B Credit Score
Market, over which the Defendant Fair Isaac has unlawfully
maintained a 90% monopoly for many years. Fair Isaac has abused its
monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive and exclusionary
conduct and agreements. Fair Isaac has suppressed competition,
stymied innovation, and limited access to credit for millions of
Americans--all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
as well as numerous state antitrust and unfair trade practices
laws.

The Plaintiff is a financial institution that provides financial
services, including deposit accounts, credit and/or debit cards,
and lending and other credit-related facilities for consumers, who
purchased B2B Credit Scores from Defendant and a Credit Bureau. The
Plaintiff was injured in its business or property as a direct,
proximate, and material result of Defendant's violations of law,
says the complaint.

Fair Isaac has maintained a monopoly over the B2B Credit Score
Market in the United States for roughly three decades.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          Justin W. Batten, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          Email: jgugliemo@scott-scott.com
                 pbarile@scott-scott.com
                 jbatten@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Facsimile: 619-233-0508
          Email: cburke@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-641-9750
          Facsimile: 312-641-9751
          Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                 rewing@koreintillery.com
                 rcortazar@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-241-4844
          Facsimile: 314-241-3525
          Email: sberezney@koreintillery.com
                 mklenov@koreintillery.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Phenix FLSA Suit in Texas Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Phenix, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF TEXAS INC. and DOLLAR TREE
STORES, INC., Case No. DC-20-05206 (Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., April
2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's manager would insert
break time in the Plaintiff's time sheer when he never was able to
take a break as the Defendant's intentionally understaff locations.
The Plaintiff was not compensated for the illegal breaks that were
put into his timesheet for years. The Plaintiff was also
intentionally misclassified as salaried and exempt.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a cashier in 2016.

Family Dollar Stores of Texas, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation
that is authorized to do ad does business in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq.
          Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq.
          THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Phone: (214) 253-2533
          Facsimile: (214) 279-0033
          Email: vincent.bhattilawfirm.com
                 ditty.bhattilawfirm.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Faces Trivison Suit Over Improper Late Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick D. Trivison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00711-CAB (N.D. Ohio, April 2, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Truth in Lending Act
relating to improper late fees.

FNMA contracts with various entities to service loans assigned to
them, and these servicers act at the direction of FNMA and on their
behalf. The Plaintiff's and Class members' loans were each in
default due to their failure to timely remit periodic "monthly
payments" on their loans.

In compliance with the terms of the Plaintiff's and Class members'
loans, FNMA--or its servicers, acting on behalf of FNMA—sent
notices of default to the Plaintiff and Class members stating that
if the Plaintiff and Class members did not pay all overdue amounts,
they would require Plaintiff and Class members to immediately pay
the full amount of unpaid principal and all the interest owed on
such amount--i.e., the Plaintiff's and Class members' loans would
be "accelerated."

For these reasons, at the time the Plaintiff's and Class members'
loans were accelerated, their obligation to remit timely periodic
"monthly payments" on their loans ceased, as they were instead
required to immediately pay the entire balance of their loans,
according to the complaint. Since the Plaintiff and Class members
no longer had the obligation to remit timely periodic "monthly
payments" on their loans, the condition precedent relative to the
imposition of "late charges"--i.e., the failure to timely remit
"monthly payments"--did not, and could not, occur. Nevertheless,
FNMA--or its servicers, acting on behalf of FNMA continued to
impose "late charges" against the Plaintiff and Class members.
These Improper Late Fees were not authorized by the terms of the
loans or otherwise by law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Patrick Trivison is a natural person residing in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.

Federal National Mortgage Association is a government-sponsored
entity under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance
Agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box. 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Office: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          Email: mdann@dannlaw.com
                 dsolar@dannlaw.com
                 notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Office: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Certification Denial in Wilmot Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ELIZABETH WILMOT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B289375 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Five, reversed the trial court's order
denying class certification.

Plaintiff and Appellant Elizabeth Wilmot sued Defendant and
Respondent First American, alleging causes of action predicated on
fraud-based and non-fraud theories of liability.  The overall gist
of the suit is that First American consumers were wrongly charged
an escrow fee, dubbed a "loan tie-in fee," because First American
had not filed a rate for that fee with the Department of Insurance
as required by law.

Wilmot and her co-plaintiff Jason Munro filed the original
complaint in the action in April 2007.  Eventually, after several
demurrers, Wilmot and Munro filed a Third Amended Complaint (the
operative complaint) alleging seven causes of action: breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, unjust
enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
violation of the Unfair Competition Law("UCL"), and negligent
misrepresentation.

The operative complaint alleges the Plaintiffs sought to represent
a class of persons who paid for title insurance or title escrow
services provided by First American or its affiliates.  It
specifically alleges the Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of
consumers who were charged a loan tie-in fee prior to April 2, 2007
(the date the added filed rate for a loan tie-in fee became
effective).

The operative complaint further alleges First American violated
provisions of the Insurance Code, committed fraud, and breached
fiduciary duties by charging loan tie-in fees in connection with
escrow transactions before it had filed a loan tie-in fee rate with
DOI.  According to the operative complaint, First American knew it
could not charge a loan tie-in fee without first filing a rate for
it, failed to disclose the material fact that it was not lawfully
entitled to charge the fee, and represented the fee was legitimate
by charging the fee and listing it on the HUD-1 forms provided to
parties at closing of a real estate sale.

The operative complaint alleged Wilmot did not discover facts
relating to the allegedly improper fees until around March 2007,
when she spoke to an attorney regarding her title transaction.
Wilmot's complaint alleged that had she and the putative class
members known the true facts, they would not have paid the loan
tie-in fee.

Wilmot moved to certify her lawsuit as a class action.  The trial
court denied the motion because it believed common questions did
not predominate among the putative class, because Wilmot was not
typical of the class and not an adequate representative, and
because class-wide adjudication would be unmanageable.

The Appellate Court considers two principal questions in the
appeal: (1) whether there is substantial evidence the reliance
element of the fraud-based claims cannot be established by common
proof; and (2) whether, for the non-fraud claims, specifically
Wilmot's unfair competition cause of action, the trial court
correctly found class adjudication would be unmanageable in light
of a likely defense to liability.

The Appellate Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by declining to certify Wilmot's fraud-based causes of
action for class treatment.  Substantial evidence supports its
determination that common issues did not predominate among the
putative class as to those claims because proving the materiality
of, and reliance on, the alleged misrepresentations or omissions
would require individualized inquiries unsuitable for common
proof.

The trial court's certification ruling regarding Wilmot's UCL
claim, on the other hand, is defective, the Appellate Court finds.
Wilmot's UCL theory of liability -- that First American violated
the unfair or unlawful prong of the UCL by charging a loan tie-in
fee when it did not have a rate filed for that fee -- is quite
amenable to common proof.  First American's responses to discovery
requests -- including the HUD-1 forms that "truly and accurately"
report fees charged to customers -- would suffice to carry Wilmot's
burden to establish First American charged the putative class loan
tie-in fees, and it would be easy to establish at a class action
trial that First American did not have a rate filed for the loan
tie-in fee during the class period.

To be sure, First American has a defense that would have to be
managed in a class-wide trial, that a manual file review of an
escrow transaction may reveal the loan tie-in fee label was wrongly
applied, and there is support in the record for the trial court's
determination that manageability concerns are too great for some
segment of the proposed class for that reason.  But there is a
substantial portion of the putative class for whom First American
cannot mount this anticipated defense.

The Appellate Court therefore holds that the trial court abused its
discretion by declining to certify a subclass that would not pose
manageability concerns, and the Appellate Court will remand to the
trial court to permit it to define the precise contours of the
subclass (or subclasses).

The Appellate Court accordingly reversed the order denying class
certification.  The matter is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's Opinion.
Wilmot will recover her costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/zcHrOv from Leagle.com.

Kralowec Law, Kimberly A. Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com;
Friedman|Rubin, Richard H. Friedman; Shernoff Bidart Echeverria,
Michael J. Bidart and Steven Messner; The Ehrlich Law Firm, Jeffrey
I. Ehrlich; The Bernheim Law Firm, Steven J. Bernheim and Nazo S.
Semerjan, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dentons US, Ronald D. Kent -- ronald.kent@dentons.com -- Joel D.
Siegel -- joel.siegel@dentons.com -- Susan M. Walker --
susan.walker@dentons.com -- and Paul M. Kakuske --
paul.kakuske@dentons.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


FRONT YARD: Settlement in Martin Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Judge
Anne E. Thompson has entered a final order and judgment approving
the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Martin v.
Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin
v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024.

The action names as Defendants the Company, the company's former
Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former
officer of the Company and alleges that the Defendants violated
federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially
false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to
the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and
transactions with Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen"), Altisource
Portfolio Solutions S.A., and other third-party entities.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the Defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance
on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls.

The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages
to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and
for selection of lead counsel in the action. On October 7, 2015,
the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be
Lead Plaintiff and denying the other motion to be Lead Plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The Plaintiff filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a
hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied.

On April 17, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s decision to deny the motion to
dismiss. On April 21, 2017, the Defendants filed their answer and
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30,
2017, the Court issued an order that the motion for reconsideration
had been denied. Shortly thereafter, discovery commenced.

On October 10, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which added a second Lead Plaintiff to the case. The
allegations and causes of action asserted by the Plaintiffs were
virtually identical to the prior complaint, except that they added
what the Plaintiffs claimed was additional detail in support of
their allegations.

On December 7, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion on December 31, 2018, and Defendants filed
their reply brief on January 24, 2019. On February 21, 2019, Judge
Thompson issued an order that granted Defendants’ motion and
dismissed the second amended complaint in its entirety.

On February 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for
leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 14 days. On March
12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, and on
April 12, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May
13, 2019, and Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion
on May 31, 2019. On June 12, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, Judge Thompson granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss any alleged misrepresentation made
after each Plaintiff's final purchase of securities. Judge Thompson
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on the remaining grounds.

On June 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to certify
interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit of Judge Thompson's Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion on July 10, 2019
and Defendants' reply in support of the motion was filed on July
24, 2019. On August 6, 2019, Judge Thompson denied Defendants'
motion to certify interlocutory appeal.

Separately, on July 5, 2019, Judge Thompson accepted the case
schedule proposed by the parties, and discovery resumed. The
deadline for the completion of fact discovery was November 8, 2019,
the deadline for the completion of expert discovery was January 30,
2020, and the deadline to submit dispositive motions was February
27, 2020.

On October 8, 2019, based on input from a mediator, the company
entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement with
Plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $15.5 million in exchange
for, among various other terms, a full release of claims by
Plaintiffs on behalf of the purported class of shareholders.

On the same date, Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement and ancillary documents,
which included the stipulation and agreement of settlement. On
October 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, approving the form and manner of notice
and setting a hearing date for final approval of the settlement for
January 30, 2020.

The approval hearing was rescheduled to and occurred on February 5,
2020. Following the hearing, on February 13, 2020, Judge Thompson
entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement and an
order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.

The settlement amount was paid in two installments: (i) a payment
of $10.0 million on November 28, 2019; and (ii) a payment of $5.5
million on January 28, 2020. Proceeds from the directors' and
officers' insurance policies funded $5.5 million of the settlement.


Front Yard said, "We have included the settlement amount, net of
insurance coverage, as a component of other expense within the
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December
31, 2019."

Front Yard Residential Corporation is an industry leader in
providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families in
a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility to
metropolitan areas. The company is based in Christiansted, Virgin
Islands.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mercadal Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Mercadal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and CANON BUSINESS PROCESS
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-at-00336 (E.D. Cal., April 2, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for their failure to secure and
safeguard the personal identifying information of the Plaintiff and
hundreds of thousands of other current and former GE employees, as
well as the GE employees' beneficiaries.

According to the complaint, General Electric utilizes Canon
Business Process Services in connection with the administration of
employee benefits. Unfortunately, for current and former GE
employees entitled to benefits, between approximately February 3,
2020, and February 14, 2020, Canon experienced a data breach in
which hackers accessed the Personal Information of numerous current
and former GE employees entitled to benefits, including their
beneficiaries.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of the Defendants'
inadequate approach to data security and their failure to protect
Class Members' Personal Information that they collected,
maintained, and disseminated during the course of their business,
the Plaintiff contends. She adds that the Defendants' actions and
omissions violate well-established legal and statutory duties they
owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated for actual damages, as well as punitive
damages and equitable and injunctive relief to fully redress the
widespread harm the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions have
unleashed.

Plaintiff Joyce Mercadal was a GE employee whose Personal
Information was stored by GE and Canon, and later stolen and put at
risk during the Data Breach.

General Electric is a global high-tech industrial company primarily
engaged in energy, healthcare, and transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 jsmith@bursor.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Del. Ch. Partly Dismisses Burkhart Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD F. BURKHART, WILLIAM E. KELLY,
RICHARD S. LAVERY, THOMAS R. PRATT, GERALD GREEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH
FINANCIAL, INC., GENWORTH HOLDINGS, INC., GENWORTH NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, GENWORTH FINANCIAL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC AND
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, C.A. No. 2018-0691-JRS
(Del. Ch.), Judge Joseph R. Slights of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs are a class of insureds who hold long-term care
insurance policies and insurance agents who allege they are
entitled to commission payments for selling such policies.  
Defendant Genworth Life Insurance Co. ("GLIC") underwrote the
long-term care insurance policies at issue.  The Plaintiffs allege
that as early as 2012, GLIC's management knew that GLIC was
sinking.  The skyrocketing cost of healthcare caused GLIC to pay
out more in claims than it could collect from premiums.  And
insurance regulators were not allowing GLIC to increase premiums to
offset its growing costs.  According to the Plaintiffs, on the
brink of its demise, GLIC's owners engaged in an intentional plan
to syphon off GLIC's assets before it was too late.

From 2012 to 2014, it is alleged that those in control of GLIC
caused GLIC to declare $410 million in dividends.  They also
terminated intra-company contracts that provided GLIC with various
financial supports.  Public reports filed in 2015 and 2017
announced the plan to isolate GLIC from its affiliates because of
adverse events in the long-term care insurance industry.

More than a year later, in 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint
in the Court under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
("DUFTA").  In their Verified Amended Class Action Complaint, they
allege GLIC engaged in both actual and constructive fraudulent
transfers.  They ask the Court to restore to GLIC the value of the
assets that were syphoned away from 2012 to 2014.

In response, the Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss.  They
argue the Complaint cannot proceed for two reasons.  First, by
their lights, the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the Complaint.
They say the Plaintiffs have not suffered an actual, concrete
injury in fact because GLIC has not defaulted on any obligations it
owes to any member of the putative class.  Thus, even if the
Plaintiffs fear that GLIC may someday fail to pay their insurance
claims or sales commissions, that fear of injury is too speculative
to confer standing to prosecute a cognizable claim for fraudulent
transfer.

Second, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' attempts to reverse
some of GLIC's dividends are time barred under the DUFTA's statute
of limitations.  They say that the Plaintiffs were on inquiry
notice of GLIC's alleged plan no later than February 2017, after
GLIC's owners publicly announced the plan to "isolate" GLIC.

After carefully considering the parties' arguments, Judge Slights
concludes that the Plaintiffs do have standing.  That standing is
expressly conferred by the DUFTA.  Whether those claims are legally
or factually viable remains to be seen.  In this regard, the Court
is satisfied the General Assembly intended to provide a right of
action to those who are threatened by fraudulent transfers before
the transfers have had the full effect of dissipating protected
assets.

On the other hand, the COurt concludes the Complaint is time barred
to the extent it challenges dividends GLIC declared and paid prior
to 2014.  At the outset, the Court notes (i) Delaware law governs
procedural matters, (ii) statutes of limitations are procedural
laws and (iii) when it is "clear from the face of the complaint"
that claims are time barred, the Court may dismiss untimely claims
under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), even when applying a laches
analysis.  After carefully considering the parties' arguments, the
Court is satisfied the Plaintiffs' claims seeking reversal of the
2012-14 Dividends are untimely under the DUFTA's plain language.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss regarding the $395 million in Dividends GLIC paid from
2012 to 2014.  Any challenge to those Dividends is untimely under 6
Del. C. Section 1309.  The Court denied the Defendants' motion to
the extent it challenges the Plaintiffs' standing to bring the
lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/PELlDl from Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews, Esquire -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig
J. Springer Esquire -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- and David
M. Sborz Esquire -- dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- of Andrews &
Springer LLC, Wilmington, Delaware and Edward F. Haber, Esquire,
Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Esquire, Patrick J. Vallely Esquire, and
Michelle H. Blauner Esquire, of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Daniel A. Dreisbach, Esquire -- dreisbach@rlf.com -- Srinivas M.
Raju, Esquire -- raju@rlf.com -- Susan M. Hannigan, Esquire --
hannigan@rlf.com -- Sarah A. Clark Esquire -- sclark@rlf.com -- and
Angela Lam Esquire -- lam@rlf.com -- of Richards, Layton & Finger,
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and Reid L. Ashinoff Esquire, and Gary
Meyerhoff Esquire, of Dentons US LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys
for Defendants.


GOLDEN EMPIRE: Pettis Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Empire
Mortgage Inc. The case is styled as Julia Pettis, on behalf of
similarly situated members of the general public, Plaintiff v.
Golden Empire Mortgage Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20STCV13589 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 7, 2020).

The type of the case is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction).

Golden Empire Mortgage, Inc. provides mortgage financing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica C. Campbell, Esq.
   51 Crab Tree Dr.
   Westmont, IL
   Tel: 630-258-7509


HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Faces Aranowitz Suit Over Ransomware Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ARANOWITZ and ROXANE CAMPAGNA, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC.,
Case No. MID-L-001683-20 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., March 13,
2020), arises from the ransomware attack at HMH's medical
facilities that disrupted operations by blocking access to HMH's
computer systems and data, including the highly sensitive patient
medical records of thousands of patients

According to the complaint, as a result of the ransomware attack,
the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in
the form of disruption of medical services, out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack. In addition, the Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which was
entrusted to HMH, its officials and agents--was compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the Ransomware Attack.

The Plaintiffs contend that the information compromised in the
ransomware attack includes names, demographic information, date of
birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or identification
card numbers, employment information, health insurance information,
medical information, other protected health information as defined
by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,
and additional personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) that Defendant HMH collected and
maintained.

The Plaintiffs seek remedies, including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future
annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by
the Defendant.

HMH is in the business of rendering hospital services, medical
care, treatment, health services, education, and research to the
entire state of New Jersey through a network of providers and
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.
          Steven Cohn, Esq.
          CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 888-480-1136
          Facsimile: 888-499-1123
          E-mail: luhana@chaffinluhana.com
                  cohn@chaffinluhana.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202.640.1160
          Facsimile: 202.429.2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 312 283 3814
          Facsimile: 773 496 8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


HANMI FINANCIAL: Misleads Securities Buyers, Killyoung Oh Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KILLYOUNG OH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. HANMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION; BONITA I. LEE;
and ROMOLO C. SANTAROSA, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02844 (C.D.
Cal., March 26, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws, particularly the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Hanmi Financial between August
12, 2019 and January 28, 2020, alleges that the Defendants released
misleading and false statements about the company's financial
performance and operations, specifically the failure to disclose
that the specified $40.7 million troubled loan would necessitate
the company to appraise and take personal property securing a
portion of the amount of the loan. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the market price of Hanmi securities was artificially
inflated during the time they purchased the securities.

Hanmi Financial Corporation is a bank holding company with
principal place of business located at 3660 Wilshire Boulevard,
Penthouse Suite A, Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces Arechiga Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ARECHIGA, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 20STCV10502 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 16, 2020), accuses the Defendants
of violating the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Senior Associate from
November 2017 to May 2018. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was promoted
to Warehouse Supervisor and worked for the Defendant until he was
terminated in October 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his tenure with the Defendants,
he routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
working overtime hours. He further contends that the Defendants
failed to provide him and other aggrieved employees with all
legally-compliant meal periods.

Harbor Freight is a privately held discount tool and equipment
retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California, which operates a
chain of retail stores, as well as a mail-order and e-commerce
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


HOLLYWOOD PARK: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Charles Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASBERRY CHARLES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly aggrieved v. HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO COMPANY, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV10332 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by
failing to provide the Plaintiff and other employees with meal
and/or rest periods.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate
the employees with at least minimum wages for all hours worked and
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of eight in one day
or 40 in one week.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt
employee from October 9, 2016, through April 21, 2019, first in the
position of Security Guard and second, in the position of Security
Supervisor.

Hollywood Park is a casino and sports bar in Inglewood,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          145 South Spring Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (310) 860 0770
          Facsimile: (310) 860 0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
                  CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com


HUDSON LABOR: Ninth Circuit Flips Summary Judgment in Abselet Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HOWARD L. ABSELET, an individual and
derivatively on behalf of ROOSEVELT LOFTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUDSON LABOR SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-56027 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Abselet on
his claim for intentional interference with contractual relations.


Hudson Labor and its owners, brothers Raymond and Rodney
Yashouafar, appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of Abselet.  In 2008, Abselet loaned $6 million from a
medical malpractice settlement to a group that included Solyman
Yashouafar and Massoud Yashouafar ("Judgment Debtors"), who are the
father and uncle, respectively, of Raymond Y. and Rodney Y.  When
the Judgment Debtors defaulted on the loan, Abselet sued for
recovery of his principal.  The Feb. 10, 2012 settlement of that
lawsuit is the contract at issue.  The Judgment Debtors agreed to
repay Abselet by, among other things, conveying their interest in
up to $1.125 million from a bankruptcy class action reserve.

Abselet subsequently executed writs of attachment against the
Judgment Debtors and undertook various efforts to recover the
amounts owed.  Unfortunately, these efforts have been repeatedly
frustrated by fraudulent conveyances of assets from the Judgment
Debtors to family members.

The intentional interference claim involves a transaction that
Abselet alleges was fraudulently made to circumvent the $1.125
million owed from the class action reserve under the settlement
agreement.  In March 2012, the Judgment Debtors authorized a
$300,000 payment to Hudson -- an apparent shell company owned by
Raymond Y. and Rodney Y. -- from the class action reserve.  Over
the next two years, Hudson paid $267,000 in "wages" to the Judgment
Debtors and their spouses, which appears to be an improper
pass-through of most of the $300,000 payment.

Despite strong evidence of egregious misconduct by the Appellants
and the Judgment Debtors, the Court is unable to affirm the
district court's summary judgment ruling because, viewing the
record in a light most favorable to the Appellants, there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Abselet's intentional
interference claim was timely filed.  An intentional interference
claim typically accrues for statute of limitations purposes "at the
date of the wrongful act," or no later "than the actual breach of
the contract."  In the case, the allegedly induced breach occurred
on March 20, 2012, while the action was not filed until Aug. 22,
2016 -- after either the two or three-year limitations period that
applies to intentional interference claims.

The delayed discovery rule can extend a statute of limitations,
such that it begins to run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect
an injury and some wrongful cause, unless the plaintiff pleads and
proves that a reasonable investigation at that time would not have
revealed a factual basis for that particular cause of action.  The
district court relied on this rule to find that the earliest
Abselet could have discovered the factual predicate for his claim
was during the Aug. 27, 2015 deposition of Raymond Y. in a
different case.  But on March 29, 2013, Abselet's attorney sent a
demand letter that accused the $300,000 payment to Hudson of being
an improper distribution to the Judgment Debtors "through a variety
of entities and third-party obligors."  Because it must accord all
inferences in the Appellants' favor at this stage, the Court
concludes that the letter raises a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether, under the delayed discovery rule, the March 29, 2013
letter triggered the statute of limitations for the intentional
interference claim.

Finally, the Court finds that intentional interference with
contractual relations requires: (i) a valid contract; (ii)
defendant's knowledge of the contract; (iii) intentional acts
designed to induce a breach of the contract; (iv) actual breach;
and (v) damages.  The record reflects genuine issues of material
fact as to whether the settlement agreement had taken effect when
Hudson received the $300,000 payment, whether the appellants knew
about the settlement agreement at that time, and whether the
appellants induced a breach of the settlement agreement.  The
district court therefore also erred in granting summary judgment
with respect to these elements of the intentional interference
claim.

In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court reversed and
remanded.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Feb. 4, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/kDv2t9 from Leagle.com.


