/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200414.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 75

                            Headlines

2U INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland Suit
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Incurs $22.1-Mil. in Settling PHC-Merger Suit
ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Brewer Claims
ALPHA RECOVERY: Huang FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Consolidated Class Suit in New York Ongoing

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lao Class Suit Stayed for 6 Months
AMSHER COLLECTION: Wright Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Inc.
APPLE VALLEY: Faces John Doe Suit in District of Minnesota
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Case Management Conference Set for June 19

AUROBINDO PHARMA: Sells Adulterated Metformin Drug, Harris Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Bankers, Kaffishahsavar Says
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit in California Ongoing
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
BBVA USA: Suit Against BBVA Securities Ongoing in Texas

BLACKROCK INC: Dismissal of iShares ETFs Suit Upheld
BLACKROCK INC: Immediate Appeal in Denying Class Cert. Requested
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Mullen Says Restaurant Not Accessible to Disabled
BOSTON PIE: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Aiman Claims
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending

CAMPING WORLD: Geis Securities Suit Remains Stayed
CAMPING WORLD: Must Defend Against Ronge & Strougo Suit
CCFCO MANAGEMENT: Nisbett Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Settles Sales Practices & Securities Litigation

CHINA: California Businesses Sue over COVID-19 Outbreak
CITIGROUP INC: 4th Amended Complaint Filed in IRS Antitrust Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Appeal Pending in Fund Liquidation's Class Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Stachon Class Action in New York Still Stayed
CITIGROUP INC: Still Defends SSA Bonds Antitrust Suit in New York

CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Class Suit in Canada over SSA Bonds
CITIGROUP: Bid to Nix Treasury Securities Auction Lawsuit Pending
COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Still Ongoing
COMSCORE INC: Settlement Reached in Privacy Class Suit
CREDITORS RELIEF: Abante Rooter Sues over Telemarketing Calls

CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Class Action Ongoing
CVS HEALTH: Suits Over Long-Term Care Pharmacy Biz Underway
DCOMM INC: Faces Munn Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Cable Installers
DEVA CONCEPTS: Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Dixon et al. Claim
DHALIWAL BROTHERS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Harrell Claims

DUTTON RANCH: Bid for Preliminary Class Certification Okayed
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Park Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
EAGLE BANCORP: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in SDNY
ELDORADO RESORTS: Boston Retirement System Named as Lead Plaintiff
ELDORADO RESORTS: Deal Reached in Caesars Merger-Related Suits

EVENFLO COMPANY: Kids' Booster Seats Not Safe, Xavier Alleges
GOSSAMER BIO INC: Faces Kuhne Securities Suit in S.D. California
GRUBHUB INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Illinois
HABIT RESTAURANTS: Bounds & Company Sues over Proposed Merger
HEAT AND CONTROL: Draughn Seeks OT Pay for Service Technicians

HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Hann Suit Over Metformin Drug
HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Wages and Repay Expenses, Almanzar Says
HORIZONTAL WELL: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
III OFFICE RESOURCE: Underpays Warehouse Laborer, Cerda et al Say
INSTRUCTURE INC: Post Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

INVITRX THERAPEUTICS: Dillard Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Acts
J2 GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Davis Neurology P.A. Suit Pending
KAYDEX PTE: Clifford Sues to Recover Costs Paid for KNC Tokens
KRAFT HEINZ: Hollywood Cops Retirement System Sues over Losses
LANDSTAR RANGER: Misclassifies Truck Drivers, McDaniel Claims

LIBERTY OILFIELD: Faces Joseph Securities Suit in Colorado
LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGIES: Owen et al. Sue over Special Board Meeting
LIN'S GARDEN: Underpays Restaurant Delivery Staff, Hong Alleges
LIVENT CORP: Suits over 2018 IPO Underway in Pennsylvania
LOWE'S HOME: Underpays Managers, Ceniceros et al. Allege

LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
MARRIOTT INT'L: Fails to Pay Workers' Service Charge, Kraft Says
MAX INSURANCE: Faces Wilson Suit in Southern District of Ohio
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Class Action in California Ongoing

MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INC: Faces Gilmore FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Action Still Ongoing
MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS: Winters Sues in Arizona Over TCPA Violation
MYLAN NV: Class Cert. Bid in EpiPen(R) Purchaser Suit Narrowed

MYLAN NV: Class Certification Bid in New York Suit Unopposed
MYLAN NV: Class Suit over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
MYLAN NV: Faces EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Direct Purchasers' Suit
MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
NANTHEALTH INC: June 15 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set

NANTHEALTH INC: Retirement Fund's Suit Stayed Until May 7
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces ERISA Suit From Retirees
NATURAL LIFE: Faces Gardenhire ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
NEILMED PHARMA: Cooper Seeks to Certify Class of Fax Recipients
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Nix Amended TV Ads Antitrust Suit Pending

NMC HEALTH: Faces Huang Suit Over 64% Drop in Share Price
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
PADGETT LAW: Faces Cherefrere Suit over Debt Collection Protocol
PARK SAN BAL: Misclassifies and Underpays Workers, Chom Claims
PAYSIGN INC: Chase Sues over Misleading Info & Securities Losses

PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits over Andexanet Alfa Sales
PROFESSIONAL ROOFING: Underpays Employees, Espinoza et al Claim
PROSHARES TRUST II: Notice of Appeal Filed in NY Consolidated Suit
PTGMB LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Roth Suit Claims
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Interest Rate in Hsu Settlement Set

QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action
RCI HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Amos FDCPA Class Suit in South Carolina
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
ROSE HILL ASSET: Cabrera Sues over OT, Incorrect Wage Statements

ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss Euro-Denominated Bonds Suit Pending
ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss USD ICE LIBOR Suit Still Pending
ROYAL BANK: Class Cert. Bid in Interest Rate Swaps Suit Pending
ROYAL BANK: Settlement Reached in FX-Related Class Suits in SDNY
SAFELINK WIRELESS: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Ezold Claims

SCHOOLADVISOR LLC: Munoz Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practice
SEALIFT HOLDINGS: Baduria Suit Moved From New York to Louisiana
SIMPLY NOURISH PET FOOD: Grossman Balks at Deceptive Business Acts
SIMS GROUP USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Claims
SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Pending

SKYLINE CHILI: Davis Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Suit Says
SOUTHERN STAR: Underpays Inspectors, Altenhofen Suit Says
STEEL PARTNERS: Sciabacucchi Class Settlement Approved
STROUK GROUP: Marquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TARGA RESOURCES: Hennigar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOWN SPORTS: Illegally Charges Fees and Dues, Namorato Claims
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Hendricks Suit Over Defective Braking Systems
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Suit Ongoing
TRUECAR INC: California Consumer Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

UNITED NATURAL: North Country Store Settlement Has Initial Okay
UNITED STATES: Faces Williams Prisoner Suit in Dist. of Columbia
UNITED STATES: Kelley, Starnes Slam Contraceptive Mandate
UNITED STATES: Kuang Petitions Supreme Ct. for Writ of Certiorari
VBFS INC: Underpays Deliverymen & Cashiers, Carranza Claims

VIRTU FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in CCERF Suit
VISTRA ENERGY: Price-Fixing Suits Ongoing in Wisconsin and Kansas
VONS PHARMACY: Edmunds Sues Over Robocalls
WAYFAIR INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Action Pending
WELLS FARGO: Underpays Loan Adjusters, Easton Claims

WPX ENERGY: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Ongoing in Wisconsin
WPX ENERGY: Suit over Felix Energy Acquisition Underway
WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner et al. Sue Over Timeshares
WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Suit Still Pending
YELP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action in Calif.

ZEN RESTORATION: Faces Fazekas et al. Suit over Unpaid Overtime
ZOOM VIDEO: Sells Private Info of 200 Mil. Users, Ohlweiler Says

                            *********

2U INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
2U, 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, In re 2U, Inc.,
Securities Class Action, No. 1:19-cv-7390

On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the Company, Christopher
J. Paucek, the Company’s CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the
Company's former CFO, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The district court consolidated the two actions on August 27, 2019,
under the caption In re 2U, Inc., Securities Class Action, No.
1:19-cv-7390 (S.D.N.Y.). On November 26, 2019, the court
transferred the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, and the docket number is now 8:19-cv-3455 (D.
Md.).

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based upon allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
projections. The proposed class consists of all persons who
acquired the Company's securities between February 26, 2018 and
July 30, 2019.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against these claims. However, due to
the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, the
outcome of this matter is not presently determinable.

Headquartered in Landover, Maryland, 2U, Inc. provides cloud-based
SaaS solutions that address the needs of nonprofit colleges and
universities to attract, enroll and deliver quality education to
students. The 2U platform enables clients to offer full
undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs online.


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Incurs $22.1-Mil. in Settling PHC-Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Healthcare Company, 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 legal
settlement costs of $22.1 million for the year ended December 31,
2018 represent $19.0 million related to the government
investigation of the Company's billing for lab services in West
Virginia and $3.1 million related to the resolution of the
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2011 in connection with
the company's merger with PHC, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Behavioral Health
("PHC").

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. develops and operates inpatient
psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, group homes,
substance abuse facilities, and outpatient behavioral healthcare
facilities to serve the behavioral health and recovery needs of
communities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Puerto
Rico. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Franklin, Tennessee.

ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Brewer Claims
---------------------------------------------------
FREDDIE BREWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, ALLIANCE RESOURCE
PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCES OPERATING PARTNERS, L.P.
ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC, EXCEL MINING, LLC, and MC
MINING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00041-DLB (E.D. Ky.,
March 27, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged systematic and willful
non-compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Kentucky Wage and Hour Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a coal miner in Defendants'
Excel Mine/MC Mining Complex for five years.