ILLINOIS: Money Sues Over Risk in Spread of COVID-19 in Prisons
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Money, William Richard, Gerald Reed, Amber Watters, Tewkunzi
Green, Danny Labosette, Carl Reed, Carl "Tay Tay" Tate, Patrice
Daniels, and Anthony Rodesky, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals v. J.B. PRITZKER, in his official
capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, and ROB JEFFREYS, in
his official capacities as DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Case No. 1:20-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class consisting of all
people, who are currently or who will in the future be housed in an
Illinois Department of Corrections prison during the duration of
the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without urgent action by the Governor and IDOC to drastically
reduce Illinois' prison population, the novel coronavirus is likely
to spread not just inside the walls of Illinois' 28 prisons, but
throughout prison communities as well, according to the complaint.
Nearly 37,000 people are incarcerated in Illinois, living in close
quarters where all aspects of daily life, including healthcare and
food service, take place. As with other congregate settings like
nursing homes and long-term care facilities, social distancing
guidelines can never be fully or effectively implemented in prison.
And each day, thousands of staff must come and go from prison
facilities, potentially carrying with them the novel coronavirus
for days, even weeks, without ever showing symptoms. These settings
pose a particular risk of spreading the virus, with catastrophic
consequences not just to the prisoners and staff, but also to their
communities and the hospitals that serve them.

According to the complaint, to understand the devastating impact
that COVID-19 will have on the Illinois prison system and the
communities that house those prisons, one need look no further than
Joliet, Illinois. On March 25, 2020, the IDOC announced the first
confirmed case of COVID-19 at Stateville Correctional Center. Just
five days later, Dr. Ngozi Ezike announced that twelve prisoners
had been hospitalized with confirmed cases of COVID-19, while
another 77 prisoners demonstrated symptoms but had not yet been
confirmed.

Every single person in IDOC custody faces a substantially increased
risk of harm as a result of the Defendants' failure take reasonable
measures to stop the spread of COVID-19 by refusing to reduce the
number of people living in IDOC custody through the implementation
of medical furlough, transfer to electronic monitoring/home
detention, and other mechanisms to reduce the prison population,
the Plaintiffs assert. They add that even people who lack an
available pathway to release are harmed because their likelihood of
contracting the virus is substantially increased and their ability
to access preventative sanitation resources and medical care is
adversely affected.

Class members, who are elderly and medically vulnerable, and those
with pathways to release, must be released now, the Plaintiffs
argue. They argue that now is the time to act to stop the spread of
COVID-19 inside the prisons, and to protect the individuals who
live and work in the prisons as well as the broader community from
the serious risk of harm to their health and safety. The State is
not acting with sufficient urgency, and without intervention from
this Court, people are going to die unnecessarily, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are Illinois Department of Corrections prisoners.

J.B. Pritzker is the Governor of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          Luke Fernbach, Esq.
          Emily M. Grant, Esq.
          Terah Tollner, Esq.
          COMMUNITY JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
          Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
          375 East Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 503-2492
          Email: sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu
                 LukeFernbach2021@nlaw.northwestern.edu
                 EmilyGrant2021@nlaw.northwestern.edu
                 ttollner@nlaw.northwestern.edu

               - and -

          Alan Mills, Esq.
          Elizabeth Mazur, Esq.
          UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER
          4413 N. Sheridan
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Phone: (773) 769-1411
          Email: alan@uplcchicago.org
                 liz@uplcchicago.org

               - and -

          Sarah Grady, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: (312) 243-5900
          Email: sarah@loevy.com

               - and -

          Vanessa del Valle, Esq.
          RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUST
          Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
          375 East Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 503-5932
          Email: vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu

               - and -

          Amanda Antholt, Esq.
          EQUIP FOR EQUALITY
          20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Email: amanda@equipforequality.org
                 samantha@equipforequality.org

               - and -

          Jennifer Soble, Esq.
          ILLINOIS PRISON PROJECT
          53 W. Jackson, Suite 1056
          Chicago, IL 60616
          Phone: (312) 324-4465
          Email: jennifer@illinoisprisonproject.org


INDIANA: Indiana App. Affirms Final Judgment in Coalition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Small Business in Transportation Coalition,
et al., Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Indiana Department of Revenue, et
al., Appellees-Defendants, Case No. 19A-PL-370 (Ind. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court's final
judgment in favor of Indiana Department of Revenue ("INDOR").

For more than 50 years, the Congress has authorized states to
require interstate motor carriers operating within their borders to
register proof of the carriers' federal interstate operating
permits.  Several registration systems have been promulgated by the
federal government to allow states to charge annual registration
fees without violating the U.S. Constitution by constituting an
undue burden on interstate commerce.  Most recently, pursuant to
the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005, the Congress replaced
the Single State Registration System ("SSRS") with the Unified
Carrier Registration System ("UCRS"), which went into effect in
2007 and is administered by the Secretary of the United States
Department of Transportation (the Secretary).

The UCRS includes, under the same name, a revamped and consolidated
online Federal registration system.  In addition to the federal
registration system, the UCR Act established a corresponding State
registration system, involving the creation of a UCR Plan, UCR
Board, and UCR Agreement.  Indiana, along with forty other states,
opted to participate in the new base-state system for the
collection of registration fees from interstate motor carriers.

Indiana's participation is administered by the INDOR, the agency
responsible for regulating commercial transportation.  Indiana not
only has participated in the UCR Plan but, through a series of
agreements between the UCR Board and INDOR, operated a national
online portal (the Portal) between 2008 and 2018, which provided
carriers across the nation the convenience of registering and
paying their UCR fees online, with nominal user and access fees.
Registration through the Portal was voluntary, as carriers could
register and pay fees directly with their base state.

Daywalt Trucking is carrier that owed UCR fees and used INDOR's
portal to pay them, as did 12 Percent Logistics, Inc. (Broker) and
trade association members of Small Business in Transportation
Coalition.  The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against
INDOR and its commissioner, Adam J. Krupp, claiming that INDOR
lacked authority under state law to register carriers and collect
UCR-related fees.  Asserting equitable theories of recovery, such
as unjust enrichment, the Plaintiffs sought the recovery of
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees paid through the Portal
since 2008.

INDOR responded to the complaint with multiple dispositive motions
based on, among other things, lack of standing, failure to state a
claim, and failure to join indispensable parties.  Following a
hearing, the trial court issued a final order in which it granted
each of INDOR's dispositive motions.

The Plaintiffs brought the instant class action challenging,
through an amended complaint filed in April 2018, INDOR's authority
under state law to register and collect UCR-related fees (that is,
UCR fees, user fees, and instant access fees) from interstate motor
carriers under the UCR Plan and to enter into the MOUs with the UCR
Board.  The proposed class representatives, Daywalt and Broker,
brought suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons
to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful UCR-Related
Fees collected from Carriers since 2008.

They defined the proposed class as follows: All motor carriers,
motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing
companies that have registered with INDOR under the [UCRS] and that
have paid the UCR Fee, the Usage Fee, and/or the Instant Access Fee
to INDOR since 2008.

Coalition, though not a class representative or member of the
Class, asserted the interests of its members, seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief on their behalf regarding the future
registration of carriers and collection of UCR-related fees by
INDOR.

Daywalt, Broker, and the Class sought repayment of all UCR-related
fees paid through the Portal since 2008.  They relied on two
equitable theories of recovery -- unjust enrichment and money had
and received. Plaintiffs also sought declaratory and injunctive
relief.

INDOR responded to the amended complaint by filing, on April 30,
2018, five dispositive motions: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing; (2) a motion to dismiss based on INDOR's statutory
authority; (3) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim;
(4) a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties;
and (5) a motion for summary judgment based on lack of notice under
the Indiana Tort Claims Act or sovereign immunity.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any of
INDOR's motions or related filings.  Additionally, they have not
included in their appendix any of their responses to the motions or
their own subsequent motion for partial summary judgment, filed on
June 25, 2018.  The omissions in the Appellants' seven-volume
appendix are glaring and the context of the various documents and
exhibits included therein is unclear.  Because INDOR has not
objected or argued otherwise, the Court will presume that these
documents and exhibits were all before the trial court and
considered by the trial court in its consideration of the pending
motions.

On Dec. 5, 2018, the trial court held a summary judgment hearing
regarding the pending motions.  Thereafter, on Jan. 18, 2019, the
trial court issued an order on all pending dispositive motions.  In
its detailed order, the trial court granted each of INDOR's motions
and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
The court entered final judgment in favor of INDOR.  The Plaintiffs
now appeal.

The issues presented on appeal are plentiful, but the Appellate
Court need not reach them all.  The Appellate Court finds that the
undisputed evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs, out of
convenience, voluntarily chose to use the Portal to pay UCR fees
that they concededly owed under the UCRS.  They owed these fees,
which were set by the Secretary -- not INDOR, regardless of whether
the Indiana legislature had properly granted INDOR authority to
collect such fees and operate the Portal.  Further, the Plaintiffs
do not allege that INDOR failed to transmit the UCR fees it
collected through the Portal to the proper base states.

In sum, INDOR, under agreements with the UCR Board, collected UCR
fees from interstate carriers across the country that were owed and
then distributed the funds pursuant to the UCR Plan and Agreement.
INDOR's actions resulted in satisfaction of the Plaintiffs' UCR
obligations for about a decade.  The Plaintiffs' attempt to recoup,
based on equitable theories, hundreds of millions of dollars paid
through the Portal is without basis in law, the Appellate Court
opines.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's
ruling.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/V0Glwg from Leagle.com.

James Bopp, Jr., Corrine L. Youngs, Amanda Narog, Terre Haute,
Indiana, Attorneys for Appellants.

Peter J. Rusthoven -- peter.rusthoven@btlaw.com -- John Maley --
john.maley@btlaw.com -- J. Curtis Greene -- curtis.greene@btlaw.com
-- Dylan A. Pittman -- dylan.pittman@btlaw.com -- Indianapolis,
Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Consumer Suit Pending in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a class
action suit initiated by a former customer is pending before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against Interactive Brokers LLC
(IB LLC), Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBG, Inc.), and Thomas
Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's
customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system
used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies.

The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017,
plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30,
2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9,
2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court
certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of
Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss.
Briefing has only recently been completed, and the District Court
has not yet ruled on the motion.

Interactive Brokers said, "Regardless of the outcome of this
motion, the Company does not believe that a purported class action
is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets
and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin deficient account."

IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend
themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past
practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any
potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


INTERSTATE BLOOD BANK: Sacked Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresia King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00113 (E.D. Tenn., March 17, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, as well as interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs, and disbursements for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

King began working for Interstate Blood Bank at the Knoxville
Plasma location as QA Coordinator and Training Coordinator. She
claims to have worked in excess of forty hours per work week
without being paid overtime. King was allegedly terminated for
retaliation in response to her overtime complaints. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maha M. Ayesh, Esq.
      Jennifer B. Morton, Esq.
      JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC
      8217 Pickens Gap Road
      Knoxville, TN 37920
      Tel: (865) 579 0708
      Fax: (865) 579-0787
      Email: jen@jmortonlaw.com
             maha@jmortonlaw.com


JOHNSON MARK: Faces Smith FDCPA Class Suit in District of Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Mark LLC. The
case is captioned as Robert P. Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Johnson Mark LLC and LVNV Funding,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00032-RJS (D. Utah, March 16, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby.

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

Johnson Mark is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett D. Cragun, Esq.
          CRAGUN & CRAGUN
          PO BOX 160234
          Clearfield, UT 84016
          Telephone: (801) 450-3267
          E-mail: brett@brettcragun.com


JP MORGAN: May 26 LIBOR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration on Feb. 10, 2020, disclosed that there are
Settlements with JPMorgan, Bank of America and UBS that impact
lending institutions headquartered in the United States, including
its fifty (50) states and United States territories, that
originated loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned loans,
owned interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in
loans, sold loans, or sold interests in loans with interest rates
based upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rates adjusted at any time
between August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2010.

The litigation alleges that certain banks (see list of Defendant
banks on settlement website) unlawfully suppressed U.S. Dollar
LIBOR, which caused lending institutions to lose money in
connection with loans they held and their loan transactions.
Plaintiffs assert claims for common-law fraud and conspiracy to
commit fraud.  JPMorgan, Bank of America, and UBS and the other
defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing.  The Court denied a
motion to dismiss the fraud claims asserted by one of the
plaintiffs, The Berkshire Bank, the Court has denied the
plaintiff's motion to certify a litigation class, and the Court of
Appeals has denied the plaintiff's petition to review the Court's
denial of class certification prior to a final judgment.  Aside
from this Class Settlement, the Berkshire Bank is continuing to
pursue only its individual claims.

Am I included?

You are included in the Settlements if you (lending institution)
are:

  -- Headquartered in the United States; and

  -- Originated loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned
     loans, owned interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased
     interests in loans, sold loans, or sold interests in loans
     with interest based upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rate
     adjusted at any time between August 1, 2007 and May 31,
     2010.

What do the Settlements provide? The Settlements will create a $4
million Settlement Fund that will be used to pay eligible Class
Members who submit valid claims.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a proof of claim to get a payment.  You can submit
a proof of claim online or by mail.  The deadline to submit a proof
of claim is April 21, 2020.  You are entitled to receive a payment
if you have a qualifying U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based loan.  At this
time, it is unknown how much each Class Member who submits a valid
claim will receive.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will lose your right to sue JPMorgan,
Bank of America and UBS for the alleged conduct and will be bound
by the Court's decisions concerning the Settlements.  The
Settlements will not result in a release of your claims against any
Non-Settling Defendant, and the litigation against Non-Settling
Defendants is ongoing.  If you want to keep your right to sue
JPMorgan, Bank of America or UBS, you must exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class by April 21, 2020.  If you stay in the
Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlements by May 5,
2020.

The Court will hold a hearing on May 26, 2020 to consider whether
to approve the Settlements and approve Class Counsel's request of
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus
reimbursement of costs and expenses.  You or your own lawyer may
appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

1-833-609-9716    
www.LendersLiborSettlements.com


KELLOGG CO: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial in Marotto Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW MAROTTO on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG
COMPANY, KELLOGG USA INC., KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, PRINGLES LLC, and
PRINGLES MANUFACTURING CO., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 3545 (AKH)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern Disitrct of New York denied the Plaintiff
Marotto's motion for reconsideration of an order of the Court
denying his motion for class certification.

Marotto moves for reconsideration of an order of the Court denying
his motion to certify a class of all post-April 1, 2012 purchasers
of Pringles Salt and Vinegar crisps bringing claims, under various
causes of action, against makers and marketers of Pringles for
allegedly labeling Pringles cans in a misleading fashion.

The Plaintiff first contends that his class certification motion
did not receive "full adversarial treatment," because the Court
denied the motion after reviewing the opening and opposition
briefing, but before he had filed a reply.  The contention lacks
merit, Judge Hellerstein holds.  The Plaintiff cites no authority
mandating that courts wait for a reply.  And, in any event, for the
reasons that follow, the Plaintiff has not introduced any argument
or fact by way of his briefing on the motion for reconsideration
that disavows the Court of its conclusion that denial of class
certification was (and is) proper.

The Plaintiff next contends that because Defendants do not have
precise data on the exact number of Pringles cans that were sold,
broken down by each of the twenty different labels used at the
relevant time, the Defendants cannot prove that any label sold in
New York lacked the "No Artificial Flavors" text.  But the
contention gets it backwards.  The Judge finds that the party that
seeks class certification has the burden of demonstrating Rule 23
compliance -- and not vice versa.

The Plaintiff next argues that, under the New York deceptive
business practices statute, the test is not whether each individual
class member actually relied upon the misleading language, but
whether a reasonable consumer would have done so.  As the Plaintiff
would have it, the absence of a statutory reliance requirement
eliminates the need for analyzing "consumer motivation" for
purchasing Pringles.

The Plaintiff confuses reliance, which is not required under the
New York statutes, with causation and injury, which are required.
The Judge holds that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence that a
price premium exists based on the alleged misrepresentations, and
has not posited a methodology for determining the amount of a
would-be premium.  

The Plaintiff asserts in passing that denying class certification
on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored.
True, but not relevant.  The Judge noted in his order denying class
certification the unmanageability of the class (an unmanageability
that the Plaintiff does not seem to meaningfully dispute in its
current round of briefing) as one of many factors calling for
denial of class certification.  It was consistent with Second
Circuit precedent.

Last, the Plaintiff argues that the class should have been
certified on the basis of a depiction of real vinegar on the front
of the Pringles label.  He urges that this is misleading because
despite the picture of real vinegar, the flavor was artificial.

The Judge finds that the argument is unsustainable for several
reasons.  First, to the extent the Plaintiff attempts to support it
on the Defendant's purported violation of federal food-labeling
regulations, the Circuit has rejected attempts to locate a private
right of action in the Food and Drug Administration's labeling
regulations.  

Next, the Plaintiff's claim that the "depiction of real vinegar"
was misleading because other ingredients "overwhelm the flavor of
the small amount of actual vinegar in the seasoning" not only
concedes the presence of actual vinegar in Pringles, but (a) relies
on the untenable premise that the Defendants needed to disclose
that "sodium diacetate and malic acid taste like vinegar,"when in
fact they were only obliged under New York law to disclose that
these ingredients were used in Pringles (which they undisputedly
did).

For these foregoing reasons, Judge Hellerstein denied the
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.  The Clerk is accordingly
directed to close the open motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AW1KV4 from Leagle.com.

Matthew Marotto, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by John
Kerry Weston -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- Sacks Weston Petrelli
Diamond & Millstein LLC & Alexander Gabriel Cabeceiras --
Alexc@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC.

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


KEYBANK NA: Sullivan Sues Over Untimely Filed Mortgage Proof
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEYBANK N.A., Case No. 7:20-cv-02762 (S.D.N.Y., April
2, 2020), seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged systematic
failure to timely present to the county clerks of New York State
proof that mortgages have been satisfied.

The New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law requires
that mortgagees like the Defendant present to the proper county
clerk a satisfaction of mortgage when a mortgagor has paid the
entire principal and interest due on a mortgage. The statutes each
provide that a mortgagee, who fails to do so within 30 days is
liable to the mortgagor for $500; a mortgagee who fails to do so
for more than 60 days is liable to the mortgagor for $1,000; and a
mortgagee who presents a mortgage satisfaction more than 90 days
late is liable to the mortgagor for $1,500.

The Plaintiff contends that these statutes are crucial mechanisms
by which New York State ensures that the acquisition and transfer
of real property occurs with efficiency and reliability.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this putative class action on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, and
seeks compensatory damages from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff obtained a residential home loan secured by a
residential first mortgage (the "KeyBank Mortgage") from the
Defendant. The Plaintiff secured the KeyBank Mortgage with a
recorded mortgage in favor of the Defendant. On September 20, 2019,
the Plaintiff obtained a payoff statement from the Defendant, and
on September 30, 2019, all principal, interest and other amounts
due under the KeyBank Mortgage was tendered to the Defendant by
good and sufficient funds, thereby, satisfying the KeyBank
Mortgage.

As of the date of this Complaint, the Plaintiff says, the
satisfaction of mortgage has still not been recorded with the
Westchester County Clerk's office. Thus, the Defendant failed to
present a certificate of discharge for recording within thirty days
of the date upon which the full amount of principal and interest
was paid on the KeyBank Mortgage, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Sullivan is a citizen of New York.

KeyBank, N.A. is a consumer banking corporation headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          Mitchell P. Lieberman, Esq.
          LIEBERMAN LeBOVIT, PLLC.
          334 Underhill Avenue, #4-A
          Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
          Phone: (914) 962-0400
          Facsimile: (914) 962-0498
          Email: liebermanlebovit@gmail.com


KIMPTON HOTEL: 2019 Data Breach Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC  said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Kimpton
Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC continues to defend a class action
suit related to data security breach.

A claim was filed on 5 April 2019 and amended on 16 December 2019
against Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC (Kimpton) seeking
class action status and alleging harm related to the compromise of
personal information due to a data security breach.

The allegations relate to a breach of the reservation system
previously used by Kimpton.

As of 17 February 2020 the likelihood of a favourable or
unfavourable result cannot be reasonably determined and it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is likely or to estimate the
amount of any loss.

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC informally InterContinental
Hotels or IHG is a British multinational hotels company
headquartered in Denham, UK. IHG has over 710,000 rooms and 4,800
hotels across nearly 100 countries.


KIMPTON HOTEL: Accord in 2016 Data Breach Case Wins Court Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC said in its Form 20-F 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 has granted final approval to the agreement reached in the
class action suit initiated against Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant
Group, LLC.

A claim was filed on 20 September 2016 against Kimpton Hotel and
Restaurant Group, LLC ("Kimpton"), seeking class action status and
alleging breach of implied contract, negligence, and deceptive
business practices related to an alleged data breach.

The claimant alleged that Kimpton failed to secure and safeguard
its customers' payment card data and personally identifiable
information.

The parties reached agreement on a resolution of this matter and on
11 July 2019, the Court granted final approval of the agreement.

The claim was dismissed, and the parties are complying with the
terms of the agreement.

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC informally InterContinental
Hotels or IHG is a British multinational hotels company
headquartered in Denham, UK. IHG has over 710,000 rooms and 4,800
hotels across nearly 100 countries.


KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT: Faces Smith FDCPA Suit in District of Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knight Adjustment
Bureau. The case is captioned as Robert P. Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Knight Adjustment
Bureau, Case No. 1:20-cv-00033-DB (D. Utah, March 16, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dee Benson.

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

Knight Adjustment is a collection agency located in Salt Lake City,
Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett D. Cragun, Esq.
          CRAGUN & CRAGUN
          P.O. Box 160234
          Clearfield, UT 84016
          Telephone: (801) 450-3267
          E-mail: brett@brettcragun.com


KUWAIT: Mohammad Suit Over Violation of FEHA Moved to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RASHA MOHAMMAD and All Persons Similarly Situated v. THE GENERAL
CONSULATE OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT aka CONSULATE OF THE STATE OF
KUWAIT IN LOS ANGELES, aka THE ROYAL CONSULATE OF THE STATE OF
KUWAIT, THE STATE OF KUWAIT aka THE NATION OF KUWAIT, AND DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. SC129778 (Filed Sep. 4, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on March 16, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02513 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations
of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act based on gender
expression or identity. She alleges that the Defendants harassed
her and intimidated her, often criticizing her ancestry (Syrian)
and the Syrian ongoing war, often stating directly to her and or in
her presence that all Syrians should be exterminated.

The General Consulate of the State of Kuwait is the diplomatic
representation of Kuwait in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Knickerbocker, Esq.
          KNICKERBOCKER LAW FIRM
          2425 Olympic Blvd., Suite 4000
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: 310 260 9060
          Facsimile: 310-260-9063
          E-mail: knieklaw@gmail.com


LEHIGH VALLEY: Steele Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA & PMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Steele and Armando Ramos, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Lehigh Valley Underground, LLC, d/b/a
Jack Grace Construction LLC, d/b/a Jack Grace Constructions, LLC,
d/b/a Vertech; Jack Grace Construction LLC, d/b/a Lehigh Valley
Underground, LLC, d/b/a Jack Grace Constructions, LLC, d/b/a
Vertech, a dissolved limited liability company; ANDREW MIKLOS; and
CHRISTINA MIKLOS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01754 (E.D. Pa., April 2, 2020),
seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 over unpaid
overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs typically worked a range
of approximately 40-60 hours per week for LVU and JGC, averaging 45
or 53 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were illegally classified as
an independent contractor and paid on a day-rate basis. The
Plaintiffs never received an overtime premium for hours worked over
forty in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs were employed as Field Construction Workers by the
Defendants.

The Defendants operate an electrical construction and maintenance
business, whose customers are primarily or exclusively local
electric power utilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
          Ryan McCarthy, Esq.
          JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 351-0613
          Fax: (215) 922-3524
          Email: jgoodley@jslex.com


LOWE'S HOME: Roy Sues in Massachusetts Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Companies,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Richard Roy and Jeffrey
Lavelle, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
individuals v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-40029-TSH (D. Mass., March 13, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman.

The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of
labor-related laws.

Lowe's is an American retail company specializing in home
improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin K. Steffans, Esq.
          STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
          7 North Street, No. 307
          Pittsfield, MA 01201
          Telephone: (413) 441-6366
          E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com


LUCKIN COFFEE: Sterckx Sues Over Decline in ADSs' Market Value
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christophe Sterckx, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC., JENNY ZHIYA QIAN, REINOUT
HENDRIK SCHAKEL, CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU, JIAN LIU, JINYI GUO, HUI LI,
ERHAI LIU, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES
LIMITED, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, KEYBANC
CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01677 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that
resulted in the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's American depositary shares.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities who: (1)
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Luckin securities
from May 17, 2019, through April 2, 2020, inclusive; (2) purchased
or otherwise acquired Luckin ADSs in or traceable to the Company's
public offering of ADSs conducted on or around May 17, 2019 (the
"IPO"); and/or (3) purchased or otherwise acquired Luckin ADSs in
or traceable to the Company's public offering of ADSs conducted on
or around January 10, 2020 (the "2020 Offering", and with the IPO,
the "Offerings").

According to the complaint, the Registration Statements were
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of such documents. The Registration
Statements failed to disclose that the Company's internal controls
over financial reporting were so ineffective that they would fail
to prevent Luckin's financial results' false inflation due to
fabricated transactions by Luckin's Chief Operating Officer, Liu,
and thus likely requiring restatement.

The Plaintiff contends that the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) certain of Luckin's financial performance metrics, including
per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item, advertising
expenses, and revenue contribution from "other products" were
inflated; (2) Luckin's financial results thus overstated the
Company's financial health and were consequently unreliable and
would likely require restatement; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Luckin's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.

Then, on April 2, 2020, Luckin disclosed that an internal
investigation had found that millions of dollars in sales were
fabricated. On this news, Luckin ADSs plummeted $19.80 per ADS or
approximately 75.6% to close $6.40 per ADS on April 2, 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 ADSs, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Luckin securities during the Class Period.

Luckin purports to engage in the retail sale of freshly brewed
drinks, and pre-made food and beverage items in the People's
Republic of China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim,, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MARIN J CORP: Farmworkers Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GUSTAVO CORTEZ-ROMERO, et al.
and others similarly situated v. MARIN J CORP. and JORGE J. MARIN,
Case No. 2:20-cv-14058-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Farmworkers ask the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying their complaint as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective action and approving notice to
      potential opt-in plaintiffs;

   2. approving a proposed notice;

   3. directing Marin J Corp. to promptly produce the full names
      and last known permanent addresses of all H-2A workers it
      employed during the 2018 Missouri watermelon season; and

   4. allowing four months following the Farmworkers' receipt of
      the names and addresses for distribution of the notice and
      for potential plaintiffs to opt in to this action.

The Plaintiffs Gustavo Cortez-Romero, et al. (Farmworkers) are
former Marin J Corp. employees who were employed in the 2018
Missouri watermelon harvest. The Farmworkers allege that Defendants
violated the FLSA, by failing to pay each worker at an average of
at least the FLSA minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor
performed in a given workweek and refusing overtime pay to eligible
packinghouse workers.

Jorge J. Marin operates Marin J Corp., a farm labor contracting
business that provides H-2A temporary agricultural workers to
growers and/or brokers in Florida, Missouri, Indiana, and North
Carolina.[CC]

The Farmworkers are represented by:

          Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
          A PROJECT OF TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          311 Plus Park Boulevard, Suite 135
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Telephone: (615) 538-0725
          Facsimile: (615) 366-3349
          E-mail: gschell@trla.org



MARSHALLS OF CA: Gasoyan FCRA Suit Removed to in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONIKA GASOYAN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated v. MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20-CIV-00909 (Filed Feb. 13,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 16, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01846-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to
conduct background checks on her and other prospective, current and
former employees and use information from consumer reports in
connection with their hiring process without providing proper
disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with
the law.

Marshalls has been in the business of retail and discount
department stores since 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William Pao, Esq.
          Alexandra McIntosh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-777

The Defendants are represented by:

          Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
          John W. Drury, Esq.
          Eric Suits, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com
                  drury@seyfarth.com
                  esuits@seyfarth.com


MATCH GROUP: Appeal Briefing in Kim Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, 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 parties in Lisa Kim
v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093, are in the process of briefing the
appeal.

On June 19, 2019, a putative class action Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc.,
No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central District of
California), asserting the same substantive claims in Allan
Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 and pending in federal
district court in California, the court issued an order granting
final approval of a class-wide settlement, the terms of which are
not material to the Company.

On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with
its prior order. Because the approved settlement class in Kim
subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment
in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff
lawsuit.

Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement,
represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice
of appeal from the Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. The parties are in the process of briefing the
appeal.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MDL 2672: Summary Judgment Bid in VW Clean Diesel Suit Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS BENIPAYO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-md-02672-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part and denied in part Volkswagen's motion for summary judgment.

The case arises from Volkswagen's evasion of United States and
California emissions standards by equipping "clean diesel" vehicles
with hidden defeat devices that gamed emissions testing procedures.
The majority of the civil suits against Volkswagen were resolved
by a pair of settlements approved by the Court.  The Plaintiffs in
the case are 10 opt-outs bringing state common law and statutory
claims against Volkswagen Group of America and Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft.

Volkswagen has moved for summary judgment on just the statutory
claims.

As for the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim, Judge Breyer
holds that there is no genuine dispute that the Plaintiffs' cars
were merchantable.  The Plaintiffs claim their vehicles were
defective because they contained defeat devices that allowed
Volkswagen to evade California and U.S. emissions standards.  But
the defeat devices and increased emissions did not render their
cars inoperable, pose an immediate danger to them, their
passengers, or anyone else, or affect the cars' performance in any
way they were aware of before the emissions scandal came to light.
The Ninth Circuit has held in an unpublished disposition that that
defect, which did not compromise the vehicle's safety, render it
inoperable, or drastically reduce its mileage range, did not
constitute a breach of the warranty of merchantability as a matter
of law.

Because there is no genuine dispute that the Plaintiffs' cars were
merchantable, Volkswagen's motion for summary judgment as to the
Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly Act claims is granted.  It is therefore
unnecessary to decide whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to
revocation under that law.

As for the Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim, Volkswagen argues
that it should be granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
claims for damages under the CLRA because it made each of them an
appropriate correction offer, and the Plaintiffs failed to provide
the required statutory notice.  It also argues the Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive relief under the CLRA must be dismissed
because their lack Article III standing to seek injunctive relief,
the request for injunctive relief is moot, and the Plaintiffs have
an adequate remedy at law.

The Court holds that given Benson's direction that the issue should
be decided by the Court, it appears that it would be appropriate
for the Court to determine whether the Class Settlements
constituted appropriate CLRA correction offers after the close of
evidence and with the benefit of an advisory jury verdict, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1).  Also Volkswagen's
failure to raise its objection to the sufficiency of notice in its
reply to the Plaintiffs' CLRA letters is particularly troubling
because if it had raised the issue sooner, the Plaintiffs could
have re-noticed Volkswagen immediately, well before the case went
to trial.

Because mootness is an adequate reason to grant Volkswagen summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, it is
unnecessary to consider the parties' other arguments on the issue.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer denied in part and granted
in part Volkswagen's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/c8GGdW from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


MDL 2873: Millington v. 3M Co. Over AFFF Products Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CITY OF MILLINGTON; and NATIONAL RURAL WATER
ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Co., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00546 (Feb. 25, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Charleston) on March 13, 2020.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03057-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Honorable Richard M. Gergel. The lead case is Case No.
2:20-cv-01034-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for medical monitoring and
property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated
with toxic chemicals resulting from the Defendants' harmful and
defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other
materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs), including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and the Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The Millington City case is being consolidated with MDL 2873 in RE:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

The Defendants include BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., individually and as successor in
interest to Ansul Co., NATIONAL FOAM, INC., ANGUS INTERNATIONAL
SAFETY GROUP, LTD, ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION, E.I DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually
and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, CORTEVA, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., f/k/a DOWDUPONT,
INC., ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT LLC, ARKEMA INC., ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.,
AGC, INC. f/k/a ASAHI GLASS CO. LTD., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD.,
DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DYNAX CORPORATION, SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS,
USA, LLC., AMEREX CORPORATION, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE, P.L.C.,
INC., UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, CHUBB FIRE LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION,
and BASF CORPORATION.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. 3M serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
          Michelle Greene, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: mlavin@napolilaw.com
                  pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
                  acroner@napolilaw.com
                  mgreene@napolilaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Cousins Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Annie Cousins,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. Case No. 3:20-cv-00180-REP (E.D. Va., Mar
15, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 326-6011
          Facsimile: (410) 653-1061
          E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


MINNESOTA: Bid to Stay Jensen Suit Pending Appeal Resolution Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians, Civil
and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James Brinker and Darren
Allen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Thomas M.
Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian, and next friend of
Jason R. Jacobs; and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a
program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of
the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended
Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold,
individually and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually
and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota,
Defendants, Case No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W.
Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal.

On Dec. 18, 2019, the District Court issued an order in response to
the parties' positions regarding the scope of their Stipulated
Class Action Settlement Agreement with respect to prohibited
restraints and compliance with the Positive Supports Rule.  The
Court found that because the Agreement's definition of Facilities
does not include the Forensic Mental Health Program ("FMHP")
(formerly the Minnesota Security Hospital), or Anoka Metro Regional
Treatment Center ("AMRTC"), those locations are not subject to the
Agreement's strict prohibition on the use of restraint in all but
extreme emergency situations.

Notwithstanding, the Court found that a separate provision of the
Agreement requires the Defendants to ensure that their use of
restraint at FMHP and AMRTC reflects current best practices.
Recognizing the very real danger that inappropriate use of
restraint poses to some of society's most vulnerable citizens, the
Court ordered the Defendants to conduct an external review of their
use of restraint at FMHP and AMRTC to properly determine whether
such use reflects current best practices and satisfies the
Defendants' obligations under the Agreement.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's December 2019 Order.  On the same day, they filed a Motion
to Stay pending appeal.  Specifically, they seek an order staying
their obligations related to the Court's Order Filed Dec. 18, 2019
during the pendency of the appeal they filed with the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants'
motion arguing that the Defendants have not met their burden to
justify a stay and ask the Court to deny the Defendants' motion.

As the Court stated in its 2017 Denial, although the Eighth Circuit
may ultimately reach a different conclusion, Judge Frank finds that
the Defendants have failed to establish a strong likelihood of
success on the merits.  To begin with, the external review is not a
new concept, nor has external review been limited to Facilities as
defined in the Agreement.  Further, the December 2019 Order
specifically held that the use of restraint at FMHP and AMRTC must
reflect best practices and reincorporates its analysis in the case.
It is well-established that reporting is part of the Agreement;
the fact that the Court seeks additional reporting is neither
novel, nor outside the scope of the Agreement.  Finally, the
Defendants had ample opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time
and in a meaningful manner with respect to the issue at hand.

Judge Frank also concludes that the Defendants have failed to show
that they would be irreparably harmed if the Court declines to
grant a stay.  Moreover, a stay is not a matter of right, even if
irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.  Even
if it were to find that the Defendants faced some degree of
irreparable harm, the Court would decline to grant a stay in the
case in light of its view of the Defendant's likelihood of success
on the merits and the totality of the circumstances.

Next, Judge Frank finds that every improper use of restraint poses
direct harm to the State's most vulnerable citizens.  While it may
ultimately prove correct that the Defendants' use of restraint at
AMRTC and FMHP reflects current best practices, the Judge cannot
verify it without an external review, and declines to gamble on an
issue with such immense possibility for harm.  Moreover, it is in
the Defendants' best interest to conduct the review as quickly as
possible.  As the Court recently stated, as soon as the Court
receives sufficient evidence that the Defendants are in compliance
with the Agreement, and that its jurisdiction may come to a just
and equitable end, the Court will end its jurisdiction.

Finally, Judge Frank finds that the public interest factor is
evenly balanced.  Declining to stay the matter will require the
Defendants to engage an expert, incurring public expense.
Notwithstanding, the Court continues to have an obligation to
ensure that the Agreement, entered into with an aim to improve the
lives of individuals with disabilities throughout the state, is
implemented fully and without delay.

Upon considering the relevant factors, Judge Frank declined to stay
the matter pending the resolution of the Defendants' appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/wwv0jV from Leagle.com.

James Jensen, Lorie Jensen, James Brinker, Darren Allen, Elizabeth
Jacobs, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R. Azman --
mrazman@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA, Shamus P.
O'Meara -- spomeara@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA.

Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by
Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Anthony R. Noss,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota
Attorney General's Office.

Director, Clinical Director, Douglas Bratvold, Defendant,
represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office &
Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney
General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's
Office.

Scott TenNapel, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota
Attorney General's Office, Christopher A. Stafford --
cstafford@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Samuel D. Orbovich
-- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA & Scott H.
Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

State of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Anthony R. Noss, Minnesota
Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney
General's Office.

Ivan M. Levy, Amicus, represented by John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Karl C. Procaccini --
kprocaccini@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP & Katherine M.
Swenson, Esq. -- kswenson@greeneespel.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Interest Rate Swaps Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley 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: Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation.

Beginning in February of 2016, the Firm was named as a defendant in
multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a
single proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and
New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in
connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of
electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rates swaps
trading.

Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased interest rates swaps from defendants, as
well as on behalf of two swap execution facilities that allegedly
were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such
platforms.

The consolidated complaints seek, among other relief, certification
of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages.

On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Iowa PERS Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley 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 purported antitrust class action suit entitled, Iowa
Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation et al.   

In August of 2017, the Firm was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Iowa Public Employees'
Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their
alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic
exchange-based platforms for securities lending.

The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants.

The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages.

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.

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

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lafaye, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SUSAN LAFAYE, ET AL v. THE
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00041-SM-DMD (E.D. La.), the
Putative Class Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a motion for class certification.

The nature of the lawsuit is "Personal Property - Other Personal
Property Damage."  The claims of the proposed class
representatives, Susan Lafaye, Lisa Picone and Inez Victorian, and
the Putative Class Plaintiffs, are typical of the claims of the
entire class, the complaint says.

New Orleans is a Louisiana city on the Mississippi River, near the
Gulf of Mexico.[CC]

Counsel for the Class Plaintiffs are:

          Joseph R. Mcmahon, III, Esq.
          THE MCMAHONLAW FIRM
          2332 Severn Avenue
          Metairie, LA 70901
          Telephone: (504) 828-6225
          Facsimile: (504) 828-6201
          E-mail: joe@josephmcmahonlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Maska, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2606
          Hammond, LA 70404
          Telephone: (504) 784-0383
          Facsimile: (504) 335-0774
          E-mail: anthonymaska@gmail.com


NEW YORK: Certification of Injunctive Class Sought in E.M. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled J.S.M., by her parent, E.M., et
al. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No.
20-cv-705-EK-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will ask the Hon. Eric
R. Komitee of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in Brooklyn, New York, for an order granting
certification of an injunctive class, consisting of:

   "all individuals who file, and the children on whose behalf
   they file, due process complaints with the New York City
   Department of Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)
   (6) or (k) and 8 N.Y.C.R.R. section 200.5(i), and whose
   impartial due process decisions are not timely provided under
   applicable federal and New York State law and regulations."

The Plaintiffs include E.M., individually and on behalf of J.S.M.;
B.M., by his parents, M.C. and L.M.; M.C. and L.M., individually
and on behalf of B.M.; C.G., by his parent, L.G.; L.G.,
individually and on behalf of C.G.; P.W., by his parents, T.F. and
P.R.W.; T.F. and P.R.W., individually and on behalf of P.W.; Q.T.,
by his parents, W.J.T. and W.H.T.; W.J.T. and W.H.T., individually
and on behalf of Q.T.; A.N., by her parent, T.N.; T.N.,
individually and on behalf of A.N.; A.S., by his parent, T.T.;
T.T., individually and on behalf of A.S.; K.M.E., by her parent,
E.N.; E.N., individually and on behalf of K.M.E.; S.F., by her
parent, A.F.; A.F., individually and on behalf of S.F.; S.S., by
her parent, D.C.; D.C., individually and on behalf of S.S.; and
W.W., by her parent, S.J.; S.J., individually and on behalf of
W.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

The Defendants include Richard A. Carranza as Chancellor of the New
York City Department of Education; the New York State Education
Department; and Shannon Tahoe as New York State Interim
Commissioner of Education.

The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Danielle F. Tarantolo, Esq.
          Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
          Laura Davis, Esq.
          Sandra Robinson, Esq.
          Phyllis Brochstein, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          7 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10004-4027
          Telephone: (212) 613-6551
          E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org

               - and -

          William B. Monahan, Esq.
          Jessica M. Klein, Esq.
          Michael L. Akavan, Esq.
          Catherine E. Akenhead, Esq.
          Tasha N. Thompson, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: kleinj@sullcrom.com
                  akavanm@sullcrom.com

NEW YORK: Partial Summary Judgment on Liability Granted in ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization, BROOKLYN
CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a nonprofit organization,
PAULA WOLFF, an individual, JEAN RYAN, an individual, EDITH
PRENTISS, an individual, and DUSTIN JONES, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JAMES
O'NEILL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
City Police Department, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-08354 (VEC)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment on liability.

In the 30 years since passage of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA"), the City of New York and NYC Police Department
("NYPD") have made little progress eliminating physical barriers to
access to NYPD's police stations.  Although NYPD is committed to
protecting and serving all New Yorkers, and it appears willing to
make additional efforts to do so in a way that is inclusive of
those with disabilities, many of its services and programs are
currently offered from stations that exclude mobility-impaired
individuals.

Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and Brooklyn Center for
Independence of the Disabled, two nonprofit organizations that
provide services and advocacy for people with disabilities, along
with Paula Wolff, Jean Ryan, Edith Prentiss, and Dustin Jones, New
York City residents with mobility disabilities, filed the putative
class action against the City, NYPD, and the Department's
Commissioner.  The Plaintiffs claim that pervasive architectural
barriers across NYPD's 77 precinct stations exclude people who use
wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility devices from critical
public-safety services and programs in violation of Title II of the
ADA; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL").  The issue is difficult and costly,
especially from a remedial perspective, not least because of the
age of the stations' structures and breadth of benefits NYPD
provides city residents.

The Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on
liability, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56.
Laudably, NYPD, since the lawsuit was filed, has taken steps
towards meeting its obligations under the ADA.  NYPD represents
that it will deliver some services directly to individuals and is
prepared to and does offer other services from accessible
locations, reducing the quantity of services and programs offered
to the public only from station houses.  But those efforts remain
in the early stages of planning and development and are apparently
proceeding (inexplicably) without input from critical stakeholders.


There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are "qualified individuals"
or that the Defendants are subject to the ADA.  The Defendants
challenge only the third element -- whether the Plaintiffs were
denied benefits or otherwise discriminated against because of their
disabilities.  To prevail, the Plaintiffs must therefore show that
NYPD has failed to provide them with meaningful access to the
benefit that it offers.

To determine whether the Plaintiffs were discriminated against by
reason of their disabilities, Judge Caproni must conduct two
inquiries.  First, she must consider whether barriers at precinct
stations have prevented individuals with mobility disabilities from
accessing the benefits of NYPD's programs and services.  If so, she
must then consider whether NYPD has provided reasonable
accommodations.  The Parties mainly disagree over the second
issue.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established that the
benefits of NYPD's programs and services are numerous, and public
access to many of those programs and services is currently tethered
to precinct stations.  The undisputed facts show that NYPD's
"neighborhood policing" approach puts a premium on local stations.
There is also no dispute of material fact that at least a third of
stations, and likely more, have pervasive barriers to access.
Precinct stations' architectural barriers have demonstrably
prevented the Plaintiffs and Declarants from accessing the benefits
of NYPD's services and programs -- a fact the Defendants do not
dispute.

The Court next evaluates whether, notwithstanding the undisputed
barriers to access, the Defendants have provided reasonable
accommodations for persons with mobility disabilities.  They
contend that NYPD relocates programs to accessible locations,
provides alternative means of access, and brings services directly
to individuals at their homes or locations outside stations.  

As for its substance, the Taffe Declaration contains vague and
conclusory statements.  Construing the record generously in the
Defendants' favor, NYPD is able to deliver some of its services at
accessible locations but there is no evidence of the efficacy or
reliability of those methods, or the frequency with which they are
used.  Indeed, many of Deputy Chief Taffe's statements express
policy goals, rather than existing reality on the ground.  His
declaration, in short, contains the barest evidence that the
Defendants have in any substantial way relocated services from
station houses to accommodate persons with mobility disabilities.

When the Court considers remedy, the Plaintiffs will have to
suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of
which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.  NYPD must
then show that the accommodations the Plaintiffs propose would be
unreasonable to implement" because they either fundamentally alter
the nature of its programs and services or impose an undue
financial or administrative burden.  The injunction the Court
crafts (assuming the Parties cannot work out a solution between
themselves) will order NYPD to comply with its statutory
obligations and impose procedural mechanisms to effectuate that
goal.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Caproni granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment on liability.  The Parties are
directed to meet-and-confer in good faith and submit a joint
letter, describing their efforts to reach a solution on remedy and
proposing next steps for the litigation.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/GOBaLz from Leagle.com.

Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization, Brooklyn Center for
Independence of the Disabled, a nonprofit organization, Paula
Wolff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Jean Ryan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Edith Prentiss, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Dustin Jones, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Darin P.
McAtee, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Meredith Weaver, Disability
Rights Advocates, Michelle Anne Caiola -- mcaiola@dralegal.org --
Disabilities Right Advocates, Seth Emmanuel Packrone, Disability
Rights Advocates & Rebecca Juliet Rodgers -- rrodgers@dralegal.org
-- Disability Rights Advocates.

City Of New York, New York City Police Department & James O'Neill,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City
Police Department, Defendants, represented by Stephen Edward
Kitzinger, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation
Counsel, Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk, NYC Law Department & Mark Galen
Toews, NYC Law Department.


NISOURCE INC: Settlement of Greater Lawrence Suit Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court handling the
consolidated class action suit related to the Greater Lawrence
Incident took the approval of the settlement under advisement.

On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in
Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the
delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts (the "Greater
Lawrence Incident"). The Greater Lawrence Incident resulted in one
fatality and a number of injuries, damaged multiple homes and
businesses, and caused the temporary evacuation of significant
portions of each municipality.

Various lawsuits, including several purported class action
lawsuits, have been filed by various affected residents or
businesses in Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or
Columbia of Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence
Incident.

A special judge has been appointed to hear all pending and future
cases and the class actions have been consolidated into one class
action. On January 14, 2019, the special judge granted the parties'
joint motion to stay all cases until April 30, 2019 to allow
mediation, and the parties subsequently agreed to extend the stay
until July 25, 2019.

The class action lawsuits allege varying causes of action,
including those for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity,
negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, premises liability,
trespass, breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to warn,
unjust enrichment, consumer protection act claims, negligent,
reckless and intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross
negligence, and seek actual compensatory damages, plus treble
damages, and punitive damages.

On July 26, 2019, the Company, Columbia of Massachusetts and
NiSource Corporate Services Company, a subsidiary of the Company,
entered into a term sheet with the class action plaintiffs under
which they agreed to settle the class action claims in connection
with the Greater Lawrence Incident.

Columbia of Massachusetts agreed to pay $143 million into a
settlement fund to compensate the settlement class and the
settlement class agreed to release Columbia of Massachusetts and
affiliates from all claims arising out of or related to the Greater
Lawrence Incident.

The following claims are not covered under the proposed settlement
because they are not part of the consolidated class action: (1)
physical bodily injury and wrongful death; (2) insurance
subrogation, whether equitable, contractual or otherwise; and (3)
claims arising out of appliances that are subject to the
Massachusetts DPU orders. Emotional distress and similar claims are
covered under the proposed settlement unless they are secondary to
a physical bodily injury.

The settlement class is defined under the term sheet as all persons
and businesses in the three municipalities of Lawrence, Andover and
North Andover, Massachusetts, subject to certain limited
exceptions.

The motion for preliminary approval and the settlement documents
were filed on September 25, 2019. The preliminary approval court
hearing was held on October 7, 2019 and the court issued an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement on October 11,
2019.

The proposed settlement is subject to final court approval, and a
hearing occurred on February 27, 2020. The court took the matter
under advisement.

NiSource Inc., an energy holding company, operates as a regulated
natural gas and electric utility company in the United States. The
company operates in two segments, Gas Distribution Operations and
Electric Operations. NiSource Inc. was founded in 1912 and is
headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana.


NOVO NORDISK: NJ Dist. Certifies Class in Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (i) denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude
Plaintiffs' Expert's Report, and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class in IN RE NOVO NORDISK SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00209-BRM-LHG (D. N.J.).

Following the Court's consolidation of related cases, the
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Aug. 4, 2017.  The
Plaintiffs assert claims for (1) violations of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against all the Defendants (Count
I), and (2) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the Individual Defendants (Count II).  The Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and, following oral
argument, the Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

In the federal securities class action, the Plaintiffs allege Novo
made a series of material misstatements and omissions about Novo's
sales of its core insulin drugs in the United States.
Specifically, they contend Novo falsely attributed its revenue and
growth to its innovation, when in fact they were the result of a
scheme whereby Novo paid increasingly large kickbacks to Pharmacy
Benefit Managers ("PBMs").