The complaint asserts that Defendant:

     -- illegally failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated coal miners for "off-the-clock" work performed prior to
the scheduled beginning of the shift;

     -- deprived the coal miners, including Plaintiff, of pay for
"off-the-clock" work at the end of each shift; and

     -- failed to compensate coal miners the correct overtime rate
of pay, for all hours worked at their normal hourly rate and at one
and one-half their regular rate for all hours worked in a workweek
in excess of forty hours.

Alliance Coal, Inc. and other Defendants are coal mining companies.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Tel: (270)213-1303
          Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com

                - and –

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215)875-3000
          Fax: (215)875-4604
          Emails: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net

                - and –

          John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R.
          KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1746
          Lexington, KY 40588
          Tel: (895)866-3097
          Email: john@employmentlawky.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: Huang FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Bing Huang, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp., Velocity Investments,
LLC, Case No. 502273/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on April 2, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01682 to the
proceeding.

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

Alpha Recovery Corp was established in 2010 as a full service
Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cindy D. Salvo, Esq.
          THE SALVO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          185 Fairfeld Avenue, Suite 3C/3D
          West Caldwell, NJ 07006
          Phone: (973) 226-2220
          Fax: (973) 900-8800
          Email: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Consolidated Class Suit in New York Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment 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 consolidated class action suit in New York
related to the company's alleged material misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public
offering and in certain other public disclosures.  

On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the
Hawaii Action, the "Actions"), respectively, were filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the
secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures.


On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions. On January 22,
2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.

On September 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part.

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

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lao Class Suit Stayed for 6 Months
-----------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment 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 court
overseeing the case, Lao v. Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd., et al.,
C.A. No. 2019-0303-JRS, has granted a motion to stay the action for
six months to allow the Special Litigation Committee to complete
its investigation.

On April 22, 2019, a putative stockholder class and derivative
complaint, captioned Lao v. Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd., et al.,
C.A. No. 2019-0303-JRS (the "Lao Action"), was filed against
certain of the Company's directors, Wanda, two of Wanda's
affiliates, Silver Lake, and one of Silver Lake's affiliates in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Lao Action asserts claims directly, on behalf of a putative
class of Company stockholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the
Company, for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to transactions that the
Company entered into with affiliates of Wanda and Silver Lake on
September 14, 2018, and the special cash dividend of $1.55 per
share of common stock that was payable on September 28, 2018 to the
Company's stockholders of record as of September 25, 2018.

On July 18, 2019, the Company's Board of Directors formed a Special
Litigation Committee to investigate and evaluate the claims and
allegations asserted in the Lao Action and make a determination as
to how the Company should proceed with respect to the Lao Action.

On October 25, 2019, the court granted a motion to stay the action
for six months to allow the Special Litigation Committee to
complete its investigation.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


AMSHER COLLECTION: Wright Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAKEI WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-01428-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 12, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp and
referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman.

AmSher Collection Services, Inc. provides collection services. The
Company offers consumer, commercial, and legal collection services.
AmSher Collection Services serves telecommunications, cable,
utilities, healthcare, property management, commercial, and
financial services markets globally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit entitled, In re HomeAdvisor, Inc.
Litigation.

In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as
amended in November 2016, alleges that that HomeAdvisor business
engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges.


The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012,
asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), and seeks injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO
and CCPA claims.

In September 2017, the court issued an order granting the motion
and dismissing those claims.

In October 2017, HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the remaining claims in the complaint. In May 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint that would add nine new named plaintiffs, five new
defendants (including ANGI Homeservices), and 55 new claims, most
of them for various alleged violations of the laws of nine separate
states. In June 2018, HomeAdvisor opposed the motion on grounds
including that it was filed more than one year after the court’s
deadline to amend pleadings.

In July 2018, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine proposed new plaintiffs in
the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, ANGI
Homeservices and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and
asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the
proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case. In November
2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued an order
consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under the caption
In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to
file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants,
in addition to HomeAdvisor, ANGI Homeservices and IAC, CraftJack,
Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and thus, an entity
affiliated with HomeAdvisor) and two unrelated entities. In
February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various
grounds.

In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion. In October and December 2019, the four
defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss
certain claims in the amended complaint, which motions remains
pending.

Discovery in the case is well underway and the issue of class
certification remains to be litigated.

ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home
services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service
professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly
known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices
Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017
and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is
a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


APPLE VALLEY: Faces John Doe Suit in District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of Apple Valley.
The case is captioned as JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; and JOHN DOE 3,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-00499-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., Feb. 12, 2020). The case is
assigned to Judge Patrick J. Schiltz and referred to Magistrate
Judge David T. Schultz.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          Law Office of Adele D. Nicholas
          5707 W. Goodman St
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

               - and -

          Daniel E Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M Gluek, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          3612 N. Tripp Ave
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: (773) 283-3913
          E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Monte A Mills, Esq.
          GREENE ESPEL PLLP
          222 S 9th St Ste 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 373-0830
          Facsimile: (612) 373-0929
          E-mail: mmills@greeneespel.com


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Case Management Conference Set for June 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arlo Technologies, 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 in the
class action suit entitled, In re Arlo Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231, has set a case management
conference for June 19, 2020.

Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo
Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action
complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its executives and directors.

Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and NETGEAR, Inc.

The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, the state court consolidated these actions as In
re Arlo Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231
(the "State Action").

The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372 (the "Federal Action").
    
The plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint
on May 1, 2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the Company failed to adequately disclose quality control problems
and adverse sales trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Arlo
common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.

On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims.

The court has set a case management conference for June 19, 2020,
so the parties can provide an update regarding the status of the
Federal Action.

In the Federal Action, four investors filed motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff.

On May 6, 2019, the court appointed a shareholder named Matis
Nayman to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Keller
Lenkner LLC as lead counsel. On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, which alleges that defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, by failing to adequately disclose quality
control problems and adverse sales trends surrounding the Company's
IPO.

The amended complaint also named as defendants the underwriters in
the IPO and NETGEAR, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on August 6, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion
to dismiss on September 6, 2019, and defendants filed a reply on
October 4, 2019. On December 19, 2019, the court granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February
13, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

On the same day, the parties asked the court to stay the case to
allow for plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of a
class-wide settlement. On February 14, 2020, the court agreed to
stay the case until March 30, 2020.

Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.

AUROBINDO PHARMA: Sells Adulterated Metformin Drug, Harris Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUROBINDO PHARMA, LTD.; AUROBINDO
USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA, LLC; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS; RITE-AID CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03350 (D.N.J., March 27, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for various violations
including breach of warranties, breach of implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly-situated consumers who purchased Defendants'
generic Metformin products, alleges that the Defendants engage in
false representation and marketing of the product in the market
because it was adulterated through its contamination with an IARC-
and EPA-listed probable human carcinogen known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine, which made the product unsafe for ordinary
use.

Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd. is pharmaceutical manufacturing company with
its principal place of business at Plot no. 2, Maitrivihar,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana, India, and a United States
headquarters at 279 Princeton Hightstown Road, East Windsor, New
Jersey.

Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. is a generic pharmaceuticals
manufacturer with its principal place of business at 279 Princeton
Hightstown Road, East Windsor, New Jersey.

Aurolife Pharma, LLC is a Dayton, New Jersey-based generic
pharmaceuticals manufacturer.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business 12 Christopher Way #300, Eatontown, New
Jersey.

Emcure Pharmaceuticals is a Pune, India-based pharmaceutical
company.

Rite-Aid Corporation is a drugstore chain with its principal place
of business in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103          
          Telephone: (215) 965-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com

               - and -
           
          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
          Layne Hilton, Esq.
          Annemieke Tennis, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70115          
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  l.hilton@kanner-law.com
                  a.tennis@kanner-law.com

               - and -
           
          John R. Davis, Esq.
          SLACK DAVIS SANGER LLP
          6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 795-8686
          Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
          E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com

               - and -
           
          Daniel A. Nigh, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHEL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR P.A.
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7013         
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6013
          E-mail: dnigh@levinlaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Bankers, Kaffishahsavar Says
-------------------------------------------------------
KIARASH KAFFISHAHSAVAR, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a
business entity, form unknown, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02119
(N.D. Cal., March 27, 2020) is a class action for wage and labor
violations arising from Defendant's failure to pay wages for all
time worked, including overtime, and failure to provide timely and
uninterrupted meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its financial centers in Los
Angeles, California, from approximately 2015 to September, 2018 as
a non-exempt, hourly-paid Relationship Manager (Personal Banker).

Bank of America, N.A. is an American multinational investment bank
and financial services company. [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
            Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                   mrealin@markham-law.com
                   lbrevard@markham-law.com

                  – and –

            Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
            Alejandro Quinones, Esq.
            Brianna M. McCovey, Esq.
            QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
            22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
            Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
            Telephone: (949) 458-9675
            Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
            Email: req@quintlaw.com
                   axq@quintlaw.com
                   bmm@quintlaw.com

BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, 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 entitled, Amitahbo
Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., et al.

In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance
Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff claims that Simple and the Company only permit United
States citizens to open Simple accounts (which are exclusively
originated through online channels).

Plaintiff alleges that this constitutes alienage discrimination and
violations of California's Unruh Act.

The Company believes that there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, 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 entitled, Ferguson v. BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

In July 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Ferguson v. BBVA USA Bancshares,
Inc., wherein the plaintiffs allege certain investment options
within the Company's employee retirement plan violate provisions of
ERISA.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: Suit Against BBVA Securities Ongoing in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, 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 BBVA Securities
Inc. continues to defend against a securities class action in Texas
state court.

In October 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.,
wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its
officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including
BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BLACKROCK INC: Dismissal of iShares ETFs Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, 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 California Court of
Appeal has affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint in
the class action suit initiated by the investors in certain
iShares(R) exchange-traded funds (iShares ETFs).

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its
advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.

The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the
"ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by
the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a
"flash crash."

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages.

The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a
decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day
bench trial.

On December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their
lawsuit and, on January 23, 2020, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court's dismissal. The defendants believe the
claims in this lawsuit are without merit.

BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.



BLACKROCK INC: Immediate Appeal in Denying Class Cert. Requested
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, 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 plaintiffs have
requested permission from the appeals court to immediately appeal
the denial of class certification in the Collective Trust Funds
(CTFs) litigation.

On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the
BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") from April 5, 2011 to
the present.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their
duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things,
offering investment options that were overly expensive,
underperformed unaffiliated peer funds, focused disproportionately
on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated
in investment options managed by BlackRock.

On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and
former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment
Committees. The Amended Complaint also included a new purported
class claim on behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust
Funds ("CTFs") managed by BTC.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the
CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by, most significantly, selecting
itself as the securities lending agent on terms that the plaintiffs
claim were excessive. The Amended Complaint also alleged that
BlackRock took undue risks in its management of securities lending
cash reinvestment vehicles during the financial crisis.

On August 23, 2018, the court granted permission to the plaintiffs
to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which added as
defendants the BlackRock, Inc. Management Development and
Compensation Committee, the Plan's independent investment
consultant and the Plan’s Administrative Committee and its
members.

On October 22, 2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC,
and on June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify both the Plan and the CTF classes. On September 3, 2019,
the court granted BlackRock's motion to dismiss part of the
plaintiffs' claim seeking to recover alleged losses in the
securities lending vehicles but denied the motion to dismiss in all
other respects.

On February 11, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the CTF class and granted their motion to certify the Plan
class.

On February 25, 2020, the plaintiffs requested permission from the
appeals court to immediately appeal the class certification ruling.


The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit.

BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Mullen Says Restaurant Not Accessible to Disabled
------------------------------------------------------------------
BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC. d/b/a
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00230-DSC (E.D.
Pa., Feb. 13, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's
restaurant are not fully accessible to persons with mobility
disabilities. The Defendant denies individuals with mobility
disabilities the opportunity to choose the type of table to sit at
and where to sit in a dining area through the placement,
orientation, and use of inaccessible dining surfaces, thereby
providing the Plaintiff and those similarly situated the
opportunity to participate in and benefit from the Defendant’s
goods, services, facilities, and accommodations in a manner that is
not equal to the experience that is afforded to other individuals
without disabilities.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc. owns and operates a chain of casual dining
restaurants. The Company offers its products and services through
company owned and franchised locations worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  bfox@carlsonlynch.com


BOSTON PIE: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Aiman Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAEGAN AIMAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. BOSTON PIE, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA and
DAVID JENKS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10616 (D. Mass., March
26, 2020) is a collective action lawsuit brought against Defendants
for their alleged unlawful uniform and employer-based compensation
and reimbursement policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendants since November 2019
as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's stores located in
Nashua, New Hampshire.

According to the complaint, Defendants employ delivery drivers who
use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. Allegedly, Defendants use a flawed automobile
reimbursement policy in determining reimbursement rates instead of
properly reimbursing delivery drivers for the expenses they incur
such as gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and maintenance
services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses while
delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of
Defendants.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
pursuant to FLSA, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, costs
of litigation and attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and other relief.

David Jenks is an owner, officer and director of corporate
Defendant Boston Pie, Inc.

Boston Pie, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise
stores in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Tel: (615)254-8801
          Fax: (615)255-5419
          Email: aorlandi@bsjfirm.com

                - and –

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214)210-2100
          Fax: (214)346-5909
          Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Bancorporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Frank Miller et al. v.
Cadence Bancorporation et al., Case No. H-19-3492-LNH, remains
pending.

On September 16, 2019, a Cadence Bancorporation shareholder filed a
putative class action complaint against Cadence Bancorporation and
certain senior officers.  

Following consolidation of a related matter and appointment of lead
plaintiffs, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
January 31, 2020, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cadence
Bancorporation securities between July 23, 2018, and January 23,
2020, inclusive.  

The amended complaint alleges that Cadence Bancorporation and the
individual defendants made materially misleading statements about
the credit quality of Cadence Bancorporation's loan portfolio, did
not timely charge off bad debt or record sufficient loss provisions
to reserve against the risk of loss, and maintained an inadequate
allowance for credit losses.  

The consolidated case is captioned Frank Miller et al. v. Cadence
Bancorporation et al., Case No. H-19-3492-LNH, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

Cadence Bancorporation and the individual defendants intend to file
a motion to dismiss and to mount a vigorous defense.

Cadence said, "The case is in its preliminary stages, discovery has
not yet commenced, and it is not possible at this time to estimate
the likelihood or amount of any potential damages exposure."

Cadence Bancorporation is a financial holding company and a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, and is the
parent company of Cadence Bank, National Association ("Cadence
Bank"). The company is based in Houston, Texas.


CAMPING WORLD: Geis Securities Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Camping World 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 class
action suit entitled, Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc.,
et al., is still stayed.

On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint").

The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading
statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain
statements not misleading.

The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
and further relief the court deems just and proper.

On April 19, 2019, the company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action. The parties argued the merits of
defendants' motion to dismiss before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division on August 20, 2019.