PBMs are the middlemen between manufacturers and health insurers
who controlled market access in exchange for placement on their
formularies (i.e., the lists of covered drugs recommended to
providers).  Novo is a global healthcare company that derives
roughly 80% of its revenue from insulin-based medications and
roughly 54% of its revenue from the U.S. insulin market.  Sorensen
was Novo's President and CEO at all times relevant to this action
until Dec. 31, 2016.  Brandgaard was at all relevant times, and
remains, Novo's Executive Vice President and CFO.  Riis was Novo's
Executive Vice President for North America and President of Novo
Nordisk Inc., Novo's U.S. subsidiary, from September 2016 through
March 2017.  Riis was also Novo's Executive Vice President for
China, Pacific & Marketing from January 2013 to September 2016, and
Novo's Senior VP of Global Marketing from January 2006 through
September 2016.

The Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of a purported class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Novo American
Depository Receipts ("ADRs") between Feb. 3, 2015 and Feb. 2, 2017,
inclusive.

In its Motion, the Plaintiffs argue the Class should be certified
because it satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and the Rule 23(b)
requirements of predominance and superiority.  Further, they
request the Court appoint Plaintiffs as the Class representatives;
and appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP as the Class Counsel, and Seeger Weiss LLP
and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. as the
Co-Liaison Counsel.

The Defendants, however, argue the Court should deny the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify because the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated they are the adequate Class representatives, nor have
they shown common issues predominate.  Additionally, the Defendants
move to exclude the report and opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert,
Dr. Steven F. Feinstein.

The Lead Plaintiffs use the Feinstein Report to establish market
efficiency and create a methodology for calculating damages.
Because the Feinstein Report involves issues directly related to
class certification, the Court first analyzes the report's
admissibility.

The Plaintiffs' theory of liability arises from alleged
misrepresentations and omissions that caused artificial inflation
in Novo's stock price.  Dr. Feinstein's model isolates and
identifies the artificial inflation for those who purchased Novo
shares during the Class Period.  Additionally, while Dr. Feinstein
concedes his model requires the "full development of the record,"
he has presented a model which may be adjusted to isolate
misrepresentations and omissions that the trier of fact ultimately
deems fraud-related.  Nevertheless, Dr. Feinstein is not required
to produce a detailed damages model at this time.  Accordingly,
Judge Martinotti denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dr.
Feinstein's Report, and the Judge will consider the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

Turning to the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the
Judge first must determine whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied
the prerequisites for maintaining a class action as set forth in
Rule 23(a).  In their arguments against class certification, the
Defendants only address adequacy under Rule 23(a).  Specifically,
the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs are not adequate Class
representatives and their counsel cannot fairly and adequately
represent the class.  The Judge finds the requirements of Rule
23(a) are satisfied.  

After meeting the threshold requirements of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff
must establish the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).  To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), the Judge must
find that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the
class predominate over any question affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Rule 23(b)(3) requires that a class action be superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.  In the case, both considerations weigh in favor of
class certification.

The Court finds -- and the Defendants do not dispute -- common
issues predominate all other issues of law and fact in the case.
Therefore, the Court need not assess the validity of the
Plaintiffs' damages model at this stage.  As such, the Plaintiffs
have satisfied the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b).

The Court also concludes that class action is superior than any
other method of adjudication.  Specifically, class actions are
appropriate in securities cases where a significant number of
investors with relatively small losses would likely have decreased
motivation to pursue their claims individually.  Additionally, the
Judge is unaware of any related individual actions, and
concentrating litigation is desirable for efficient and consistent
adjudication.  Further, there is no indication there will be any
difficulties managing the case.  Accordingly, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

In sum, the Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Lead
Plaintiffs' Expert Report, and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/2xH1C0 from Leagle.com.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Boston
Retirement System & Employees Pension Plan of the City of
Clearwater, Movants, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C. & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com
--
SEEGER WEISS LLP.

Longview Firemens Relief & Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by
BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG  -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE
DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND,
Movant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER, SEEGER WEISS LLP.

DON ZUK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, 17-358, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by EDUARD
KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

JOSEPH R. ZALESKI, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, 17-506, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by
BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

NOVO NORDISK A/S, LARS REBIEN SORENSEN & JESPER BRANDGAARD,
Defendants, represented by MICHAEL R. GRIFFINGER --
mgriffinger@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC, BRIAN J. MCMAHON --
bmcmahon@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC & SAMUEL ISAAC PORTNOY --
sportnoy@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC.

JACOB RIIS, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL R. GRIFFINGER ,
GIBBONS, PC.


OCEAN SPRAY: $5.4MM Settlement in Hilsley Suit Gets Prelim. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CRYSTAL HILSLEY and WILLIAM RILEY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:17-CV-2335-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted
the Parties' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

Plaintiffs Hilsley and Riley, individually and on behalf of the
Class, along with Defendant Ocean Spray, move the Court for
preliminary approval of their proposed settlement.  The case was
originally filed by Plaintiff Hilsley against Ocean Spray and
Arnold Worldwide, LLC.  The gravamen of Plaintiff Hilsley's
Complaint was that the Ocean Spray product labels claiming that
certain Ocean Spray beverage products contain "No Artificial
Flavors" are false and misleading because the Products actually
contain artificial ingredients, dl-malic acid and fumaric acid,
that function as flavors.  She alleged that she paid a premium for
Ocean Spray Products believing that the Products contained "No
Artificial Flavors."

Hilsley sought both monetary damages and injunctive relief for the
following claims: (1) violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (2) violations of the False Advertising law; (3) violations of
the unlawful and unfair prong of the Unfair Competition Law; (4)
Breach of Express Warranties; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranties.
Ocean Spray has denied any and all allegations, including because
the named acids were used as acidulants and not artificial flavors
in the Products.

After hard-fought litigation with written discovery, depositions,
contested motion practice, expert discovery, and extensive
settlement negotiations, the Plaintiffs and Ocean Spray reached a
proposed Settlement.  The Settlement Agreement establishes both
monetary and non-monetary relief and requires Ocean Spray to pay
$5.4 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund.  The
Settlement will bring an end to what has been, and likely would
continue to be, highly contentious and costly litigation centered
upon unsettled legal questions.

The Settlement Agreement provides that Ocean Spray will pay $5.4
million into a settlement fund.  The fund will be used, among other
things, to pay authorized claims to the Settlement Class Members,
to pay the costs of settlement administration and notice to the
Class Members, to pay any necessary taxes and tax expenses, to pay
the Class Counsel's fees and expenses, and to pay incentive awards
to the named Plaintiffs.

For Authorized Claimants, Ocean Spray will provide $1 in cash from
the Settlement Fund per bottle of Products purchased (any size)
during the Class Period, up to 20 bottles, limited to one claim per
household.  No additional proof of purchase will be required beyond
a timely and properly submitted claim form, and no evidence of
additional purchases will entitle a claimant to receive
compensation in excess of $20 (unless distribution is increased pro
rata).  The settlement provides for a pro rata reduction if the
claims exceed the amount in the settlement fund.

Ocean Spray also agrees to injunctive relief that within 12 months
after the Final Approval Effective Date, Ocean Spray will
discontinue manufacturing, for retail sale in the United States,
the Products that contain the artificial versions of malic acid
and/or fumaric acid as an ingredient with labels that contain the
claim "no artificial flavors", provided Ocean Spray will be
permitted to exhaust existing label stock purchased, printed, or
ordered prior to the Final Approval Effective Date even if the
associated Products are manufactured later than 12 months after the
Final Approval Effective Date.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint the Law Offices of Ronald
A. Marron and the Law Office of David Elliot as the Settlement
Class Counsel.  Mr. Marron has outlined his extensive experience in
litigating consumer class actions.

Therefore, the motion seeks the entry of an order providing for:
(1) preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) preliminary
certification of a Settlement Class and appointment of the
Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and the Plaintiffs' counsel
as the Class Counsel; (3) approval of the Settlement Administrator;
(4) approval of the Notice program; (5) approval of the Claims
process; and (6) the scheduling of a Final Approval Hearing to
consider Final Approval of the Settlement.

Judge Curiel preliminarily approved the Settlement (including all
terms of the Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto).  The Judge
finds that, subject to the Final Approval hearing, the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class.

Because the settlement meets the standards for preliminary
approval, the Court preliminarily approved all terms of the
settlement, including the Settlement Agreement and all of its
exhibits.

The Court certified a Settlement Class of all citizens and
residents of the United States who, on or after Jan. 1, 2011 until
the date preliminary approval is granted, purchased one of the
following Products for personal or household use and not for
resale, in their respective state of citizenship: Ocean Spray(R)
Cran-Apple(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Grape(TM); Ocean Spray(R) 100%
Apple Juice Drink; Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Raspberry(TM); Ocean
Spray(R) Wave™ Apple with White Cranberries; Ocean Spray(R)
Wave(TM) Berry Medley; Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Cherry(TM); Ocean
Spray(R) Cran-Pineapple(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Pomegranate(TM);
Ocean Spray(R) diet Cran-Pomegranate(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Diet
Cran-Cherry(TM); Ocean Spray(R) 100% Juice Cranberry Cherry Flavor;
Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Strawberry(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Diet Blueberry;
Ocean Spray(R) Diet Cranberry With Lime; Ocean Spray(R)
Cran-Lemonade(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Classic Tea White Cranberry
Peach; Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Tea(TM) White Cranberry Peach; Ocean
Spray(R) Classic Tea Cranberry; Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Te(TM)
Cranberry; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Premium Juice Cranberry Apple; Ocean
Spray(R) 100% Cranberry Concord Grape; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Juice
Cranberry Raspberry; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Juice Cranberry
Pomegranate; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Juice Tropical Citrus Fruit &
Vegetable; Ocean Spray(R) Light Tropical Citrus Fruit And
Vegetable; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Juice Cranberry Pomegranate
Blueberry Fruit & Vegetable; Ocean Spray(R) Pink Cranberry
Passionfruit Juice Drink; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Juice Cranberry
Mango; Ocean Spray(R) Pink Lite Cranberry Juice Drink; Ocean
Spray(R) Light Cran-Mango(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Pink Cranberry Juice
Drink; Ocean Spray(R) Pink Lite Cranberry Juice Drink; Ocean
Spray(R) Pink Cranberry Juice Drink; Ocean Spray(R) Ruby
Pomegranate; Ocean Spray(R) Diet Cran-Tea(TM); Ocean Spray(R) 100%
Juice Cranberry Pineapple; Ocean Spray(R) Diet Cran-Pineapple ;
Ocean Spray(R) Mocktails Tropical Citrus; Ocean Spray(R)
Cran-America™; Ocean Spray(R) Pink Cranberry Juice Drink; Ocean
Spray(R) Cranharvest(TM) Cranberry Apple Cider; Ocean Spray(R) Diet
Cran-Raspberry(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Diet Cran-Apple(TM); Ocean
Spray(R) Diet Cranberry; Ocean Spray(R) Diet Cran-Grape(TM); Ocean
Spray(R) Cranberry Cranenergy(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Diet Ruby Red;
Ocean Spray(R) New Light 50 Cranberry Grape; Ocean Spray(R)
Sparkling Citrus Tangerine; Ocean Spray(R) Cranenergy(TM) Sparkling
Diet Cranberry; Ocean Spray(R) Ruby Cherry; Ocean Spray® Cherry
Juice Cocktail; Ocean Spray(R) Cranenergy(TM) Sparkling Cranberry;
Ocean Spray(R) Sparkling Pink Cranberry Juice Drink; Ocean Spray(R)
Pom Blue Sparkling Beverage; Ocean Spray(R) Sparkling Cranberry;
Ocean Spray(R) Diet Pom Blue Sparkling Beverage; Ocean Spray(R)
Sparkling Diet Cranberry; Ocean Spray(R) Sparkling
Cran-Raspberry(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Sparkling Cran-Grape(TM); Ocean
Spray(R) Diet Cran-Lemonade(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Cran-Mango(TM);
Ocean Spray(R) Ruby Cranberry; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Citrus Tangerine
Orange; Ocean Spray(R) 100% Citrus Mango Pineapple; Ocean Spray(R)
Cran-Tropical(TM) Juice Drink; Ocean Spray(R) Light Cranberry
Apple; Ocean Spray(R) Diet Cran-Mango(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Light
Ruby Red; Ocean Spray(R) Blueberry Juice Cocktail; Ocean Spray(R)
Blueberry Pomegranate; Ocean Spray(R) Diet Blueberry Pomegranate;
Ocean Spray(R) Pomegranate Cranenergy(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Light
Cran-Pomegranate(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Wave(TM) Mango Pineapple;
Ocean Spray(R) Raspberry Cranenergy(TM); Ocean Spray(R) Diet
Cran-Blackberry(TM); Ocean Spray(R) New Light 50 Cranberry
Raspberry.

The Court approved the Notices and the Claim Form.  The Court
further approved the methods for giving notice of the settlement to
the members of the Settlement Class, as reflected in the Settlement
Agreement and proposed in the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval. The Court also approved payment of the costs of notice as
provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court preliminarily finds that the following counsel fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class and
appointed the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC and the Law
Office of David Elliot as the Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).  The Court further approved
the appointment of Classaura LLC, or an equivalent class action
administrator identified by the Parties as the Settlement
Administrator.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 31, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.

Any member of the Settlement Class wishing to object to the
proposed settlement and/or be heard at the Final Approval Hearing
will comply with the following procedures:

a. To object, a member of the Settlement Class, individually or
through counsel, must file a written objection with the Court.  Any
member of the Settlement Class who files and serves a timely
written objection in accordance with the Order may also appear at
the Final Approval Hearing to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed settlement.  The
Members of the Settlement Class who elect not to participate in the
settlementmust submit a written Request for Exclusion that is
postmarked no later than July 1, 2020.

In order to participate in the settlement and receive a cash
payment from the Settlement Fund, members of the Settlement Class
must properly complete a Claim Form (online or in paper format) and
submit it to the Settlement Administrator.  To be effective, any
such Claim Form must be postmarked or submitted on the Internet at
www.NoArtificialFlavorsLitigation.com no later than July 10, 2020
and must otherwise comply with the procedures and instructions set
forth in the Claim Form.

The deadlines for key events are as follows:

     a. Publishing Notice March 16, 2020

     b. Filing of papers in support of Final Approval and Class
        Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses -
        June 18, 2020

     c. Deadline for submitting Claim Forms - July 10, 2020

     d. Filing of response to Objections - July 17, 2020

     e. Filing an Objection with the Court, or submitting a
        Request for Exclusion to the Settlement Administrator
        - July 1, 2020

     f. Final Approval Hearing - July 31, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.
        in cOURTROOM 2d

All activity in the action with respect to Ocean Spray will be
stayed unless and until the Settlement Agreement is terminated
pursuant to its terms and conditions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/N3u8TL from Leagle.com.

Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot, The Elliott Law
Firm, Lilach Halperin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, PLC,
Michael Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron,
Law Office of Ronald Marron, 651 Arroyo DriveSan Diego, CA 92103

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. & Arnold Worldwide LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

The Nielsen Company (U.S.), LLC, Miscellaneous Party, represented
by Heather Elizabeth Belville -- heatherbelville@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Robert James Slobig --
rslobig@torshen.com -- Torshen, Slobig & Axel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


OMNI PARK: Meadows-LoBue Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Home Care Aides
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAPHNE MEADOWS-LOBUE, Plaintiff v. OMNI PARK HEALTH CARE, LLC;
MEDSOURCE HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.; AVIDITY HOME CARE, INC.; UNITED
CARE TEAM, INC.; AND TERRY MAYNARD, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00640 (N.D. Ohio, March 25, 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 and also travel time pay in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was jointly employed by all Defendants as a home
health aide from approximately 2014 until the present.

Omni Park Health Care, LLC is an operator of a home care staffing
agency of direct care workers for the elderly and/or disabled who
need in-home assistance.

Medsource Home Health Care, Inc. is a home care staffing agency of
direct workers who provide in-home assistance to the elderly and
disabled persons. It is located at 27801 Euclid Avenue, Suite 600
in Euclid, Ohio.

Avidity Home Care, Inc. is a home care employment agency based in
Euclid, Ohio.

United Care Team, Inc. is an Euclid, Ohio-based staffing company of
workers who provide home care services for the elderly and disabled
individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Orion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The Company and one former and two current officers are named
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on April 11, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, seeking unstated compensatory damages under the
federal securities laws allegedly arising from materially false and
misleading statements during the period of March 13, 2018 to March
18, 2019.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the current and
former officers caused the Company to overstate goodwill in certain
periods; overstate accounts receivable; that the company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting related to
goodwill impairment testing and accounts receivable; and that as a
result the required adjustments to goodwill and accounts receivable
materially impacted the company's financial statements causing the
company's stock price to be artificially inflated during the class
period.

The Company has responded to the complaint, considers all of these
allegations without merit and is vigorously contesting the
allegations.

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

Orion Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty construction
company in the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors in
the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Caribbean
Basin. It operates in two segments, Marine and Concrete. The
company was formerly known as Orion Marine Group, Inc. and changed
its name to Orion Group Holdings, Inc. in May 2016. Orion Group
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


PALMCO POWER: Gruenert Sues in N.D. Illinois Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palmco Power IL, LLC.
The case is captioned as Erika L. Gruenert, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Palmco Power IL, LLC,
doing business as: Indra Energy, Case No. 1:20-cv-01811 (N.D. Ill.,
March 16, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Kness.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Palmco is a family owned and operated energy supply company
offering electricity and natural gas to homes and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Danker v. Papa
John's International, Inc. et al.  

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018. The complaint
alleges violations of Sections l0(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The District Court has appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System to lead the case and has also issued a scheduling
order for the case to proceed.  An amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2019, which the Company has moved to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to
these suits and intends to vigorously defend against them.  

The Company has not recorded any liability related to these
lawsuits as of December 29, 2019 as it does not believe a loss is
probable or reasonably estimable.

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

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.


PARK POWER: Gruenert Sues in N.D. Illinois Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park Power, LLC. The
case is captioned as Erika L. Gruenert, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Park Power, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01796 (N.D. Ill. March 16, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Martha M. Pacold.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Park Power produces and develops renewable energy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


PAYSIGN INC: Faces Smith Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Smith and Pamela Duvall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PAYSIGN, INC.; MARK NEWCOMER; and MARK
ATTINGER, Case No. 2:20-cv-00631 (D. Nev., April 2, 2020), is
brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Paysign common stock between March 12, 2019, and March 31,
2020, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) Paysign's internal controls over
financial reporting were not effective; (2) Paysign's information
technology ("IT") general controls were not effective; and (3) as a
result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 16, 2020, during pre-market hours, Paysign announced that
it would be unable to file its annual financial report with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in a timely fashion because of
an ongoing audit, advising investors that "management identified
material weaknesses related to (i) assessment of internal controls
over financial reporting and (ii) [IT] general controls." On this
news, Paysign's stock price fell $0.93 per share, or 16.85%, to
close at $4.59 per share on March 16, 2020.

Then, after the markets closed on March 31, 2020, Paysign announced
that it was again delaying the release of its 2019 financial
results. On this news, the stock fell from its March 31, 2020 close
of $5.17 per share to a close of $4.35 per share on April 1, 2020,
or a drop of approximately 16%.

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

The Plaintiffs acquired shares of Paysign common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Paysign is a publicly traded company that provides prepaid card
programs and processing services under the Paysign brand to
corporations, government agencies, universities, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Aldrich, Esq.
          ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
          7866 West Sahara Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Phone: (702) 853-5490
          Fax: (702) 227-1975

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600


PENSKE TRUCK: Zamora Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL ZAMORA, GABRIEL LOAIZA,
and JORGE GUILLEN, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PENSKE TRUCK
LEASING CO., L.P., a Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV04055 (Filed Jan. 31, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 16, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02503-ODW-MRW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek damages as a result of the alleged unpaid
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours in one
workweek or in excess of 8 hours in one day; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay all
wages owed upon termination in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Penske offers full-service truck leasing and contract maintenance,
including preventive maintenance, roadside assistance, collision
repair, and fleet tracking.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 239 9800
          Facsimile: 213 239 9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com


PHH MORTGAGE: Charges Illegal Extra Fees to Borrowers, Bell Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LASHELL L. BELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, as successor by
merger to OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03187-JHR-KMW (D.N.J., March 24, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act and breach of contract.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff, who is a borrower, has
incurred a Pay-to-Pay fee of approximately $15.00 each time she
made a payment by phone because Defendant charges borrowers between
$10.00-19.50 for making their mortgage payments online or over the
phone which is either not permitted by law or are expressly
prohibited by their mortgage agreements.

Under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) servicing rules, a
mortgage servicer may not charge a borrower any fee not authorized
by the FHA.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief
against Defendant.

PHH Mortgage Corporation is one of the largest originators and
servicers of mortgages in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 307
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Tel: 856-324-8219
          Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          E. Lee Lowther III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Tel: (501)312-8500
          Fax: (501)312-8505
          Emails: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com


PHH MORTGAGE: Collects Unlawful Processing Fees, Morris Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT J. MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, d/b/a
PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-60633-RS (S.D.
Fla., March 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in illegal and
improper debt collection activities, particularly in the form of
unlawful charging of processing fees when payments on the mortgage
are made by consumers over the phone or online. The Plaintiff
asserts that the collection of processing fees is not authorized or
agreed to in the mortgage contracts.

PHH Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage services provider with
principal place of business located at 1 Mortgage Way, Mount
Laurel, New Jersey. It is also doing business as PHH Mortgage
Services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134      
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  barbara@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -
           
          Josh Migdal, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
                  yaniv@markmigdal.com
                  eservice@markmigdal.com

PINNACLE PIZZA: Parnell Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PARNELL, on behalf of himself and others
similarly-situated v. PINNACLE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a Domino's Pizza,
PINNACLE PIZZA CORPORATION d/b/a Domino's Pizza, JAY FEAVEL,
individually, and STEVE DOLAN, individually, Case No.
5:20-cv-00237-JD (W.D. Okla., March 16, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers,
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items
to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

The Defendants operate several Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite No. 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
                  matthew@foresterhaynie.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Mora Asserts Breach of FCRA in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Jorge Mora, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03758 (D.N.J., April 7, 2020).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregory Joseph Gorski, Esq.
   Greg Gorski Law, PLLC
   1635 Market Street, Suite 1600
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 330-2100
   Email: greg@greggorskilaw.com



POTBELLY SANDWICH: $561K Deal in Bryant Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT BRYANT, TRINTON HATTON and MARC MEETERS,
Individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. POTBELLY SANDWICH WORKS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07638 (CM) (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Colleen
McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement, for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, for Approval
of Service Payments to the Representative Plaintiffs and for
Payment of the Settlement Administrator's Costs and Expenses.

The named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, seek final approval of the parties'
settlement of the class and collective action lawsuit against
Potbelly involving the unpaid wage claims of Potbelly's assistant
managers paid as salaried but exempt from overtime pay ("AMs").  

After two years of litigation, the parties reached a proposed
agreement to resolve the Plaintiffs' wage and hour class and
collective claims for the Gross Settlement Amount of $561,375.92.
The settlement satisfies all criteria for approval of a settlement
of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective and an Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") class action settlement because it
resolves a bona fide dispute, was reached after contested
litigation, resulted from arm's-length negotiations between counsel
well-versed in wage and hour law, and satisfies all other criteria
for approving a FLSA and class action settlement.

With the instant motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (1) grant
final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release; (2) grant
final certification of the Illinois settlement class; (3) grant
approval to pay the Settlement Administrator, RG/2 Claims, in the
amount of $32,871; (4) grant approval of attorney's fees and costs
in the amount agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement (attorneys'
fees of $187,125.31, and costs and expenses of $18,062.78); and (5)
grant approval of the service payments to the named Plaintiffs on
the First Amended Complaint as follows: (i) $5,000 each for the two
original named Plaintiffs, Robert Bryant and Trinton Hatton; and
(ii) $2,500 for Illinois named Plaintiff Marc Meeters.

Judge McMahon finds that (i) by settling prior to trial, the
Plaintiffs will avoid further expense and delay in obtaining a
recovery for the class; (ii) the reaction of the class has been
positive; (iii) the parties engaged in sufficient discovery to
resolve the case responsibly; (iv) the Plaintiffs would face real
risks of establishing liability and damages if the case proceeded;
(v) establishing and maintaining the class through trial presents
risk; (vi) the Defendants' ability to withstand a greater judgment
is not determinative; and (vii) the settlement fund is substantial,
even in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks
of litigation.

The Court further finds that the Class Counsel's unopposed request
for an award of attorneys' fees for $187,125.31, which represents
one-third of the $561,375.92 common settlement fund, is reasonable
and well within the accepted range awarded in wage and hour cases
in this District and throughout the Second Circuit.  The costs were
reasonable and incurred in the prosecution of the matter.  They
include expenses such as filing fees, postage, on-line research,
two mediations and mediation travel.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McMahon grants final approval of
the class settlement, approval of award for attorneys' fees and
expenses, and approval of service payments to the Representative
Plaintiffs and payment of the Settlement Administrator's costs and
expenses.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order &
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/KIplDt from Leagle.com.

Robert Bryant, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Fran L. Rudich
-- frudich@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Alexis
Helene Castillo, Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Bethany A. Hilbert,
Head Law Firm, LLC, Charles Andrew Head, Head Law Firm, LLC, Donna
L. Johnson, Head Law Firm, LLC & Seth Richard Lesser --
SLesser@klafterolsen.com -- Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP.

Trinton Hatton, Individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Fran L. Rudich
, Klafter, Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Alexis Helene Castillo , Klafter,
Olsen & Lesser, LLP & Seth Richard Lesser , Klafter, Olsen &
Lesser, LLP.

Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W.
Brecher -- Jeffrey.Brecher@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. &
Sarah Katherine Hook -- Sarah.Hook@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C..


PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Can't Compel Arbitration in Velez FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LIONEL VELEZ and VANESSA GUADALUPE,
Plaintiffs, v. PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-CV-1056-JPS-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i)
denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss;
(ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file a
sur-reply and to supplement the record; and (iii) granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to seal.

The Plaintiffs, former employees of the Defendant, bring the
collective and class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and Wisconsin state law, for the Defendant's alleged failure
to pay its employees for all of the hours they worked and its
improper denial of overtime payments.  The Defendant contends that
the Plaintiffs previously agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising
out of their employment, and has accordingly filed a motion to
dismiss this case and compel arbitration.  The Plaintiffs oppose
the motion on multiple grounds, including that they never actually
agreed to arbitrate.

The Defendant requests dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), but the correct procedural
vehicle is Rule 12(b)(3), which allows dismissal for improper
venue.  The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), governs the
enforcement, validity, and interpretation of arbitration clauses in
commercial contracts in both state and federal courts.  The FAA
embodies Congressional policy favoring enforcement of arbitration
agreements.  But the policy does not circumvent the need to prove
that an agreement to arbitrate was reached.

Judge Stadtmuller finds that, on the record presented, no summary
trial on contract formation is necessary.  The Plaintiffs have
presented undisputed testimony that they did not meaningfully
assent to the arbitration agreements.  The Defendant's only
evidence is of its general onboarding policy.  It does not present
direct evidence that the Plaintiffs' version of events is false.
The Defendant has not even attempted to demonstrate that the
general onboarding policy was actually applied in the Plaintiffs'
cases.  A trial is therefore unnecessary.  The evidence
demonstrates that the parties did not reach an agreement to
arbitrate.

The Defendant's arguments to the contrary lack merit.  First, their
position on the Plaintiffs' passivity is circular and unpersuasive.
Second, the Plaintiffs' continued employment did not constitute
assent to the arbitration agreement.  

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss the action.  The Court also
denies as moot a number of motions from the Plaintiffs seeking to
inject new legal or factual arguments into the briefing on the
motion to dismiss.  Finally, the Court grants a motion to seal
filed by the Plaintiffs seeking to keeping certain of the
Defendant's documents confidential.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/fAdzbN from Leagle.com.

Lionel Velez & Vanessa Guadalupe, Plaintiffs, represented by
Yingtao Ho -- vh@previant.com -- The Previant Law Firm SC.

PrimeFlight Aviation Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Joel
W. Rice -- jrice@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued by Weber in N.Y. Over Fraud-Linked Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Deborah Weber, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics of
Pennsylvania, Inc.; Buffalo Beacon Corporation also known as: The
Beacon Center; and Nathanial C. Webster, M.D., Case No.
1:20-cv-00324-CCR (W.D.N.Y., March 13, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christina Clair Reiss.

The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.

Quest offers medical services to improve human health. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary P. Bluestein, Esq.
          Justin John Andreozzi, Esq.
          Randall P. Andreozzi, Esq.
          ANDREOZZI BLUESTEIN LLP
          9145 Main Street
          Clarence, NY 14031
          Telephone: (716) 633-3200
          Facsimile: (716) 633-0301
          E-mail: jandreozzi@andreozzibluestein.com
                  rpa@andreozzibluestein.com

               - and -

          Hadley L. Matarazzo, Esq.
          Stephen G. Schwarz, Esq.
          FARACI LANGE LLP
          28 East Main Street, Suite 1100
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 325-5150
          Facsimile: (585) 325-3285
          E-mail: hmatarazzo@faraci.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter John Glennon, Esq.
          THE GLENNON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          160 Linden Oaks Drive
          Rochester, NY 14625
          Telephone: (585) 210-2150
          E-mail: pglennon@glennonlawfirm.com


RABOBANK NA: Del. Dist. Recommends Dismissal of Recovery Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RECOVERY FUND II USA LLC, Plaintiff, v. RABOBANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., ERIC
KURTZMAN, BMANSOL HOLDINGS LP, BMANSOL INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS INC.,
UTRECHT - AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., STONE POINT CAPITAL, LLC, ABC
COMPANIES 1-10, AND JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, C.A. No.
18-2039-MN-JLH (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommended that
the Court grants the remaining Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Recovery Fund filed the class action lawsuit against the
Defendants.  After the named Defendants moved to dismiss, the
Plaintiff amended its complaint on April 16, 2019 to add BMANSOL
Holdings LP, BMANSOL Intermediate Holdings Inc., and UTRECHT -
America Holdings, Inc. as Defendants and to assert additional
claims.  The Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the new
Defendants, and the remaining Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety.

According to the Amended Complaint, the Defendants have been, and
are currently, involved in a fraudulent "scheme" to take funds from
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy estates by disguising and hiding inappropriate
charges behind supposed bank service fees.  Although the
Plaintiff's theory as to how the Defendants' actions amount to
fraud is not entirely clear, the Plaintiff focuses on two aspects
of the Defendants' conduct: (1) the size of the fee Rabobank
charges the trustee for banking and technology services; and (2)
the fact that Rabobank gives some or all of that fee to BMS.  The
Plaintiff alleges that Rabobank and BMS are engaging in the scheme
in all other cases proceeding under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
code where Rabobank has been contracted for routine banking
services -- which is a lot of cases because Rabobank is alleged to
be one of the nation's largest providers of banking services to
Chapter 7 trustees.

The specific allegations arise out of a bankruptcy action that was
pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
On July 22, 2010, Nexity Financial Corp. filed for bankruptcy under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The action was converted to a
Chapter 7 (liquidation) case on July 22, 2011, and Jeoffrey L.
Burtch was appointed as the Chapter 7 Trustee.  Plaintiff Recovery
Fund was a creditor in the Nexity bankruptcy by virtue of an
unsecured claim it bought from Bank of America in 2016.

During his administration of the estate, the Nexity Trustee
contracted with Defendant Rabobank to receive banking and
technology services in exchange for an annual fee of 1.75% of the
estate's funds deposited with the bank.  Pursuant to its agreement
with the Nexity Trustee, Rabobank was permitted to charge the Bank
and Technology Services Fee monthly, regardless of the number of
services provided that month.  The written agreement disclosed to
the Nexity Trustee that some or all of the Bank and Technology
Services Fee might be passed on from Rabobank to Defendant BMS.

Liquidation of the Nexity Estate was delayed for several years
pending litigation over an asset owned by the estate.  During that
time, the bulk of the estate remained in an account at Rabobank,
which charged the monthly Bank and Technology Services Fee.
According to the Amended Complaint, Rabobank gave some or all of
that fee to BMS.

On Sept. 4, 2018, the Nexity Trustee filed with the Bankruptcy
Court a proposed Final Report listing the cash receipts and
disbursements for each estate bank account, the proposed plan of
distribution, and the Trustee's request for reasonable compensation
as provided by the Bankruptcy Code.

On Sept. 24, 2018, during the course of its discussions with the
Trustee, Recovery Fund learned that Rabobank was giving some or all
of the fees to BMS.  Recovery Fund made an informal request (the
Amended Complaint doesn't say to whom) for the production of
agreements between the Trustee, BMS, and/or Rabobank, but that
request was denied.  Around the same time, Recovery Fund's counsel
received a voicemail from BMS's CEO, Defendant Eric Kurtzman,
asking to talk "holistically about some business concepts."
According to the Amended Complaint, the intention behind Kurtzman's
voicemail was clear -- the Plaintiff and/or the Plaintiff's counsel
would be financially rewarded if they agreed to stop investigating
BMS' involvement and drop their objection in the Nexity
Bankruptcy.

On Nov. 15, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing regarding the
Trustee's Final Report and Recovery Fund's objection.  The
Bankruptcy Court then heard from a representative of the U.S.
Trustee's Office, who indicated that she did not object to the fees
charged by Rabobank based on the U.S. Trustee's view that they were
a valid exercise of the Nexity Trustee's business judgment.  She
further stated that Rabobank is an authorized depository which
works with BMS to provide an integrated computer based system that
enables a Chapter 7 Trustee to administer Chapter 7 cases, manage
estate cash and share proper accounting and prepare financial
reports.  She also stated that the fees charged by Rabobank and BMS
were "within the market rate" for such services.

Recovery Fund did not appeal the Bankruptcy Court's overruling of
its objection or the denial of its request for additional time to
conduct discovery.  Nor has it ever sought to reopen the Nexity
bankruptcy case.   Instead, it filed the class action RICO case.

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains 11 counts against
Rabobank, BMS, and Kurtzman, styled as follows: Conspiracy to
Commit Violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corruption Organizations Act ("RICO") (Count I); RICO - Commission
of Wire Fraud and Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341, 1343 (Count
II); RICO - Commission of Embezzlement Against the Bankruptcy
Estate 18 U.S.C. Section 153 (Count III); Right to Priority Payment
for Proof of Claim 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 11 U.S.C. Section 726
(Count IV); Fraud (Count V); Constructive Fraud (Count VI);
Conspiracy (Count VII); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VIII);
Illegal and/or Unauthorized Distribution (Count IX); Violation of
Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or
Practices (Count X); and Unjust Enrichment (Count XI).  The
Plaintiff requests class certification for all eleven counts.

Rabobank, BMS, and Kurtzman filed the pending motions to dismiss on
May 31, 2019, and briefing was complete on Aug. 23, 2019.  The
Plaintiff requested oral argument, and the Court heard oral
argument on Dec. 10, 2019.

Magistrate Judge Hall finds that although the Amended Class Action
Complaint spans 70 pages and contains 11 counts, the Plaintiff's
claims all converge on a single wrong: the alleged illegality of
the Bank and Technology Services Fee.  All of the Plaintiff's
claims rely upon its assertions that the fee violated the
Bankruptcy Code because it was calculated based on a percentage of
the account balance regardless of the number of services performed
and because it was shared with BMS.  The fee was approved, however,
by the Bankruptcy Court over the Plaintiff's objection.  The
Plaintiff did not appeal or seek to reopen the Bankruptcy Court's
final judgment, and the estate funds have all been distributed.
The Plaintiff cannot now challenge that judgment by filing a
complaint in district court.  Whether it is a claim preclusion or
an improper collateral attack on the Bankruptcy Court's judgment,
the Plaintiff cannot proceed in the Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate recommended that the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted and that the Amended
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.  Although it is the first
time the Court has evaluated the Plaintiff's claims, the Plaintiff
had the chance to litigate its objection to the fees in Bankruptcy
Court, and the Plaintiff has already amended its complaint once in
response to the Defendants' initial motions to dismiss.  Defendants
Rabobank and BMS successfully defended the Plaintiff's objection in
Bankruptcy Court, and they have been subjected to two rounds of
briefing.  Because the Magistrate concluded that claim preclusion
bars the Plaintiff from challenging the Bank and Technology
Services Fees charged to the Nexity Estate regardless of how its
allegations are formulated, any further amendment would be futile.

The Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B),(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1),
and District of Delaware Local Rule 72.1.  Any objections to the
Report and Recommendation should be filed without delay and limited
to ten pages.  Any response will be filed within 14 days thereafter
and limited to ten pages.  The failure of a party to object to
legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo
review in the district court.

The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order for
Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated Oct. 9, 2013, a
copy of which can be found on the Court's website.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/AZk89M from
Leagle.com.

Recovery Fund II USA LLC, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated former unsecured creditors in certain other
actions brought pursuant to chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code,
Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Jameson --
bejameson@prickett.com -- Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Kevin H.
Davenport -- khdavenport@prickett.com -- Prickett, Jones & Elliott,
P.A. & Samuel Lee Closic -- slclosic@prickett.com -- Prickett,
Jones & Elliott, P.A.

Rabobank, National Association, Defendant, represented by Patricia
A. Winston, Morris James LLP, Charles M. English, Jr., Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, pro hac vice, Harvey S. Schochet --
harveyschochet@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine, pro hac vice, John
M. Magliery -- johnmagliery@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine, pro
hac vice & Patrick J. Curran, Jr. -- patcurran@dwt.com -- Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice.

Bankruptcy Management Solutions, Inc. & Eric Kurtzman, Defendants,
represented by Alessandra Glorioso, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Eric L.
Schnabel, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Jonathan M. Herman, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, pro hac vice.


RANDSTAD TECHNOLOGIES: Ziadeh Seeks Fines Under FLSA & Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMMY ZIADEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANDSTAD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01857-SVK
(N.D. Cal., March 16, 2020), seeks to recover damages Randstad owes
to the Plaintiff and other workers pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other workers like him regularly
worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week.
Instead of paying him and other workers overtime in accordance with
California and federal law, Randstad did not pay them anything for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.
He further alleges that Randstad does not provide required meal
periods and rest periods to them as mandated by California law.

Mr. Ziadeh worked for Randstad as an account manager.

Randstad is located in Hartford, Connecticut, and is part of the
staffing services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone 713 999 5228
          Facsimile: 713 999 1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Steinberg Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jason Steinberg, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robinhood Markets,
Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC,
Defendants, was transferred from the San Mateo Cty. Superior Court
with the assigned Case No. 20-CIV-01482 to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on April 7,
2020, and assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02343.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a U.S.-based financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendants are represented by:

   Carl Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
   Farella Braun & Martel LLP
   235 Montgomery Street
   17th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 954-4400
   Fax: (415) 954-4480
   Email: bwisoff@fbm.com

ROYAL BANK: Appeal in JPY LIBOR & Euroyen TIBOR Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
appeal in the class action suits related to JPY LIBOR and Euroyen
TIBOR, is pending.

There are two class actions relating to JPY LIBOR and Euroyen
TIBOR, both pending before the same judge handling the USD LIBOR,
in the Southern District of New York.

In the first class action, which relates to Euroyen TIBOR futures
contracts, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' antitrust claims in
March 2014, but declined to dismiss their claims under the
Commodity Exchange Act for price manipulation.

The Commodity Exchange Act claims are now the subject of a further
motion to dismiss on the ground that they are impermissibly
extraterritorial.

The second class action relates to other derivatives allegedly tied
to JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR.

The court dismissed that case in March 2017 on the ground that the
plaintiffs lack standing.

The plaintiffs have commenced an appeal of that decision.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is a
British banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh,
Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking brands
offering personal and business banking, private banking, insurance
and corporate finance through its offices located in Europe, North
America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary companies are The
Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Class Suit vs NWM Plc in Australia Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that NatWest
Markets Plc (NWM Plc) has been named as a defendant in a class
action suit in the Federal Court of Australia.

On 27 May 2019, a class action was filed in the Federal Court of
Australia against NatWest Markets Plc (NWM Plc) and other banks on
behalf of persons who bought or sold currency through FX spots or
forwards between 1 January 2008 and 15 October 2013 with a total
transaction value exceeding AUS $0.5 million.

The company (RBSG plc) has been named in the action as a "cartel
party", but is not a defendant. The claim was served on 28 June
2019.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is a
British banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh,
Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking brands
offering personal and business banking, private banking, insurance
and corporate finance through its offices located in Europe, North
America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary companies are The
Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Continues to Defend Reference Rate Suits in SDNY
------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F 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 five class action suits in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) relating to different reference rate.

Five class action complaints were filed against RBS Group companies
in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), each relating to a
different reference rate. The SDNY dismissed all claims against NWM
Plc in the case relating to Euribor for lack of personal
jurisdiction in February 2017.

The SDNY dismissed, for various reasons, the case relating to the
Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate on
26 July 2019, the case relating to Pound Sterling LIBOR on 16
August 2019, and the case relating to Swiss Franc LIBOR on 16
September 2019.

Plaintiffs are appealing each of these four dismissals to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In the fifth class action, which relates to the Australian Bank
Bill Swap Reference Rate, the SDNY dismissed all claims against RBS
Group companies for lack of personal jurisdiction on 26 November
2018, but plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which is the
subject of a further motion to dismiss.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is a
British banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh,
Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking brands
offering personal and business banking, private banking, insurance
and corporate finance through its offices located in Europe, North
America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary companies are The
Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: NWM Plc Bid for Cancellation of Service Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
motion for cancellation of service filed by NatWest Markets Plc in
the class action suit in Tel Aviv District Court in Israel, is
pending.

NatWest Markets Plc (NWM Plc) has been named as a defendant in a
motion to certify a class action relating to LIBOR in the Tel Aviv
District Court in Israel.

NWM Plc has filed a motion for cancellation of service.

Royal Bank said, "If the motion is successful then the current
action will be brought to an end, although the claimants may seek
to re-raise the claim in the future. If the motion is unsuccessful,
or the claimants seek to re-raise the claims at a later date, NWM
Plc may seek to file other potentially dispositive motions."

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is a
British banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh,
Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking brands
offering personal and business banking, private banking, insurance
and corporate finance through its offices located in Europe, North
America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary companies are The
Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts.


ROYAL BANK: Settlement in Principle Reached in USD LIBOR Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the RBS
Group companies have reached a settlement in principle to resolve
the class action on behalf of bondholder plaintiffs.

NatWest Markets Plc (NWM Plc) and certain other members of RBS
Group, including RBSG plc, are defendants in a number of class
actions and individual claims pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York  with respect to the
setting of London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and certain other
benchmark interest rates.

The complaints allege that certain members of RBS Group and other
panel banks violated various federal laws, including the US
commodities and antitrust laws, and state statutory and common law,
as well as contracts, by manipulating LIBOR and prices of
LIBOR-based derivatives in various markets through various means.

Several class actions relating to USD LIBOR, as well as more than
two dozen non-class actions concerning USD LIBOR, are part of a
co-ordinated proceeding in the SDNY.

In December 2016, the SDNY held that it lacks personal jurisdiction
over NWM Plc with respect to certain claims. As a result of that
decision, all RBS Group companies have been dismissed from each of
the USD LIBOR-related class actions (including class actions on
behalf of over-the-counter plaintiffs, exchange-based purchaser
plaintiffs, bondholder plaintiffs, and lender plaintiffs), but
seven non-class cases in the co-ordinated proceeding remain pending
against RBS Group defendants. The dismissal of RBS Group companies
for lack of personal jurisdiction is the subject of a pending
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

In September 2019, RBS Group companies reached a settlement in
principle to resolve the class action on behalf of bondholder
plaintiffs (those who held bonds issued by non-defendants on which
interest was paid from 2007 to 2010 at a rate expressly tied to USD
LIBOR).

The settlement is subject to documentation and court approval. The
amount of the settlement is covered by an existing provision.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (also known as RBS Group) is a
British banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh,
Scotland. The group operates a wide variety of banking brands
offering personal and business banking, private banking, insurance
and corporate finance through its offices located in Europe, North
America and Asia. In the UK, its main subsidiary companies are The
Royal Bank of Scotland, NatWest, Ulster Bank and Coutts.


RUBY CORP: Nichols Suit Over Marketing E-Mails Moved to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY NICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUBY CORP., a Canadian corporation; RUBY LIFE INC.,
d/b/a AshleyMadison.com, a Canadian corporation; ADL MEDIA INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2019-00057112-CU-MC-CTL (Filed Nov. 27, 2019), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 16, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00491-BAS-KSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for money damages for alleged
violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code as a result of receiving
unsolicited commercial e-mails from the Defendants, advertising
ashleymadison.com.

Ruby is a global technology company that is home to various dating
Web sites.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Linda C. Hsu, Esq.
          Richard Chagoury, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          120 Broadway, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          Telephone: (310) 576-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
          E-mail: linda.hsu@bclplaw.com
                  richard.chagoury@bclplaw.com


RUTTER'S HOLDINGS: Faces Lavezza Suit over Credit Card Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JON LAVEZZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUTTER'S HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00482-JEJ (M.D. Penn., March 25, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant arising from a credit card breach incident
that is believed to have occurred between as early as August 30,
2018, lasting through May 29, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and
safeguarding its customers' Private Information, particularly
credit card information, led to a security breach that put the
Plaintiff's and Class members' personal and financial information
and interests at serious risk. The Plaintiff asserts the violations
committed by the Defendant including negligence, breach of
contract, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.

Rutter's Holdings, Inc. is a chain of convenience stores and gas
stations with 72 locations in Central Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
and Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSSOCIATES P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -
           
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002          
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520          
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Moya Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for PARs
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARILOU MOYA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER, a California
Corporation, TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION an Indiana Corporation dba
TRINITY HEALTH, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
20CECG00975 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., March 16, 2020), alleges
wage and labor violations arising out of the Defendants' failure to
pay wages for all time worked by the Plaintiff and other patient
access representatives.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide timely
and uninterrupted meal and rest periods to its California
non-exempt Patient Access Representatives/Patient Registrants in
violation of California Labor Code, and the applicable Industrial
Wage Order; failed to pay its employees one hour of pay at the
regular rate of compensation for each instance that the Defendants
failed to provide statutorily mandated rest periods and timely
off–duty meal periods; failed to pay its employees straight time
wages for off-the-clock work performed; failed to pay them overtime
for work in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week, failed
to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; and failed to pay
all wages due upon termination.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Saint Agnes Medical
Center in Fresno, California, as a Patient Access
Representative/Patient Registrant.

Saint Agnes Medical Center is a member of Trinity Health, a
Catholic healthcare system in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619.399.3995
          Facsimile: 619.615.2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  lbrevard@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: 888 474 7242
          Facsimile: 562 256 1006
          E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com


SAND CASTLE: Misclassifies Inspectors, Dubois et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH DUBOIS and NANCY TROJAN, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAND CASTLE
INVESTMENTS LLC d/b/a SAND CASTLE FIELD SERVICES LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02045-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2020) is a class
action lawsuit brought against Defendants for their alleged willful
misclassification and unlawful employment practices in violations
of the California Labor Code and unfair competition in violation of
California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as Inspectors a/k/a Field
Representatives and were classified as independent contractors
instead of as employees during the four-year period of their
employment. Dubois was employed from February 2017 to November
2017, while Trojan was employed since May 2016.

Plaintiff and the Class Members assert that Defendants failed to:

     -- pay them minimum wage for all hours worked;

     -- pay them overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of
eight hours per day or forty hours per week;

     -- provide them off-duty meal and rest periods;

     -- provide them proper itemized wage statements that include
all the requisite information, including hours worked and hourly
wages;

     -- provide them wages upon separation of employment; and

     -- reimburse them for their work-related expenses.

Sand Castle Investments LLC d/b/a Sand Castle Field Services LLC is
a Wisconsin limited liability company that provides various home,
vehicle, and property inspections. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Tel: (713)999-5228
          Fax: (713)999-1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law

                - and -

          Don Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713)523-0001
          Fax: (713)523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftriallawfirm.com


SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the Court overseeing
the class action lawsuit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, after further consideration ordered that the stay of
the case would be lifted on March 31, 2020.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding
captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints.

On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated
into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017,
the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional
poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats. On February
20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On November 13,
2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding three
additional poultry producers as defendants.

On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.


Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats. On April 29, 2019,
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery, subject to the
limited stay.

Between December 8, 2017 and February 27, 2019, additional
purported direct-purchaser entities individually brought
thirty-three separate suits against 19 poultry producers, including
Sanderson Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, and the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct
purchaser class complaint described above; certain of the suits
additionally allege related state-law and common law claims, and
related claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes. Those suits
filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front
of the same judge as the putative class action lawsuits.

On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the
case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern District of
Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13, 2018. On
June 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the case
filed in the Western District of Arkansas to the Northern District
of Illinois, and that motion was granted on June 11, 2019.

On July 24, 2019, one of the defendants filed a motion to transfer
the case filed in the District of Puerto Rico to the Northern
District of Illinois, and that motion was granted on July 25, 2019.


On July 22, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss in part those
direct-purchaser complaints that allege claims under federal and
Georgia RICO statutes against it. The motion was fully briefed on
September 20, 2019, and the Court heard argument on the motion on
December 18, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the case filed by
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on its behalf and on behalf of its
citizens. The motion was fully briefed on January 21, 2020. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery, subject to the limited
stay. It is possible additional individual actions may be filed.