On August 26, 2019, the Court stayed the Geis Complaint pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint that
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiff and members of the putative class, and any liability
for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Must Defend Against Ronge & Strougo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Camping World 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 court
overseeing the consolidated Ronge & Strougo suit has struck the
pending motions to dismiss without prejudice.

On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint").

On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company,
certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II
GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint").

The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs appointed by the court. On February 27, 2019, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the company,
certain of its officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP,
L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the
May and October 2017 secondary offerings of the Company's Class A
common stock (the "Consolidated Complaint").

The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or
omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements
not misleading related to the business, operations, and management
of the Company.

Additionally, it alleges that certain of the company's officers and
directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and Crestview Advisors,
L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company.

The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between March 8,
2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages,
rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper.

On May 17, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, the
Company has been engaged in a mediation process with the plaintiffs
in the Consolidated Complaint in an effort to avoid the uncertainty
and expense of litigation, and as a result, is currently having
ongoing settlement discussions. However, there can be no assurance
that a settlement agreement will ultimately be reached.

The parties have informed the court of the status of their
negotiations, and on January 24, 2020, the court struck the pending
motions to dismiss without prejudice. Any losses that the Company
believes are probable are expected to be covered directly by the
Company's applicable insurance policies.

Camping World said, "The Company is not currently able to estimate
a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of any amount that
would be paid directly by the Company's insurance carriers.
Moreover, no assurance can be made that this matter either
individually or together with the potential for similar suits, will
not result in a material financial exposure in excess of insurance
coverage, which could have a material adverse effect upon the
Company's financial condition and results of operations."

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CCFCO MANAGEMENT: Nisbett Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCFCO Management. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. CCFCO Management, doing
business as: Eve Farms, Case No. 1:20-cv-02739-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April
2, 2020).

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

CCFCO Management is an ethical global consulting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 entitled, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink,
et al.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of the company's acquisition of Level 3.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose various material information of
several kinds, including information about strategic revenue,
customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other
items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in
theUnited States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settles Sales Practices & Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 has agreed to
settle the consolidated suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation, for payments of $15.5 million
to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for
administrative costs.

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against
the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for
alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for
products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly
thereafter and continuing since then, and based in part on the
allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings
have been filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that the company
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize.

A number of other complaints asserting similar claims were filed in
other federal and state courts. The lawsuits assert claims
including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company
failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales
practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of
other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the
Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside
directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in
the shareholder derivative demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed.

Two of these cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed
in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for
the Parish of Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed
in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota.

These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company
and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, the company
had agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for
payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to
$3.5 million for administrative costs.

The company accrued for those amounts during the second quarter of
2019.

Certain class members may elect to opt out of the class settlement
and pursue the resolution of their individual claims against the
company on these issues through various dispute resolution
processes, including individual arbitration. One law firm claims to
represent more than 22,000 potential class members.

To the extent that a substantial number of class members, including
many of the law firm's alleged clients, meet the contractual
requirements to arbitrate, elect to opt out of the settlement (or
otherwise successfully exclude their individual claims), and
actually pursue arbitrations, the Company could incur a material
amount of filing and other arbitrations fees in relation to the
administration of those claims.

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in
theUnited States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CHINA: California Businesses Sue over COVID-19 Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------
BOURQUE CPA'S AND ADVISORS, INC., GD SERVICES LLC, J&M CONSULTING
LP, NH APARTMENTS, INC., RURAL HOUSING PRESERVATION FOUNDATION, on
behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY,
MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,
NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE
PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF HUBEI PROVINCE, THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF
VIROLOGY, THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF CITY OF WUHAN, CHINA, and JOHN
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00597-RGK-DFM
(C.D. Cal., March 26, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged negligent and/or reckless
conduct, strict liability for conducting ultrahazardous activity,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
public nuisance.

Plaintiffs are small business owners in the State of California.

According to the complaint, small business owners in the State of
California suffered monetary damages and/or losses, including
Plaintiffs, because of the pandemic COVID-19 outbreak. Allegedly,
Defendants, which supposedly handling and managing the response to
the discovery of the Coronavirus, did not disclose the truth which
contributes to the subsequent spread of the Coronavirus all over
the world.

The complaint asserts that the PRC and other Defendants failed to
report the outbreak as quickly as they could have, underreported
cases, underreported severity of the virus, underreported the
deaths caused by COVID-19, and initially failed to contain the
outbreak despite knowing the seriousness of the situation.

The People's Liberation Army is the official military arm of the
PRC.

Ministry of Emergency Management of PRC is the administrative
government body that coordinates emergency management, including
health issues, within PRC.

The National Health Commission of the PRC is the administrative
government body/executive department under the PRC which is
responsible for formulating health policies in Mainland, China.

Ministry of Civil Affairs of the PRC is the administrative
government body responsible for social and administrative affairs.

The People's Government of Hubei Province is a foreign province and
administrative head of Hubei Province in the PRC.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a biological laboratory about 20
miles from the center of the city of Wuhan in China, which
allegedly has illegal biological weapons laboratory.