The Company is aware that certain plaintiffs' counsel in In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the United
States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, a subpoena that
included a request to produce all discovery in the case to a grand
jury.

On June 27, 2019, the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation permitted the United States Department of Justice to
intervene in the case, as well as ordered certain discovery stayed
until September 27, 2019. Before the discovery stay expired on
September 27, 2019, the United States Department of Justice asked
the Court in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation to extend
the discovery stay for an additional six months. On September 25,
2019, the Court granted the additional stay of not less than three
months. On October 16, 2019, after further consideration, the Court
extended the stay until June 27, 2020.

On December 18, 2019, the Court after further consideration ordered
that the stay be lifted on March 31, 2020.

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that a class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina remains stayed.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to
broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the
farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated
amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were
providing services to other defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply.
On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining
defendants.

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its
subsidiaries and another poultry producer.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with
the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support
thereof. That motion was denied.

On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed
on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the
Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action
in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On January 6, 2020, the Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma
denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2020,
plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case moved for leave to amend their
complaint. The Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted
the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on February 21, 2020. No discovery has taken
place to date.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Consumer Class Action Ongoing in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by purchasers of one or
more Sanderson chicken products in the prior four years.

On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs -- Daniel Lentz, Pam La
Fosse, and Marybeth Norman -- filed, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class
action against Sanderson Farms, Inc. on behalf of a putative class
of all individuals and businesses throughout the United States who
purchased one or more Sanderson chicken products in the prior four
years.

The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class
members purchased Sanderson chicken products based on misleading
representations in Sanderson's advertising. Specifically, the
plaintiffs in this case allege that Sanderson's advertising
(including, but not limited to, on its website, television
commercials, radio advertisements, social media, print magazines,
billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers into believing that (i)
Sanderson's chickens were not given antibiotics or other
pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised in a "natural"
environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics
or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) Sanderson's chicken
products do not contain antibiotic or pharmaceutical residues.

Plaintiffs allege that (i) Sanderson "routinely" feeds antibiotics
and pharmaceuticals to its chickens, (ii) Sanderson raises its
chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor conditions amounting to
"intensive confinement" and without natural light (iii) there is
"extensive" reliable evidence that the use of antibiotics in
poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv)
Sanderson's chickens have been found to contain antibiotic and
pharmaceutical residue. The Complaint asserts five causes of action
under California and North Carolina law.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief directing Sanderson to
correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws
nationwide.

The plaintiffs also seek monetary, compensatory, statutory, and
punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ and experts' fees, costs,
and expenses.

On December 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

On February 10, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part, denied it in part, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend
the Complaint. No discovery has taken place to date.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions.
If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Maryland Employees Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the court has
approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of three
nearly identical putative class action lawsuits in Maryland.

On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and
Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers
and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and
Company, Inc. ("WMS"), were named in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each
seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed.

The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and
maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged
that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and
depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and
compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present.

The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively
sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways:
(1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving
Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS;
and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with
plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs
allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative
class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial
purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated
complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019.
Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28,
2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss,
on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they
intended to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20, 2019.

Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods
and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler chicken
producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and their
affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company,
Inc. ("WMS").

Plaintiffs bring their amended consolidated complaint on behalf of
employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing plants and
allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix
and depress the compensation paid to them.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is due March 2, 2020, which will be
fully briefed on May 21, 2020. On January 9, 2020 and January 27,
2020, the court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice
of two of the three nearly identical putative class action
lawsuits.

No discovery has taken place to date.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions.
If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SEIU UHW -WEST: Price EFTA Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GREG PRICE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEIU, UNITED
HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 20CECG00176 (Filed
Jan. 14, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Fresno, on March 13, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00192 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the California Automatic Purchase
Renewal Statute, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The
Plaintiff's claims are based on his contention that SEIU-UHW
debited his bank account on a recurring basis without first
obtaining written authorization, and without informing him of
"price changes."

SEIU is a statewide local union of the Service Employees
International Union in California in the United States. SEIU has a
membership of nearly 150,000.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bruce A. Harland, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 337-1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: bharland@unioncounsel.net


SHAKE SHACK: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Alcazar Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHAKE SHACK INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01856-SK (N.D. Cal., March 16,
2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their Web site,
https://www.armani.com/us/armanicom/ to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

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

According to the complaint, the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, and, therefore, denial of their
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with their
physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendants' Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Shake Shack is an American fast casual restaurant chain based in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


SIX CONTINENTS: Suit over Data Breach Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC  said in its Form 20-F 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 related to data
breach.

A claim was filed on 26 June 2017 against Inter-Continental Hotels
Corporation, InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., and
InterContinental Hotels Group (Canada), Inc. seeking class action
status and alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of
confidence, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract, breach of
privacy legislation, and unjust enrichment regarding an alleged
data breach.

The claim was amended in March 2018 to name Six Continents Hotels,
Inc. as the sole defendant. The claimant alleges that security
failures allowed customers' financial information to be
compromised.

InterContinental said, "As of 17 February 2020, the likelihood of a
favourable or unfavourable result cannot be reasonably determined
and it is not possible to determine whether any loss is likely or
to estimate the amount of any loss."

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC informally InterContinental
Hotels or IHG is a British multinational hotels company
headquartered in Denham, UK. IHG has over 710,000 rooms and 4,800
hotels across nearly 100 countries.


SIX CONTINENTS: Suit over Keyword Search Advertising Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC  said in its Form 20-F 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 related to keyword
search advertising.

Two claims were filed on 19 March 2018 and 6 December 2018 against
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. and other hotel companies, alleging
violations of anti-trust regulations.

One of the matters is a class action, and both suits allege that
the defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competitive
branded keyword search advertising in the hotel industry, which
raised prices for hotel rooms in violation of applicable law.

As of 17 February 2020, the likelihood of a favourable or
unfavourable result cannot be reasonably determined and it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is likely or to estimate the
amount of any loss.

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC informally InterContinental
Hotels or IHG is a British multinational hotels company
headquartered in Denham, UK. IHG has over 710,000 rooms and 4,800
hotels across nearly 100 countries.


SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal made in
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert
Greenberg and David Weinberg, is still pending.

On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.  

On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint, and on July 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.  

The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's
Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and equitable relief based on two counts
for alleged violations of federal securities laws.  

On November 21, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  On
January 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on February
11, 2019, the company filed a reply. On September 23, 2019, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss without leave to
amend, on October 22, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed it to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on
February 4, 2020, filed appellants' opening brief.

Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the
limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of
this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case
would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations
or financial position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and
intend to defend this matter vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Guzman Class Suit in Mediation
---------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the case, Jose Zavala
Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA, Inc. et
al., remains pending and the case parties were to proceed to
mediation set for March 16, 2020.

On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against Team One and the company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No.
19STCV11006.

The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
restitution.

This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act
Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint.
This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and
the company is currently investigating the allegations.
Co-defendant Team-One has filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which our company has joined in.  

The hearing that was originally set for January 30, 2020 was
postponed pending a March 16, 2020 mediation and the matter is
otherwise stayed until then.

Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
case, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., have reached a
settlement in principle.  

On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business
practices.

The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as
permitted by law.

On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action. On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the
court an agreed upon notice to be sent to members of the
collective. The parties are delaying the mailing of the
Belaire-West privacy opt out notice until after mediation.

The parties reached a settlement in principle as a result of a
January 27, 2020 mediation but the details of the settlement still
need to be worked out and the settlement has to be documented.

The parties have agreed to an informal stay of discovery and have
stipulated to continue all relevant discovery and motion deadlines
accordingly.

In the event the settlement is not concluded successfully the
deadline for the Court to hear a motion for class certification
and/or summary judgement is April 6, 2020 and trial is set for June
16, 2020.

Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE: Higginbotham Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HIGGINBOTHAM and
MARCELINO DECIERDO, for themselves and for all other current and
former aggrieved employees v. SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING SERVICES,
INC., a Florida corporation; SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING SERVICES,
INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-425 (Filed Jan. 10, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on March 16, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00575-KJM-DB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises out of the alleged employment of Michael
Higginbotham and Marcelino Decierdo by SEPL. According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff seeks penalties under the California's
Private Attorney General Act for the Defendants' alleged violations
of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay wages when
due; failure to provide wage statements; failure to maintain
accurate employee records; and failure to pay minimum wages.

The Defendants provide workers' compensation solutions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric R. Deitz, Esq.
          Lindsay C. David, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-7762
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: edeitz@grsm.com
                  ldavid@grsm.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Appellate Court Keeps Pension Trust's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company 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 a court of
appeals in the class action suit initiated by the St. Lucie County
Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.

On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.

The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.

The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.

The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage. The Company denies all allegations and intend to
continue to defend this case vigorously.

Southwestern Energy said, "The Company does not expect this case to
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations,
financial position or cash flows of the Company. Additionally, it
is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of any
additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible."

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Class Suits Over Accounting Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company is facing two separate private securities class action
suits related to accounting review.

On February 10, 2020 and February 24, 2020, two separate private
securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, its
Chief Executive Officer Tom Gentile III, former chief financial
officer, Jose Garcia, and former controller (principal accounting
officer), John Gilson.  Allegations in each lawsuit include (i)
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by all defendants, and (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants.

The facts underlying the complaints relate to the accounting
process compliance independent review (the "Accounting Review")
discussed in the Company's January 30, 2020 press release.

Prior to the Company's January 30, 2020 announcement, the Company
voluntarily reported to the SEC the determination that, with
respect to the third quarter of 2019, the Company did not comply
with its established accounting processes related to potential
third quarter contingent liabilities received after the
quarter-end.  The Company has communicated to the SEC that the
Accounting Review is substantially complete.  

In the event the SEC commences an investigation with respect to
these matters, the Company intends to cooperate fully.

Spirit AeroSystems said, "While the final outcome of these matters
cannot be predicted with certainty, considering, among other
things, the meritorious legal defenses available, it is the opinion
of the Company that none of these items, when finally resolved,
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's long-term
financial position or liquidity."

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Zaback Sues Over Defects in Foresters/Outbacks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN ZABACK, BRENT GARRETT, JAMES JONES, RANDY ROBBIE, BRITTANY
FUNK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02845-RBK-JS (D.N.J.,
March 16, 2020), alleges breach of warranty, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices arising from
the defective design and manufacture of 2017-2019 Subaru Foresters
and Outbacks, which cause the windshields to frequently, easily,
and spontaneously chip, crack, or shatter.

The Plaintiffs say they purchased the Class Vehicle without any
knowledge of the Defects.

Subaru of America, Inc., designs, markets, and sells vehicles,
including the Class Vehicles, throughout the United States. Subaru
of America, Inc. is a subsidiary and the United States distributor
of Subaru Corporation, a Japanese corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
                  eschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  nelia@lfsblaw.com


SUN & CHANG: Faces Bahena FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO BAHENA, Individually and on Behalf Of All Those Similarly
Situated v. SUN & CHANG, Inc., Geo DA, Inc., and KUANG N. CHANG,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 3:20-cv-00232-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind.,
March 16, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed
to the Plaintiff and the proposed class pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff says he was employed by the Defendants and not paid
overtime wages, despite working in excess of 40 hours throughout
his employment.

The Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant in two locations, doing
business as Jade Garden Restaurant in both locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com


SUTTER VALLEY: Faces Tinnin Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristeena Tinnin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-at-00334 (E.D. Cal., April 2, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act over unpaid wages.

The action revolves around the systemic failure by the Defendants
to pay California non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff, in
conformance with Federal and California law. The core violations
the Plaintiff alleges against the Defendants are: (1) violation of
the FLSA for failure to pay all overtime wages; (2) failure to pay
minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages in conformance
with California law; (4) knowing and intentional failure to comply
with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) failure to
provide meal periods or pay additional wages in lieu thereof; (6)
failure to pay all wages owed upon termination or resignation; (7)
violation of Unfair Competition law and (8) enforcement of the
California labor code Private Attorney General Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a medical assistant and was responsible for
the daily care of patients and carrying out the orders of doctors.

Sutter Valley Medical Foundation conducted and conducts business in
Stanislaus County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Juan Gamboa, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Phone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          Email: StanM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 JuanG@TheMMLAwFirm.com


TARY C LOOMIS-THERRIEN: Faces Williams Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated class members v. Law Office of Tary C. Loomis-Therrien,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00674 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2020), seeks remedies
for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act with regard to its attempts to unlawfully and
abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff, and
causing the Plaintiff damages.

On January 2020, the Plaintiff fell behind in the payments
allegedly owed on the alleged debt. Because this complaint alleges
violations of the FDCPA, the validity and circumstances surrounding
the Debt are irrelevant and will be discussed only to provide
context, the Plaintiff says. Thereafter, the Debt was assigned,
placed, or otherwise transferred to the Defendant for collection
purposes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant mailed the Plaintiff an
initial communication letter dated March 2, 2020, demanding payment
on the alleged debt. However, contrary to the strict language under
the FDCPA, the Letter only requires the Plaintiff, and consumers
alike, "notify" the Defendant for it to "obtain and mail
verification of the debt." As such, by sending the Letter to the
Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the FDCPA.

As a result of the Defendant's violations, the Plaintiff was
personally affected because she was frustrated, distressed, and
confused as a result of the Defendant's abusive debt collection
communication, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resides in the County of
Riverside, State of 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:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          Evangeline Dech, 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
                 evangeline@kazlg.com


TEEKAY OFFSHORE: Continues to Defend Brookfield Merger Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to Brookfield
Business Partners L.P. (Brookfield ) merger.

In May 2019, the company received an unsolicited non-binding
proposal from Brookfield to acquire all issued and outstanding
publicly held common units representing limited partnership
interests of us that Brookfield does not already own in exchange
for $1.05 in cash per common unit.

The Conflicts Committee of the company's general partner's board of
directors, consisting only of non-Brookfield affiliated directors,
evaluated the proposed offer on behalf of the owners of the
non-Brookfield owned limited partnership interests, and on October
1, 2019, the company announced that it entered into an agreement
and plan of merger with Brookfield (or Merger Agreement).

On January 22, 2020, Brookfield completed its acquisition by merger
(or the Merger) of all of the outstanding publicly held and listed
common units representing our limited partner interests held by
parties other than Brookfield (or unaffiliated unitholders)
pursuant to the Merger Agreement among the company, its general
partner and certain members of Brookfield.

During 2019, certain entities and individuals, which together claim
to hold approximately 5,000,000 of the Partnership's common units,
filed complaints in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming as defendants the Partnership,
the general partner, current and former members of the board of
directors of the general partner, certain senior management of the
Partnership, Brookfield and Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

In October 2019, a joint stipulation was filed by the plaintiffs to
consolidate the separate complaints. The plaintiffs purported to
assert claims on behalf of a class of holders of the Partnership's
common units in relation to Brookfield's unsolicited non-binding
proposal, made in May 2019, pursuant to which Brookfield would
acquire all of the Partnership's issued and outstanding common
units that Brookfield did not already own in exchange for $1.05 in
cash per common unit.

On October 1, 2019, the Partnership entered into an agreement with
Brookfield to acquire by merger all of the outstanding publicly
held common units not already held by Brookfield in exchange for
$1.55 in cash per common unit (or, as an alternative, other equity
consideration) and on January 22, 2020, Brookfield completed the
merger of all of the outstanding publicly held and listed common
units representing the Partnership's limited partner interests held
by parties other than Brookfield.

On January 28, 2020 the same plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in which the plaintiffs purport
to allege further claims in respect of the merger process and the
ultimate agreed consideration of $1.55 in cash per common unit or
alternative equity consideration.

The complaints allege a breach of the Partnership’s limited
partnership agreement and, in the alternative, a breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaints
seek damages in an unspecified amount and an award to the
plaintiffs of their costs and expenses incurred in the action,
including their attorneys’ fees. The Partnership believes that
there is no merit to these claims.

Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. is a Marshall Islands limited
partnership with headquarters in Bermuda and executive offices in
Stavanger and Trondheim, Norway. Teekay Offshore is an
international provider of marine transportation, oil production,
storage, long-distance towing and offshore installation and
maintenance and safety services to the offshore oil industry.


TENNCARE: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought in A.M.C. Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as A.M.C., by her next friend,
C.D.C., et al. v. STEPHEN SMITH, in his official capacity as Deputy
Commissioner of Finance and Administration and Director of the
Division of TennCare, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a Plaintiff Class and
Disability Subclass:

   The Plaintiff Class is:

   "all individuals who meet the eligibility criteria for
   TennCare coverage and who, since March 19, 2019, have been or
   will be disenrolled from TennCare. The class excludes
   individuals, and the parents and legal guardians of
   individuals, whose termination is due to a requested
   withdrawal from the TennCare program."

   The Disability Subclass is:

   "Plaintiff Class members who are "qualified individuals with
   a disability" as defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12131(2)."
   TennCare is the state Medicaid program in the U.S. state of
   Tennessee. TennCare was established in 1994 under a federal
   waiver that authorized deviations from the standard Medicaid
   rules.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michele Johnson, Esq.
          Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Esq.
          Catherine Millas Kaiman, Esq.
          Vanessa Zapata, Esq.
          Laura Revolinski, Esq.
          TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER
          211 7th Avenue North, Suite 100
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 255-0331
          Facsimile: (615) 255-0354
          E-mail: gbonnyman@tnjustice.org
                  ckaiman@tnjustice.org
                  lrevolinski@tnjustice.org
                  vzapata@tnjustice.org

               - and -

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          Elizabeth Edwards, Esq.
          Sarah Grusin, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          200 N. Greensboro St., Ste. D-13
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
                  edwards@healthlaw.org
                  grusin@healthlaw.org

Counsel for the Defendant is:

          Carolyn E. Reed, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Health Care Division
          P.O. Box 20207
          Nashville, TN 37202
          E-mail: Carolyn.Reed@ag.tn.gov


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss in IN RE TERRAVIA HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-06633-JD (N.D. Cal.).

The case is a securities class action against TerraVia, its former
CEOs Jonathan S. Wolfson and Apurva S. Mody, and former CFO and COO
Tyler W. Painter.  The Plaintiffs, the TerraVia Investor Group,
brought suit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired TerraVia's publicly traded securities between
May 4, 2016 and Nov. 6, 2016, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5.  The Plaintiffs allege in the consolidated
complaint that the Defendants made public statements about the
commercial viability of its algae-based food products with
knowledge of non-public information that rendered those statements
false and misleading.

After TerraVia filed for bankruptcy in August 2017, the case
proceeded against Wolfson, Mody and Painter.  A motion to dismiss
filed on behalf of both TerraVia and the individual Defendants, was
terminated without prejudice to refiling on behalf of the
individual defendants only.  The Defendants moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, citing the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6).  They say the complaint should be dismissed
because it fails to adequately plead (1) falsity, (2) scienter, and
(3) loss causation.

Judge Donato holds that dismissal is warranted for several claims,
but the Defendants' statements about the commercial viability of
their algae food ingredients while they were in possession of
adverse non-public knowledge are actionable.  The heightened
pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
and the PSLRA are satisfied for those statements.  

The Court finds that the complaint in its entirety sufficiently
alleges scienter.  After the Honey Stinger recall, TerraVia was
notified "as of May 2016" that its algae ingredient had been
identified by Honey Stinger's manufacturer as the cause of its
customers' gastrointestinal distress.  While the Defendants contest
whether Wolfson was notified of the cause of the recall before the
May 4, 2016 earnings call, it appears undisputed that defendants
would have been notified of such no later than June 27, 2016, when
TerraVia issued the letter to Honey Stinger stating that it was
aware of a modest number of reports of adverse gastrointestinal
(GI) reactions to products containing AlgaVia® Protein-Rich Whole
Algae.  The Defendants' failure to disclose even statistically
insignificant reports of adverse effects is properly considered
under a holistic analysis of scienter.  Those reports, coupled with
two major product recalls, were more than just "a problem" for
TerraVia.  

Consequently, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged scienter at
the pleadings stage, and the Court need not consider the
Plaintiffs' core operations or financing theories of scienter, the
latter of which is premised on factual allegations not found in the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a causal connection
between the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and their loss.
The Bloomberg article revealed that TerraVia's algae ingredients
had been linked to the cause of the Soylent recall and that
TerraVia had previously sent a letter to Honey Stinger
acknowledging reports of adverse gastrointestinal reactions to its
ingredients.  The article revealed that TerraVia had privately
acknowledged earlier that year that its ingredients may have caused
gastrointestinal reactions such as those responsible for the Honey
Stinger recall, and that it had failed to disclose that information
in its public statements regarding the commercial prospects of its
food products and its partnerships with food manufacturers.  The
Plaintiffs allege that TerraVia's share prices fell due to these
disclosures.

Because the challenged omissions were directly related to
TerraVia's representations regarding its relationship with Honey
Stinger in particular and food manufacturers generally, the
Plaintiffs' allegations about the Bloomberg article and subsequent
stock price decline are sufficient to plead loss causation.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim rests
entirely on the argument that the Plaintiffs cannot establish
liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  Because the
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a)
control person liability claim is denied.

Consequently, Judge Donato granted and denied in part the motion to
dismiss.  The Plaintiffs may amend their complaint, consistent with
the findings of the Order, by March 2, 2020.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/77hiMB from Leagle.com.

Ruben Perales, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

TerraVia Holdings, Inc., Jonathan S. Wolfson, Tyler W. Painter &
Apu Mody, Defendants, represented by Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Mark R.S. Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Terravia Investor Group, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew
Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Shannon L.
Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.


TITAN MUTUAL: Charman Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TITAN MUTUAL LENDING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00557-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal., March 24, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff registered his cellular
telephone number ending in "1119" on the National Do Not Call
Registry on or about May 17, 2018. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has
received at least four unsolicited marketing calls from Defendant
between December 29, 2018 and April 25, 2019 in an attempt to
advertise its services without prior express written consent from
Plaintiff.

Allegedly, Defendant used an automated telephone dialing system in
placing calls to consumers whose phone numbers are on the National
Do Not Call Registry as its policy and regular practice.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's marketing calls have caused
nuisance and invaded his privacy.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief.

Titan Mutual Lending, Inc. is a residential mortgage broker
assisting individuals in securing home loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAF GROUP: Approval of Settlement Class Notice Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID MCMILLIN, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. THE TRAF GROUP, INC. D/B/A
CREDIT AMERICA,  Case No. 3:18-cv-01734-DEA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on April 20, 2020, for an order:

   1. approving the notice to be sent to proposed settlement
      class;

   2. appointing interim counsel; and

   3. scheduling a fairness hearing.

TRAF Group Inc is a debt collection agency.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 US-130, Ste 101
          North Brunswick Township, NJ 08902
          E-mail: bsharma@wolflawfirm.net.

Attorney for Defendants are:

          Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          458 Elizabeth Ave – Suite 5371
          Somerset, NJ 08873

TRANSUNION LLC: Konig Has Leave to File Second Amended FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MAURICE KONIG, Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION, LLC,
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 7299 (JCM) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Judith C. McCarthy of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Konig commenced the action against Bank of America, N.A.
("BANA"), Trans Union, and Equifax under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA") for allegedly reporting aged BANA accounts for a
period for more than seven-and-a-half years past the date of
delinquency, in violation of Sections 1681c(a)(4) and (a)(5) of the
FCRA.

The Plaintiff filed his first complaint on July 31, 2018.  On March
13, 2019, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint to
clarify that there were four separate BANA accounts at issue, two
of which were reported on Plaintiff's Trans Union credit file, and
two of which were reported on his Equifax credit file.  The Court
granted the Plaintiff's motion.

The Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on June 5, 2019.
He now moves for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint (1) to
add factual allegations relating to the FCRA background and
regulatory guidance on how credit reporting agencies should prevent
obsolete data from being reported, and to further detail how the
Defendants' policies and practices violated the FCRA, and (2) to
convert his individual claim into a putative class action

The Plaintiff's proposed amendment includes four sub-classes:

     a. Class A:  All natural persons residing within the United
States, beginning two years prior to the filing of the Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of the action, whose Equifax
and TransUnion credit reports contained an adverse BANA trade line
with a date of last payment date that is more than seven years and
seven months from the date of the reporting.

     b. Subclass A:  All natural persons residing in the State of
New York, beginning two years prior to the filing of the Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of the action, whose Equifax
and TransUnion credit reports contained an adverse BANA trade line
with a date of last payment date that is more than seven years and
seven months from the date of the reporting.

     c. Class B:  All natural persons residing within the United
States, beginning two years prior to the filing of the Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of the action, on whose
behalf a dispute was made to Equifax and TransUnion on an antedated
adverse BANA trade line, after which Equifax, TransUnion and BANA
verified the account as accurately reporting.

     d. Subclass B:  All natural persons residing in the State of
New York, beginning two years prior to the filing of the Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of the action, on whose
behalf a dispute was made to Equifax and TransUnion on an antedated
adverse BANA trade line, after which Equifax, TransUnion and BANA
verified the account as accurately reporting.

The Defendants oppose the proposed Second Amended Complaint on the
grounds that it is unduly delayed, made in bath faith, unduly
prejudicial, and ultimately futile.

The Court finds that because the Plaintiff offers an adequate
explanation for the delay and because the time period at issue is
not substantial, the Defendants must show bad faith or undue
prejudice in connection with the delay in order to warrant denial
of the motion.

Because the Defendants provide no showing of bad faith, they have
not sustained their burden.  The Defendants assert that the timing
of the motion is more than a little suspicious, maintaining that
the motion was filed on the brink of summary judgment, and the true
purpose of the motion was to increase the settlement value of the
case.  The Defendants also acknowledge, however, that none or all
of these suppositions may be true.  The Court finds that these are
exactly the type of conclusory allegations of bad faith that courts
in the Circuit reject.

Next, the Defendants also argue that the motion should be denied
because they would be unfairly prejudiced by the proposed
amendment.  The Court finds that the Defendants' argument that the
inclusion of class claims would require additional discovery is not
sufficient to defeat the motion at this stage.  The need for new
discovery is not sufficient to constitute undue prejudice on its
own.  

The Court finds that the Defendants have not sustained their burden
of demonstrating that the Plaintiff's individual claims are futile
at the pleading stage.  Although they argue that the date of first
delinquency can never be the date of last payment, and that date of
last payment has no recognized place under Sections 1681c(a), or
1681c(c), they do not provide the Court with sufficient authority
to support their argument.

Finally, viewing the proposed Second Amended Complaint in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that the proposed
classes are likely to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.  The
Court cautions the parties not to conclude that certification is a
forgone conclusion because it is "more appropriately addressed in
the context of motions to certify the proposed classes."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCarthy granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/TGGTuU from Leagle.com.

Maurice Konig, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Zemel, Zemel Law &
Elizabeth Easley Apostola, Zemel Law LLC.

Transunion, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Robert Weyreter --
jweyreter@schuckitlaw.com -- Schuckit & Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice, James L. Policchio, Jr. -- jpolicchio@schuckitlaw.com --
Schuckit & Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Robert J. Schuckit --
rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com -- Schuckit & Associates, P.C., William
R. Brown -- wbrown@schuckitlaw.com -- Schuckit & Associates, P.C. &
Camille Renee Nicodemus -- cnicodemus@schuckitlaw.com -- Schuckit &
Associates, P.C.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Boris
Brownstein -- brownstein@ClarkHill.com -- Clark Hill Plc.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Michael Edmund
Blaine, Winston & Strawn LLP, Heather Elizabeth Saydah, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Jason Robert Lipkin, Winston & Strawn LLP.


TRUGREEN INC: 2017 Summary Judgment Bid in Stevens-Bratton Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KASIE STEVENS-BRATTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUGREEN,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-2472 (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Samuel H.
Mays, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part
TruGreen's October 17, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (ii)
denied as moot its September 12, 2018 Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff Stevens-Bratton filed the putative
class action against Defendant TruGreen, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  TruGreen is a lawn
care service provider with its headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee.
On May 15, 2013, Stevens-Bratton entered into an agreement with
TruGreen for lawn care services.  On the service agreement,
Stevens-Bratton provided two telephone numbers in boxes labeled
"Home Phone" and "Cell Phone."  TruGreen agreed to provide lawn
care services from May 15, 2013, until May 15, 2014. On Nov. 9,
2013, Stevens-Bratton registered her cellular telephone number with
the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

On Jan. 27, 2015, Stevens-Bratton began to receive telemarketing
calls from TruGreen on her cellular telephone.  Stevens-Bratton
alleges those calls were made by an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS").  Stevens-Bratton asked TruGreen to stop calling,
but the calls continued.

Stevens-Bratton filed the putative class action against TruGreen,
alleging violations of the TCPA.  In her complaint, Plaintiff
states six claims.  Her first two causes of action allege that
TruGreen used an ATDS to make "more than ten telemarketing calls"
to her cellular telephone after Jan. 27, 2015 in violation of 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A) and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3).  Her
third and fourth causes of action allege that TruGreen initiated
telemarketing calls to her without following its internal
procedures for maintaining a list of people who asked not to
receive calls, in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) and 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d).  Her fifth and sixth causes of action
allege that that TruGreen called her more than once in a 12-month
period despite her registration on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200(c).

On July 15, 2015, Stevens-Bratton sought class certification or, in
the alternative, a stay of certification briefing pending
discovery.  On Aug. 26, 2015, TruGreen filed an answer and a motion
to dismiss and compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to stay
the litigation.  On Jan. 12, 2016, the Court denied
Stevens-Bratton's motion for class certification, granted
TruGreen's motion to compel arbitration, dismissed all claims
against TruGreen, and entered a judgment for TruGreen.
Stevens-Bratton appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed on Jan.
11, 2017.

On Oct. 17, 2017, TruGreen filed a motion for summary judgment on
all of Stevens-Bratton's claims.  The parties filed timely response
and reply briefs, respectively.  On Sept. 12, 2018, TruGreen filed
a motion for partial summary judgment on four of Stevens-Bratton's
six claims, offering arguments different from those raised in its
Oct. 17, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment.

In TruGreen's Oct. 17, 2017 Motion, it seeks summary judgment on
all of Stevens-Bratton's claims.  As to claims one and two,
TruGreen contends that the undisputed material facts show that
TruGreen did not use an ATDS to call Stevens-Bratton.  As to claims
three through six, TruGreen contends that Stevens-Bratton cannot
satisfy the "residential telephone subscriber" requirement of 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c) & (d).

Judge Mays holds that TruGreen is not entitled to summary judgment
on Stevens-Bratton's first two claims based on the facts developed
at the time of the Motion.  When TruGreen filed its Motion,
Stevens-Bratton had not had an opportunity to engage in meaningful
discovery.  Stevens-Bratton had not yet had a substantive chance to
procure any discovery responses, deposition testimony, or expert
testimony.  The parties have had the opportunity for further
discovery. They can now address summary judgment on
Stevens-Bratton's first two claims with the benefit of an adequate
record.  TruGreen's motion is denied on claims one and two.

As for Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6, TruGreen makes two arguments that it
is entitled to summary judgment on claims three through six: (1)
Stevens-Bratton is not a "residential telephone subscriber" because
she provided both a cellular telephone number and a home telephone
number in her service agreement with TruGreen; and (2)
Stevens-Bratton has failed to prove that she is a "residential
telephone subscriber" because she does not present sufficient
evidence that she used her cellular telephone for residential
purposes.

Judge Mays finds that TruGreen's second argument is compelling.  It
is undisputed that Stevens-Bratton received calls from TruGreen on
her cellular telephone.  Some courts have found that calls to
cellular telephones, in part because of their inherent
characteristics, categorically fail to satisfy the "residential
telephone subscriber" element of the relevant TCPA regulations.  A
plaintiff, however, must put forth evidence establishing that her
cellular telephone is used for residential purposes.  That is where
Stevens-Bratton fails.

Stevens-Bratton makes several arguments that there is a genuine
issue of material fact about her ability to satisfy the residential
telephone subscriber element.  None is persuasive.  First, she
cites a declaration that she filed contemporaneously with her
response to TruGreen's first motion for summary judgment.  That is
not enough to establish that she uses her telephone for residential
purposes.  The first part is conclusory and simply states the legal
requirement.

Second, Stevens-Bratton alleged in her complaint that she
"registered her cellular telephone number with the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on Nov. 9, 2013."  Two district courts have
concluded that, at the motion to dismiss stage, an allegation that
one's cellular telephone number is listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry creates a reasonable inference that one is a
residential telephone subscriber as to that telephone.

Third, Stevens-Bratton argues that, regardless of the purpose for
which she used her cellular telephone, the calls TruGreen placed to
her were for residential purposes because TruGreen was trying to
sell "residential lawn care services."  Stevens-Bratton cites no
authority to support that argument.  The Judge has not found any
cases interpreting the TCPA's "residential telephone subscriber"
element as she does.  To do so would turn the relevant inquiry on
its head by shifting the analysis from the consumer's use of the
telephone to the caller's purpose in making the call.  That is not
consistent with the privacy interests undergirding the TCPA:
protection of consumers from unsolicited and undesired personal
intrusions no matter the purpose. Stevens-Bratton's third argument
fails.  No other evidence in the record supports Stevens-Bratton's
argument that the cellular telephone on which TruGreen called her
was used for residential purposes.  Summary judgment in favor of
TruGreen is warranted on this issue.

In TruGreen's September 12, 2018 Motion, it moves for partial
summary judgment on Stevens-Bratton's third, fourth, fifth, and
sixth causes of action.  It offers alternative arguments to those
made in its October 17, 2017 Motion.  Because the Judge grants
TruGreen's October 17, 2017 Motion on those claims, TruGreen's
September 12, 2018 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied as
moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mays (i) granted in part and
denied in part TruGreen's October 17, 2017 Motion for Summary
Judgment, and (ii) denied as moot its September 12, 2018 Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/aVUFBX from Leagle.com.

Kasie Stevens-Bratton, individually and on behalf of all others
similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam R. Gonnelli --
agonnelli@faruqilaw.com -- The Sultzer Law Group, pro hac vice, J.
Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- BRANSTETTER STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC, Adrienne D. McEntee, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
PLLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin Andrew Gastel, BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC, Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, pro hac vice, Innessa Melamed Huot, FARUQI
& FARUQI, LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, pro hac
vice, Mary B. Reiten -- mreiten@tmdwlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF MARY
B. REITEN PLLC, pro hac vice & Seamus Timothy Kelly --
seamusk@bsjfirm.com -- BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC.

Trugreen, Inc., Defendant, represented by George T. Lewis, III --
blewis@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, Ryan Andrew Strain -- rstrain@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER
DONELSON, Austin K. Purvis -- apurvis@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER,
DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC & Matthew Sinon
Mulqueen -- mmulqueen@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON,
BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC.


TUCKER ENTERTAINMENT: Harris Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGIELA HARRIS, an individual v. TUCKER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC D/B/A
DALLAS CABARET-SOUTH AND DOUGLAS ERNEST, an individual, Case No.
3:20-cv-00651-L (N.D. Tex., March 16, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants evading the mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that while she was employed by the
Defendants from 2012 through January 2018, she has been denied
minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants
scheme to classify her and other dancers/entertainers as
"independent contractors."

The Defendants own and operate a strip club named Dallas
Cabaret-South.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECH: Distribution of Settlement Fund in Dulberg Suit Ordered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and RAISER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C 17-00850 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for amendment
of the judgment pursuant to Rule 56(e) or for relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b) on an issue decided twice before.

An order certified the class in February 2018.  Six months later,
the Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a class settlement.
The settlement proposed divvying up $345,622 between the 4,594
class members after the fund paid the class counsel's fees and
expenses.  The parties left determination of those fees and
expenses entirely within the district judge's discretion.  The only
significant change to the settlement approved over a year later
added a feature ensuring no class member received less than $20
after deducting the court-determined fees and costs.

In reviewing the settlement, several orders asked the class counsel
to clarify how much it intended to seek from the fund for its fees
and expenses.  Initially, the counsel sought $30,232 in "expert
costs."  When asked for clarification, the counsel lowered that
amount to $30,136 and explained that some portion of that related
to the third-party administrator retained to distribute class
notice, notice of settlement, and handle opt-outs and objections.
When asked for further detail, the counsel again lowered the
amount, this time to $29,793, and explained that $5,701.23 derived
from the class administrator expenses.  When combined with other
expenses, the costs totaled $40,430.  Ultimately, however, Judge
Alsup rejected that settlement because it failed to provide a
reasonable recovery to the absent class members.

When the Plaintiff renewed his motion for preliminary approval with
a better deal for the class, the counsel left out any mention of
expenses.  An order required changes to the revised class notice.
The counsel made changes but deviated from the April 2019
declaration.  The class counsel now planned to seek $78,344 in
expenses incurred in the action ($40,430 in the Plaintiff's
attorneys' costs and $37,914 in estimated Settlement Administrator
expenses).  An order approved the revised notice and Uber agreed to
pay mailing costs.

Despite the revised notice, the Plaintiff's motion left off the
additional $37,914.  Instead, the counsel requested the same
$40,430 previously requested, including $30,232 to pay "expert
costs."  As explained, the $30,232 amount actually totaled
$29,793.03 and included $5,701.23 to pay administrator expenses.

The order finally approving the settlement provided that Angeion
Group charged $5,701.23 for its third-party administrator services.
Angeion Group set up lists of e-mail addresses and other
databases, sent e-mail class notices, processed responses, set up a
call center, and continued to maintain that call cente.  This
expense did not include the most recent mailing of class notice.
This expense is reasonable to organize and streamline the orderly
distribution of the class action involving thousands of Uber
drivers.

Two days later, after review of the Court's proposed order, the
class counsel filed a notice drawing attention to a supposed issue
with the the Court's present accounting, noting that on Nov. 19,
2019, and in its Proposed Order, the expenses related to the
third-party administrator, Angeion Group were listed as $5,701.23.

The order pauses to note that the district judge did not actually
propose an order to the parties.  Instead of filling in the blanks
of the Plaintiff's proposed order, the Judge took the time to
prepare a 12-page order explaining the evidence, law, and arguments
considered in coming to the decision, including the amount the
counsel could deduct from the fund to pay its bills.

The supposed accounting error stemmed from the counsel
inadvertently omiting $39,714 in additional administrative expenses
from its final motion.  The counsel also noted that the $5,701.23
approved in the "proposed order" -- to be clear, the final order --
did not include the most recent mailing of class notice and
explained that the mailing was sent via first-class mail as ordered
in July 2019.  Per the parties' agreement, Uber agreed to and in
fact did pay for that mailing.

An order denied the Plaintiff's late request.  

Twenty-eight days later, the Plaintiff filed a formal motion again
asking for more administrator expenses to be reimbursed by the
fund.  His motion claims that as the Court did not have a complete
submission related to certain past and estimated future settlement
administration expenses, the Court did not award any amounts to
satisfy the incurred costs.  As such, the Plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of the Order to include the authorization of
payment of the settlement administrator expenses.  In support, he
now provides 30 pages of invoices issued to the class counsel or
Uber totaling $47,353.91.  All but two invoices predate the hearing
on the Plaintiff's fee motion.

The Plaintiff does not clearly explain what expenses need
authorization or if he instead seeks a blank check from the fund
for any and all administrator expenses billed.  According now to
the Plaintiff, the following amounts are due to the administrator:
The Class counsel owes $4,857.09; Uber owes $9,020.50; and the fund
owes $33,476.32.  The counsel misrepresents what the first amount
is.  That amount is a portion of the $5,701.23 already awarded from
the fund for the administrator's expenses.  And, the second amount
needs no authorization as Uber already paid it, separate from the
settlement fund.  Thus, the only amount that needs authorization is
the additional $33,476.32.  Still, that amount is inaccurate as it
includes the estimated costs of mailing and postage of the
settlement, at least $7,500, that Uber later agreed to pay
separately.  Thus, the additional amount sought is closer to
$25,000.

After the Plaintiff filed the motion, another issue arose.  On
January 21, the day set for distribution of the settlement, the
administrator applied for an extension of time to do so.  In a
brief response, Uber explained that the administrator notified the
parties on January 21 that it would not distribute the funds until
(1) after the Court ruled on the Plaintiff's motion, and (2) it
received at least $7,500 for the administrative cost of postage and
mailing of the settlement.  Uber agreed to pay the additional
$7,500 over and above its obligations under the settlement.

The Plaintiff moves for reconsideration.  Uber does not oppose.
The administrator applies for an extension of time to distribute
the funds.  The order follows.

The Plaintiff makes three arguments for reconsideration anyway.
First, Plaintiff contends that the revised class notice provided
enough opportunity for the class to scrutinize and object to the
full expenses the class counsel intended to seek, even though the
counsel did not in fact seek those expenses.  Judge Alsup holds
that the counsel provides no explanation for equating the class
notice with their fee motion.  To the contrary, a diligent class
member in receipt of the revised notice might reasonably decide
against objecting after seeing that the Plaintiff's fee motion
forewent the extra $37,914.

Second, the counsel argues that the allocation of the settlement
proceeds took into consideration that the settlement
administrator's balance would be paid out of the fund, so payment
of these settlement administration costs was already factored into
the allocation that was communicated to the class.  The Judge holds
that the Plaintiff's submission was incomplete because he
inadvertently omitted over $30,000 in administrator expenses, the
court-approved allocation did not factor in what the Plaintiff left
out, and now the Plaintiff seeks post-judgment equitable relief to
fix this snafu.  Rules 59 and 60 do not provide a remedy.

Third, the Plaintiff asserts that extraordinary equitable relief is
appropriate primarily on the ground that the Court ordered the
administrator to distribute the money owed to the class without
also providing a blank check for the administrator's expenses.  The
counsel emphasizes that the work is court ordered and refers to the
administrator as the court-appointed administrator.  The Judge
appointed the class counsel, not the counsel's administrator.  This
final argument highlights a greater issue with the Plaintiff's
motion.  There is no equity in the counsel refusing to pay the
administrator it retained and preventing the distribution of the
settlement to the class it purports to represent.

For the reasons stated, Judge Alsup denied the Plaintiff's motion.
The funds was to be distributed to the class by Feb. 14, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4thYNE from Leagle.com.

Martin Dulberg, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer R. Liakos --
jliakos@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Danielle Jan Marlow,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, New York,
NY 10017, pro hac vice, Salvatore C. Badala, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC,
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10017, pro hac vice
& Samuel Joseph Moorhead, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, 360 Lexington
Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10017

Uber Technologies, Inc. & Rasier, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Randall W. Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Adam Manes Kaplan -- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Damali A. Taylor -- dtaylor@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers & Matthew
David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Angeion Group, LLC, Interested Party, represented by Salvatore C.
Badala, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Pacific Recovery Sues Over Underpaid Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Recovery Solutions d/b/a Westwind Recovery, Miriam Hamideh
PhD Clinical Psychologist Inc. d/b/a PCI Westlake Centers, Bridging
the Gaps, Inc., Summit Estate Inc. d/b/a Summit Estate Outpatient,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, and VIANT, INC., a
Nevada corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02249-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 2,
2020), seeks to recover damages for claims underpriced and/or
underpaid by the Defendants.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated out-of-network behavioral health providers that
provide Intensive Outpatient Program treatment ("IOP"), whose
claims have been systematically underpriced and/or underpaid by
United and/or Viant.

Prior to treatment, each of the Plaintiffs confirmed with United
that the patient had active coverage and benefits for out of
network IOP treatment services and that the claims would be paid at
a specified rate. For all the claims at issue here, United
represented that the claims would be paid at a percentage of the
Usual, Customary, and Reasonable rate ("UCR" rate). In reliance
upon that representation, the Plaintiffs agreed to treat United's
insureds and timely submitted accurate bills.

Despite promising to pay rates based upon UCR, United did not pay
UCR amounts for any of the patient claims at issue in this
litigation, the Plaintiffs allege. Instead, United engaged Viant, a
third-party "repricer", to "negotiate" drastically reduced
reimbursements. While United issued, underwrote, and/or
administered every health insurance plan at issue in the present
litigation, Viant determined the reimbursement rate for every
underpaid claim in the present litigation, and that rate was not
derived from a calculation of UCR, the Plaintiffs add.
According to the complaint, United then paid the claims at the
reduced Viant amount. This reduced amount was not agreed to by any
Plaintiff and does not reflect the UCR. Viant reduced the payment
rates so much below the UCR rate that patients were often liable
for more than ninety percent of the cost of their care. United and
Viant colluded to illegally withhold these out-of-network benefits.
The difference between the amount United should have paid and the
amount that it did pay often ran into the tens, and sometimes
hundreds, of thousands of dollars per patient. These are amounts
that United unjustly retained and used to pay a kick-back to Viant
for its role in the underpayment enterprise.

As a result of United and Viant's collusion, however, the
Plaintiffs say they and those similarly situated are left bearing
the cost of the care they provide. Meanwhile, United and Viant reap
the benefits of shirking their responsibilities to pay fair
reimbursements. IOP providers across the country, including the
named Plaintiffs, have been harmed by the United's failure to
properly pay for IOP services that were provided to United's
members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are a behavioral healthcare provider that treats
patients suffering from mental health and/or substance use
disorder.

United is the largest health insurer in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Wendy A. Mitchell, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          5757 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 680
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (212) 397-1000
          Fax (646) 843-7603


UNITED STATES: Faces AMB Suit Over Mortgage Note Sales Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., on behalf of itself and a class
of similarly-situated mortgage lenders v. BEN CARSON, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing
And Urban Development; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00744-ESH (D.D.C., March 16, 2020),
seeks review of an administrative decision by the HUD relating to
mortgage note sales program, after a Columbia federal court vacated
HUD's prior decision due to the deciding official's lack of a
proper appointment.

According to the complaint, unfortunately for AMB, the new
Administrative Law Judge, in a Decision and Order on Remand dated
February 28, 2020, committed numerous errors of law and completely
disregarded undisputed evidence proffered by AMB. However, unlike
the prior proceeding, wherein HUD deliberately refused to divulge
its policies and procedures regarding its mortgage note sale
program, in the new proceeding HUD was ordered to provide such
information.

In spite of HUD's misconduct, and the clear and obvious effect that
such conduct had on reducing the recovery, the ALJ adopted the
position that HUD can simply do whatever it wants. But that is not
the law, and that is not acceptable conduct for an agency of the
Executive Branch, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff contends that it is now an undisputed fact that HUD
violated its own policies and procedures in conducting the mortgage
note sales program.

AMB originates mortgage loans, including mortgages that are and
were eligible for insurance under the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) insurance program administered by HUD.

HUD is an agency of the United States government with its
headquarters located in Washington, D.C. Ben Carson is the
Secretary of HUD.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Brian M. Serafin, Esq.
          WEINER BRODSKY KIDER PC
          1300 19th Street NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 628-2000
          Facsmile: (202) 628-2011
          E-mail: souders@thewbkfirm.com
                  serafin@thewbkfirm.com


USC: Faces Jane Doe Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Misconduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation, GEORGE TYNDALL, M.D., and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV10339 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 13, 2020), arises from claim of sexual misconduct allegedly
committed by Dr. George Tyndall to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated USC students.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was a student at the USC when she
was sexually abused, harassed and molested by USC's gynecologist,
who was entrusted with providing care for its female students, the
alleged serial sexual predator Dr. George Tyndall. The Plaintiff
also alleges that the Defendants conceal or fail to disclose
information relating to the sexual misconduct of Dr. Tyndall.

As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered
and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock,
emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress,
including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace,
humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life, says the complaint.

The University of Southern California is a private research
university in Los Angeles, California. Founded in 1880, it is the
oldest private research university in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Cifarelli, Esq.
          Ernest J. Lingenfelter, Esq.
          THE CIFARELLI LAW FIRM, LLP
          7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 502-8600
          Facsimile: (949) 502-8603

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hodes, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Milman, Esq.
          HODES MILMAN, LLP
          9210 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 640-8222
          Facsimile: (949) 640-8294


VERDE ENERGY: Metzler Sues over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------
MARK METZLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01055 (S.D. Tex., March 25, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted prerecorded
messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class members
using automatic telephone dialing system without prior written
express consent in an attempt to promote its energy services and
goods.

Energy USA, Inc. is an energy supply company with its principal
place of business located at 12140 Wickchester Lane Ste 100 in
Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132          
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: agentile@shamisgentile.com

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

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

VERSA INTEGRITY: Horn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Horn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Versa Integrity Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00089 (S.D. Tex., March 17, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Versa provides non-destructive testing services for petrochemical,
chemical, paper, and other industries. Horn worked for Versa from
approximately October 2016 to September 2018 at job sites
throughout Texas and Louisiana as a Level II Technician. Versa paid
Horn on a day-rate basis without paid overtime for the hours they
worked in excess of 40 hours each week, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Goetz ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON GOETZ, on behalf of the Cornerstone Pediatric
Profit Sharing Plan and as representative of a class of all other
similarly situated individual account retirement plans, Plaintiff,
v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC. and VOYA RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-1289-CFC (D. Del.), Judge
Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware granted in part and denied in part Voya's motion, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss Goetz's
Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Goetz filed the putative class action on behalf of the
Cornerstone Pediatric Profit Sharing Plan and all other similarly
situated individual account retirement plans.  The Plan is a
defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit
plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  Defendants Voya Financial and Voya Retirement provide
recordkeeping services to the Plan.