The People's Government of City of Wuhan, China is a foreign city
and administrative head of the City of Wuhan, China.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is the world's most populated
country and second largest economy. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tamara Zavaliyenko, Esq.
          4521 Campus Drive, #325
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Tel: (949)656-7233
          Fax: (949)656-7233
          Email: info@settlementcovid19.com


CITIGROUP INC: 4th Amended Complaint Filed in IRS Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 the lead plaintiffs in the class action
styled, IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, moved for
class certification in February 2019, and subsequently filed a
fourth amended complaint.

Beginning in 2015, Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, and numerous
other parties were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide
putative class actions related to interest rate swaps (IRS)
trading.  These actions have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.  The
complaints allege that defendants colluded to prevent the
development of exchange-like trading for IRS and assert federal and
state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment.  Also
consolidated under the same caption are individual actions filed by
swap execution facilities, asserting federal and state antitrust
claims, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and tortious
interference with business relations.  Plaintiffs in all of these
actions seek treble damages, fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
Lead plaintiffs in the class action moved for class certification
in February 2019, and subsequently filed a fourth amended
complaint.

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: Appeal Pending in Fund Liquidation's Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's July 2019 decisions in the case
styled, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, AS ASSIGNOR AND
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND L.P.,
ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL., remains pending in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 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.

Plaintiffs in the putative class action, which was filed in 2016
against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants, allege that
defendants manipulated the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and
Singapore Swap Offer Rate.  Plaintiffs assert claims under the
Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the RICO Act and state law.

In May 2018, plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Citibank and
Citigroup, under which Citibank and Citigroup agreed to pay
approximately US$10 million.

In July 2019, the court found that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the non-settling defendants and dismissed the
case.  The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to approve
the settlement and denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

In August 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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: Stachon Class Action in New York Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
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 the putative class action styled, STACHON
v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., is currently stayed pending a
decision on the remaining motion to dismiss in IN RE SSA BONDS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The Company said, "On February 7, 2019, a putative class action,
captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., was filed
against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and other defendants,
captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs assert claims under New York antitrust laws based on the
same conduct alleged in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The action is currently
stayed pending a decision on the remaining motion to dismiss in IN
RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION."

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: Still Defends SSA Bonds Antitrust Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself in the consolidated class
action, styled IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 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.

In 2016 and 2017, class actions by direct purchasers of
supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds filed against
Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and other defendants were
consolidated, under the caption IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In November 2018, a second amended consolidated complaint was
filed, alleging that defendants, as market makers and traders of
SSA bonds, colluded to fix the price at which they bought and sold
SSA bonds in the secondary market.  The complaint asserts claims
under the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages,
including treble damages where authorized by statute, and
disgorgement.

In September 2019, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
certain defendants, including CGML.

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: Still Faces Class Suit in Canada over SSA Bonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
filed in Canada related to supranational, sub-sovereign and agency
(SSA) bonds, 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.

In 2017, a class action related to the SSA bond market was filed in
the Ontario Court of Justice in Canada, against Citigroup,
Citibank, CGMI, CGML, Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets
Canada, Inc. and other defendants, asserting plaintiff claims under
breach of contract, breach of the competition act, breach of
foreign law, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.  Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory 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: Bid to Nix Treasury Securities Auction Lawsuit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated case, styled IN
RE TREASURY SECURITIES AUCTION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 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 2015, putative class actions filed against Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. (CGMI) and other defendants were consolidated, under
the caption IN RE TREASURY SECURITIES AUCTION ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In December 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
alleging that defendants colluded to fix Treasury auction bids by
sharing competitively sensitive information ahead of the auctions,
and that defendants colluded to boycott and prevent the emergence
of an anonymous, all-to-all electronic trading platform in the
Treasuries secondary market.  The complaint asserts claims under
antitrust laws, and seeks damages, including treble damages where
authorized by statute, and injunctive relief.

In February 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

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.


COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
comScore, 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 Sergii Bratusov.

On April 10, 2019, Sergii Bratusov, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company. The case, captioned Bratusov v. comScore, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 19 Civ. 03210, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and also names the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, Gregory Fink, and the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, Bryan Wiener, as defendants.

The complaint, which was amended on September 30, 2019, purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
securities of the Company between February 28, 2019 and August 7,
2019 and alleges that the Company, Mr. Wiener, and Mr. Fink
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose in public
statements in February and March 2019 material information
concerning a disagreement relating to the Company's business
strategy.

The complaint also alleges that Mr. Wiener and Mr. Fink, acting as
control persons of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Company's alleged failure to
disclose material information. The complaint seeks a determination
of the propriety of the class, compensatory damages and the award
of reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims.

comScore said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of December 31, 2019."