Goetz alleges four claims for relief.  First, Goetz alleges that
Voya breached its fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)
by charging excessive fees.  Second, she alleges that Voya breached
its fiduciary duty under Section 1104(a)(1) by making false and
misleading statements about its fees in its "Rule 404a-5
disclosures" that are required by 29 C.F.R. 2550.404a-5.  Third,
Goetz alleges that Voya is liable for breaches of fiduciary duty by
co-fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105(a)(2).  Fourth, Goetz
alleges that, even if Voya is not a fiduciary, Voya's unreasonable
compensation for its recordkeeping services makes it liable as a
"party in interest" for a "prohibited transaction" between Voya and
the Plan under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1106(a)(1)(C) and 1108(b)(2).

Voya has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
to dismiss Goetz's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judge Connolly granted Voya's motion to dismiss insofar as it seeks
dismissal of Goetz's claim for breach of fiduciary duties for
charging excessive fees, Goetz's claim for breach of co-fiduciary
duties for charging excessive fees, and Goetz's party-in-interest
claim.  The Judge denied the motion insofar as its seeks dismissal
of Goetz's claim for breach of fiduciary duties for providing
"false and misleading" Rule 404a-5 disclosures or dismissal of and
Goetz's claim for breach of co-fiduciary duties for providing
"false and misleading" Rule 404a-5 disclosures.

Among other things, the Judge finds that Goetz has sufficiently
pleaded a breach of fiduciary duties claim with respect to the
404a-5 disclosures.  A misrepresentation is material if there is a
substantial likelihood that it would mislead a reasonable employee
in making a decision regarding his benefits under the ERISA plan.
There is a substantial likelihood an employee looking at these
disclosures would think the listed fees were paid only to the
listed funds as opposed to the listed funds and Voya.  If that were
the case, then the employee would be unlikely to complain about
Voya's fees to her trustee and advocate for a change in service
provider, because she would not realize how much Voya was charging
her.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have at least established
materiality to the degree required to survive a motion to dismiss.

In addition, Goetz alleges that Voya is liable for breach of
co-fiduciary duties by charging excessive fees and providing "false
and misleading" disclosures that violate Rule 404a-5.  To be liable
for a claim of breach of co-fiduciary duties, one must be a
fiduciary.  Because Voya was not a fiduciary with respect to the
fees charged under the Contract, Voya cannot be liable for breach
of co-fiduciary duties for excessive fees.  Goetz has, however,
properly alleged that Voya was a fiduciary with respect to the
404a-5 disclosures and has, therefore, properly alleged a claim for
breach of co-fiduciary duties with respect to the disclosures.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/k9BwmH from Leagle.com.

Sharon Goetz, on behalf of the Cornerstone Pediatric Profit Sharing
Plan and as representative of a class of all other similarly
situated individual account retirement plans, Plaintiff,
represented by Gordon W. Netzorg, Sherman & Howard L.L.C., pro hac
vice, Hugh Z. Balkin, Belkin, Burden, Goldman, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan S. Parrott, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice, Paul R. Wood, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice, Robert J. Kriner, Jr. -- robertkriner@chimicles.com --
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Steven A. Schwartz
-- steveschwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.

VOYA Financial, Inc. & VOYA Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company, Defendants, represented by Patricia Rose Urban, Pinckney,
Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC., Helena C. Rychlicki, Pinckney,
Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC., James Jorden --
james.jorden@faegredrinker.com -- Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, pro hac vice, W. Glenn Merten --
glenn.merten@faegredrinker.com -- Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, pro hac vice & Waldemar J. Pflepsen, Jr. --
waldemar.pflepsen@faegredrinker.com -- Faegre Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, pro hac vice.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Nebraska Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 wage-and hour class suit in Nebraska.

The company is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in its Career Track Program,
related to short break time and sleeper berth time.

The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014.

The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of
$0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court awarded $0.5
million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs. As of
December 31, 2019, we had accrued for the jury's award, attorney
fees and costs in the short break matter and had not accrued for
the sleeper berth matter.

Plaintiffs appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial
court for fees, costs and liquidated damages. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal
and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for
proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The
litigation of this matter will continue in the trial court.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WEST COAST BERRY: Underpays Farm Workers, Magana-Munoz et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAUL MAGANA-MUNOZ and JOSE SANTIAGO HERRERA-VERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. WEST
COAST BERRY FARMS, LLC and RANCHO NUEVO HARVESTING, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02087 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
and California labor laws as a result of their failure to
compensate Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
agricultural workers required minimum wages and overtime pay,
failure to provide rest and meal period premiums, and failure to
reimburse transportation fees.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as migrant and
seasonal agricultural workers in 2018.

West Coast Berry Farm, LLC is a grower, packer and shipper of
agricultural products headquartered at 4324 E. Vineyard Ave,
Oxnard, California.

Rancho Nuevo Harvesting is a farm labor contractor with principal
place of business at 1225 La Brea Ave, Santa Maria, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dawson Morton, Esq.
          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Boulevard
          Watsonville, CA 95076         
          Telephone: (831) 228-1560
          Facsimile: (831) 228-1542
          E-mail: dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
                  santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
                  esmeralda@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Court Denies Renewed Bids to Dismiss Proxy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC PROXY
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-1338 (AJT/JFA) (E.D. Va.),
Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, denied (i) the TW/Willis
Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) the ValueAct
Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss.  

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Regents of the University
of California alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with proxy
solicitations for the merger between Towers and Willis Group
Holdings plc resulting in merged entity Willis Towers Watson plc
("WTW").

By Order dated July 11, 2018, the Court dismissed the Amended
Complaint based on the statute of limitations and a failure to
adequately allege that the relied upon misrepresentations and
omissions were material.  The Plaintiff appealed and on Aug. 30,
2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and
vacated the Court's July 11 Order.

In its opinion, the Fourth Circuit concluded, inter alia, that the
Plaintiff's claims were not barred by the applicable statute of
limitations and that materiality had been adequately pleaded.  It
therefore remanded the action for further proceedings and
identified the following three "issues of first impression in this
circuit" under the Exchange Act and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), which were preserved on
appeal and previously un-addressed by the Court: (1) Whether a
Section 14(a) claim that sounds in fraud requires a particularized
pleading of scienter, (2) whether a Section 14(a) claim can sound
in negligence instead of fraud, and (3) whether if a Section 14(a)
claim does sound in negligence, the complaint must nonetheless
include particularized allegations of negligence.

Following remand, the Defendants' renewed their pending motions to
dismiss.  Specifically, those motions are: (1) the Renewed Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by Defendants Towers, Willis, WTW,
Haley, and Casserly ("TW/Willis Defendants"); and (2) the Renewed
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by ValueAct and Ubben
("ValueAct Defendants").  In these motions, the TW/Willis
Defendants contend that the action should be dismissed based on the
issues raised by the Fourth Circuit.  The ValueAct Defendants
separately contend that, even if the Court denies the TW Motion and
permits Plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim to proceed, the Plaintiff
has nevertheless failed to state a plausible claim against either
ValueAct or Ubben for "control person" liability under Section
20(a).

Judge Trenga concludes that a Section 14(a) claim that "sounds in
fraud" does not require a particularized pleading of scienter.  As
the Judge has concluded that a Section 14(a) claim contains no
scienter requirement, the issue reduces to whether the PSLRA's
particularized pleading requirement still applies to the other
elements of Section 14(a).  The Judge opines that those elements
"sound in fraud" because they are based on a misrepresentation or
omission.  For these reasons, because a Section 14(a) claim, as
implemented through Rule 14(a)-9, by its terms, "sounds in fraud,"
albeit without all the elements necessary to establish actual
fraud, including scienter, the heightened pleading requirements of
the PSRLA and Rule 9(b) apply to those required elements of a
Section 14(a).  Accordingly, a plaintiff must allege with
specificity the alleged misrepresentation or omission and why those
statements or omissions were false or misleading.

The Judge also concludes that negligence is not a state of mind but
a type of culpable conduct, objectively determined.  For the
purposes of Section 14(a), "negligence" is the failure to comply
with the legal obligation not to solicit a proxy with false or
misleading statements or omissions, imposed on an identified
category of persons, irrespective of any subjective intent or level
of diligence or care.  For these reasons, the Plaintiff does not
need to prove, as the Defendants contend, that they knew or should
have known the proxy was false or that a defendant did not act in
good faith.  Rather, the Plaintiff must only demonstrate that the
Defendants were subject to and failed to comply with the applicable
legal obligation, specifically, not to associate themselves with a
proxy statement that contained false or misleading statements or
omissions.  Therefore, the Judge concludes that the PSLRA's
heightened scienter pleading requirement, relevant only to "state
of minds," does not require particularized allegations of
negligence in Section 14(a) claims.

Based on the issues discussed, the Defendants renew their motions
to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  Based
on its rulings as to those issues, the Court finds and concludes
that the Amended Complaint alleges facts that make plausible
Plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim.  The Court concludes that the
Amended Complaint adequately alleges its Section 14(a) claim and
survives the TW Motion.

The Plaintiff also asserts a Section 20(a) claim for control person
liability against Defendants Haley, Casserley, Ubben, and ValueAct.
Neither Haley nor Casserley challenge the sufficiency of the
Plaintiff's allegations that by virtue of their positions as
officers and directors of Towers and Willis, respectively, they had
the ability to control the activities of their corporations,
including in the issuance of the proxy statements, for the purposes
of Section 20(a); or that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's
Section 20(a) claim against them, even absent a dismissal of the
Section 14(a) claim.

The Court holds that the Plaintiff has pled sufficient "control" on
the part of both Ubben and ValueAct.  Ubben and ValueAct are
alleged to have played a key role in the structure of the merger
and securing its ultimate approval, including several key aspects
of the alleged misconduct, such as negotiating Haley's alleged
secret compensation arrangement and the special dividend(now
characterized as inadequate by the Plaintiff).  For these reasons,
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled its Section 20(a) claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Trenga denied (i) the TW/Willis
Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) the ValueAct
Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss.  Further proceedings will be
governed by the Court's Scheduling Order, to be issued.  The Clerk
is directed to forward copies of the Order to all the counsel of
record.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 31, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Vy6zNa from
Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York,
for Appellant.

John A. Neuwirth -- john.neuwirth@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL &
MANGES LLP, New York, New York; Richard S. Horvath, Jr., ALLEN
MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP, San Francisco,
California, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: John Rizio-Hamilton -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- Rebecca E.
Boon -- Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Julia K. Tebor --
julia.tebor@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN
LLP, New York, New York; Susan R. Podolsky, LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN
R.
PODOLSKY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.

Edward J. Fuhr -- efuhr@HuntonAK.com -- Eric H. Feiler --
efeiler@HuntonAK.com -- Johnathon E. Schronce --
jschronce@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond,
Virginia; Joshua S. Amsel, Amanda K. Pooler, WEIL, GOTSHAL &
MANGES
LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees Willis Towers Watson PLC,
Towers Watson & Co., Willis Group Holding PLC, John J. Haley, and
Dominic Casserley.


WIND CREEK: Bartakovits Sues over Unpaid OT & Unfair Tip Credit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB T. BARTAKOVITS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WIND CREEK BETHLEHEM LLC, d/b/a WIND CREEK
BETHLEHEM, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01602 (E.D. Penn., March 24,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged unlawful gaming license fee deduction
policy in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately August 2018
through October 2019 as a Table Games Dealer, an hourly and
non-exempt position, at the casino property located at 77 Wind
Creek Boulevard, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated minimum wages for all hours worked in
a workweek, and failed to comply with the requirements for their
entitlement to a tip credit, thereby failing and refusing to pay
them all federal minimum wages.

The complaint also alleges Defendant of unjust enrichment and
breach of contract for benefiting from deducting gaming license
fees from the payroll checks of Plaintiff and the class members,
for failing to pay them for all hours worked, and for failing to
pay them as agreed-upon hourly rate for every hour worked during
their employment.

Wind Creek Bethlehem LLC is a casino hotel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
          Tel: (717)238-5707
          Fax: (717)233-8133
          Emails: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
                  lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com

                - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Tel: (816)714-7100
          Fax: (816)714-7101
          Emails: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

                - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Tel: (816)781-0002
          Fax: (816)781-1984
          Emails: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


XEROX CORP: Litigation over Fujifilm Deal Discontinued
------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has approved
the parties' joint stipulation and proposed order of discontinuance
without prejudice, without payment by any party.

In February 2018, five complaints (the "Fuji Transaction
Shareholder Lawsuits"), including four putative class actions
(which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox shareholders in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York in
connection with the proposed transaction to combine Xerox and Fuji
Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction"). All of the complaints named as
defendants Xerox, its directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation.
The complaint in one of the actions also named as a defendant
Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief Executive Officer of Xerox.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Xerox's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating, approving, and
purportedly making false and misleading disclosures about the Fuji
Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and abetted those breaches.

The complaint in one of the actions further alleged that Xerox and
the director defendants engaged in common law fraud by purportedly
failing to disclose information about the joint venture agreements
between Xerox and Fujifilm.

The Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits sought injunctive relief
preventing the previously proposed transactions, and/or additional
disclosures by Xerox's directors, unspecified damages from
Xerox’s directors, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as other
relief.

One of the Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits was brought by
Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder ("Deason I"). Another complaint
was filed by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors in the same
Court on March 2, 2018 ("Deason II") alleging that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by refusing Mr. Deason's request
for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of a new slate of Xerox
directors.

In Deason II, Mr. Deason sought to enjoin Xerox and its directors
from enforcing Xerox's advance notice by-laws, thereby allowing Mr.
Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as costs, fees, and
other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoined
Xerox from "taking any further action to consummate the change of
control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on
January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims
asserted in the underlying action;" (ii) enjoined Xerox from
enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders
to nominate directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder
meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii) required Xerox to waive
such advance notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a
slate of director nominees for election at the 2018 annual
shareholder meeting, and denying defendants' motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment,
Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Initial Settlement
Agreement") with Mr. Deason and Carl C. Icahn and certain of his
affiliates who were also Xerox shareholders (the "Icahn Group"),
among others, that would have resolved Deason I, Deason II and the
pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders. The Initial Settlement Agreement expired
by its terms on May 3, 2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower
Court's decision and order. Defendants also moved the appellate
court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be heard on an
expedited basis.

At a hearing before the appellate court on May 7, 2018, the
appellate court ruled that the appeals would be heard on an
expedited basis and granted a partial interim stay allowing Xerox
and Fujifilm to take steps to seek regulatory approvals related to
the Fuji Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate court on
defendants’ motions to stay pending appeal.

On May 13, 2018, a second Director Appointment, Nomination and
Settlement Agreement (the "Final Settlement Agreement") with
respect to Deason I, Deason II and the pending proxy contest in
connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders that
was initiated by the Icahn Group was signed on behalf of Mr.
Deason, the Icahn Group and all defendants except Fujifilm, and a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the putative
class case was signed by all defendants except Fujifilm.

Pursuant to the settlements, the settling defendants withdrew their
appeal and motion to stay in Deason I and Deason II. The settling
defendants also withdrew their motion to stay in the putative class
case. The Court entered a stipulation of discontinuance as to the
settling parties in Deason II on May 14, 2018, and agreed on June
22, 2018 to do the same in Deason I.

On June 14, 2018, Fujifilm filed answers in Deason I and the
putative class case, along with cross-claims against the members of
the Xerox Board (as constituted before May 13, 2018) and a
third-party complaint against Xerox director Jonathan Christodoro,
seeking contribution for any potential award against Fujifilm for
aiding and abetting purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

On June 19, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a stipulation of settlement that would
resolve the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the putative class
case against all defendants, other than Fujifilm. Carmen Ribbe, the
plaintiff in the below derivative action, and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the motion on July 10, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Court entered an order denying a joint motion
by the putative class plaintiffs and the settling defendants to
dissolve the injunction in the putative class case as against the
settling defendants, and entered an order denying Fujifilm's motion
to dissolve the injunctions in the putative class case and Deason I
in their entirety.

On July 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing concerning the putative
class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the putative class case. The Court indicated that it was not
inclined to consider motions for approval of the settlement prior
to considering whether the putative class should be certified.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders
recognizing the Xerox defendants' withdrawal of their appeal in the
Deason cases and denying all appellants' motions to stay pending
determination of appeals in the Deason and putative class cases.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders (i) at
their request, deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants’ appeal and
motion to stay in the Deason cases; (ii) upon their request,
deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' motion to stay, pending
determination of appeal, the putative class case; and (iii) denying
Fujifilm's motion to stay pending determination of its appeals in
the Deason and putative case cases.

On September 21, 2018, putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a settlement class and a motion to transmit notice
of the proposed settlement to the proposed class. On October 17,
2018, derivative plaintiff Carmen Ribbe and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the putative class plaintiffs' motion to transmit
notice to the proposed class. The class has not yet been certified,
and preliminary approval has not been granted.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on September 25, 2018 on
Fujifilm's appeal of the Court's decision. On October 16, 2018, the
Appellate Division entered a decision and order reversing the
Court's rulings, ordering that the claims brought against Fujifilm
in the cases by Mr. Deason and the purported class be dismissed,
and further ordering that the preliminary injunction of the
proposed Fuji Transaction be dissolved (the "Appellate Decision and
Order").

On November 15, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed with the
Appellate Division a motion seeking the opportunity to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.

On December 6, 2018, pursuant to the Appellate Decision and Order,
the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaints against
Fujifilm in Deason I and the putative class case. The Court further
issued orders denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewing the motion after
the outcome of any appeals of the Appellate Decision and Order.

On January 8, 2019, the Court entered an order staying all further
proceedings in Deason I and the putative class case until thirty
days after exhaustion of appeals, including any appeals to the New
York State Court of Appeals, of the Appellate Decision and Order.
On January 9, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the putative
class plaintiffs' motion to transmit notice to the proposed class,
without prejudice to renewal of their motion at a later time.

On October 31, 2018 and January 3, 2019, respectively, Xerox and
the Xerox director defendants in the putative class case filed with
the Appellate Division a request and motion seeking an extension,
until after any decision regarding approval of settlement of the
putative class action, of the deadline by which to perfect their
appeal of the Court's April 27, 2018 decision and order. On May 16,
2019, the Appellate Division entered an order granting the motion
and extended the deadline until the October 2019 Term.

On February 21, 2019, the Appellate Division issued an order
denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion seeking to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.

No further notice of appeal was filed, and the Appellate Decision
and Order became final and unappealable on March 26, 2019.

On May 3, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for approval of the form of a notice to putative class members. On
May 6, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification and notice of motion to approve class
settlement and proposed final approval order. On May 24, 2019, the
Court entered an order approving the form notice and proposed
manner of its dissemination.

On June 6, 2019, the Court entered an order pursuant to which
plaintiffs submitted their motion to approve attorneys' fees and
expenses on July 19, 2019; requiring filing of any objections to or
opt-outs from the proposed putative class settlement by August 9,
2019; and setting September 6, 2019 for its hearing on putative
class plaintiffs' motion for class certification and settlement
approval. The hearing took place, and on September 12, 2019, the
Court entered a decision and order denying both motions.

At a conference held on November 19, 2019, the Court so-ordered the
parties' joint stipulation and proposed order of discontinuance
without prejudice, without payment by any party.

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Miami Firefighters Can't Intervene in Ribbe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has denied the
motion to intervene filed by the Miami Firefighters in the class
action suit initiated by  Carmen Ribbe.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Gregory Q. Brown, Joseph J. Echevarria,
Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Sara Martinez Tucker, Keith Cozza, Giovanni
G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott
Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt
Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, and Stephen
H. Rusckowski.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.

The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Xerox
Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle the
Deason and In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation ("XCCSL") actions.

Plaintiff alleges that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.

Plaintiff also alleges that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.

The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleges perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.

Among other things, plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On
June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On July
12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand.  On July 18, 2019, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by which
defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint.

On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint
("FAC"). The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations
regarding the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well
as additional allegations, including, among others, that the
members of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated
plaintiff's demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to
pursue the claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement
announced in November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by
Xerox of its interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of
Fujifilm's breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the "FX Sale
Transaction"), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a
potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami
Firefighters derivative action.

In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership (the "Icahn defendants") and asserts claims
against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami
Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP
stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information
concerning Xerox's potential acquisition of HP.

In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe's prior complaint, the
FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters
relating to the Icahn defendants' alleged purchases of HP stock.

On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe.

At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the
motion to intervene without prejudice.

Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it
is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of
incurring material losses in this litigation. Should developments
cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome,
or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, there could be
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows
and financial position in the period in which such change in
determination, judgment, or settlement occurs.

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.

YES TO INC: Paper Mask Has Toxic Ingredients, Ackley Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMERA ACKLEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YES TO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01823 (N.D.
Ill., March 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of consumers, who
purchased the Defendant's "Yes To Grapefruit Vitamin C
Glow-Boosting Unicorn Paper Mask" for personal use.

The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the
Product to consumers throughout the United States, including in the
State of Illinois.

According to the complaint, consumers seek out the Defendant's
cosmetic and skin products, such as the Product, for their supposed
healthy skin promoting properties. Further, the Defendant's skin
care products are often purchased because they are advertised as
"free of nasty toxic ingredients."

The Plaintiffs allege that in order to reap substantial profits
from the sales of the Product, the Defendant cut corners by failing
to perform sufficient product testing to ensure the Product was
safe for consumer use. The Plaintiffs further contend that contrary
to the express and implied representations made by the Defendant,
the Product is defective and causes undesired side effects to
consumers, including redness, swelling, and a burning sensation on
the face after application. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Members
of the Classes have been, and continue to be, harmed by purchasing
a worthless product under false pretenses.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for consumer fraud, breach of warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment and seek
damages, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs include MELISSA ALEXANDER, JUDY BAIRD, LATRESSEA
BARKINS, MELISSA BATTERMANN, CRYSTAL BENEFIEL, LAURA BIRDSELL,
AMANDA BLAND, RENEE BOND, STEPHANIE BOOZEL, JEAN BRENNAN, PAULA
BREWER, ANGELA BURGESS, LORI BURKHART, LAURI CAMPLESE, NAISHA CANO,
KRISTIN CANTERBURY, STEPHANIE CAVALIER, STACY COLE, BETH CORDES,
BRITNEY CRUTCHFIELD, BRIAH DEMERS, REGINA DWYER, RACHEL FEY, AMBER
GAULKE, TAMMY GERKIN, TIFFANY GIANNONE, VICKIE GOLDSBERRY, ADELLA
GONZALEZ, BRIANA GRIFFITH, MARILYN GRUSLIN, RACHAEL GUTIERREZ, LEE
HATTAWAY, MICHELLE HAWKINS, NICKI HEADEN, KELLY HEMELT, KRISTIN
HODGDON, ALEXIS HOOPER, PORCIA HOPKINS, HEIDI HORNE, DEENA
INDIVIGLIO, KRISTI JAMESON, ANCHETA JOHNSON, ARIELLE KRUPNICK,
NICOLE KUNTZ, EVELYN LARA, JERENE LARSON, TIARA LAW, AMBERNEE
MARSHALL, THERESA MCBREAIRTY, KAREN MCNAUGHTON, RAINY MITCHELL,
JULIE MOBERLY, NATASHA NINO, ANDREA OLMSTEAD, CAROL PAKUTKA,
JESSICA PANAS, DENA PELLER, ANDREA PINKARD, MEGAN PISTORINO, DOLLY
PRICE, AGNES PTAK, KRYSTLE RIGSBY, SHEILA RITTER, STACEY ROACH,
CHRISTI ROBBINS, KAITLYN SANCHEZ, PAULA SBABO, JUNE SCHWEDIC,
PRISCILLA SHARP, JODI SHUMATE, TARYN SIMMONS, SUNSHINE STIMSON,
DIANE STOEHRER, AMANDA STRANGE, ELIZABETH SUESSKIND, CHELSEA
SVENDSEN, MARISA TEEL, NICKI TENNYSON, MANAR THABATA, ROXANNE VAN
PELT, LESLIE WILLIG, AIMEE WOOD, JENNIFER WORMAN, and JOY YOUSSEF.

The Defendant is a cosmetic and beauty company based in Pasadena,
California. The Defendant says it is a "global leader in natural
beauty products, with award-winning formulas and unique
collections, that can be found in over 27,000 stores across the
world."[BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
                  gmason@masonllp.com
                  dlietz@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.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 ***