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

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


COMSCORE INC: Settlement Reached in Privacy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
comScore, 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 and Full
Circle reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the class action
litigation over alleged
violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, to
settle the complaints in full, with no admission of liability, in
return for injunctive relief and payment of the plaintiffs'
attorneys fees, to be covered by the Company's insurance.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., received demand letters on behalf of
named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that
the Company and Full Circle collected personal information from
users under the age of 13 without verifiable parental consent in
violation of Massachusetts law and the federal Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt
Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys'
fees and damages under Massachusetts law.

On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding
the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class
action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other
defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional
right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's
deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive
trade practices and right to privacy statutes.

The complaints alleged damages in excess of $5.0 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants.

On February 26, 2020, the Company and Full Circle reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the complaints in full,
with no admission of liability, in return for injunctive relief and
payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be covered by the
Company's insurance.

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


CREDITORS RELIEF: Abante Rooter Sues over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., a California corporation, and
TERRY FABRICANT, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREDITORS RELIEF, LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03272 (D.N.J., March 26, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendants for their alleged practice of making
unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to the telephones of
consumers nationwide who are registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. is a plumbing company
headquartered in Emeryville, Alameda County, California.

Plaintiff Fabricant is the primary and customary user of the
cellular telephone numbers ending in 1083 and 9210 which she
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry on June 4, 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs have received numerous
prerecorded voice messages from Defendant in attempt of soliciting
them to purchase Defendant's debt restructuring services and
without their prior express consent to receive such telemarketing
calls.

The complaint asserts that Defendant has caused Plaintiffs actual
harm and cognizable legal injury by making the telephone calls,
such as aggravation and nuisance and invasions of privacy.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
unauthorized calling activities, an award of statutory damages,
plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the
Teelphone Consumer Protection Act.

Creditors Relief, LLC is a debt relief company that focuses on
assisting businesses with debt relief solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.
          ARONS & ARONS, LLC
          76 South Orange Ave., Suite 100
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Tel: (973)762-0795
          Fax: (973)762-0279
          Emails: ja@aronslaw.net

                - and –

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CL 80210
          Tel: (720)213-0675
          Fax: (303)927-0809
          Emails: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota), has been
consolidated in In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation, and is ongoing.

This putative class action was filed against the Company and other
pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) in June 2017 on behalf of ERISA
plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr.

Plaintiffs allege that the PBMs are ERISA fiduciaries to plan
members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher
inflated prices for EpiPens through the process of negotiating
increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer Mylan.

This case has been consolidated with a similar matter and is now
proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

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

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Suits Over Long-Term Care Pharmacy Biz Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company defends
several class action suits related to its long-term care pharmacy
(LTC)

Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were
filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health
Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island); Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement Sys.v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode
Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and
Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp.,
et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island).

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the Company's long-term care
pharmacy (LTC) business unit, which allegedly injured investors who
acquired CVS Health securities between February 9, 2016 and
February 20, 2019.

The Freundlich case also alleges that defendants misrepresented
anticipated synergies of the Aetna Acquisition. Plaintiffs in the
Freundlich and the City of Warren cases have filed a consolidated
complaint that combines their allegations.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


DCOMM INC: Faces Munn Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Cable Installers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMISON MUNN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DCOMM, INC., and, HAKAN S. BALTAOGLU, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00328-RP (W.D. Tex., March 26, 2020) is a collective action
by Plaintiff, and others similarly situated against their employers
for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from November of 2018,
until September 24, 2019, as an "Installer" with principle duties
of installing, repairing, and maintaining residential cabling for
internet and television services. The duties also include
installing feeder lines that provide cable access to homes and
businesses, laying ground cable, and setting up associated
equipment for customers located solely within the state of Texas.

DCOMM, Inc. is a provider of cable installation services in
residences and businesses in numerous cities within the state of
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
            Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
            ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
            1104 San Antonio Street
            Austin, TX 78701
            Telephone: (512) 474-7677
            Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
            Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com

DEVA CONCEPTS: Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Dixon et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
GINGER DIXON; ALANNA HALL; and CRISTINA NAPOLOTANO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEVA
CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DevaCurl, Defendant, Case No. Case
1:20-cv-01234-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020) is a civil class action
brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased the
Defendant's "DevaCurl No-Poo Original" non-lathering conditioning
cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition Original hair-conditioner,
DevaCurl Light Defining Gel, DevaCurl Low-Poo Original cleanser,
DevaCurl Low-Poo Delight cleanser, DevaCurl No-Poo Decadence
cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition Delight hair-conditioner, DevaCurl
One Condition Decadence hair-conditioner, Melt into Moisture Mask,
Styling Cream, DevaCurl Leave-In Decadence conditioner, Super
Stretch Coconut Curl Elongator, Wavemaker, and DevaCurl Ultra
Defining Gel which are used for personal cosmetic purposes.

In 2002, the Defendant created and developed the formula for the
DevaCurl No-Poo Original, which is marketed as containing no
sulfate, and is also marketed as an "innovative new haircare
category" and a "game-changing alternative to traditional
shampoo."

However, despite the "DevaCurl phenomenon" that has caused many
curly haired consumers across the United States to purchase and use
the Products, use of the Products cause scalp irritation, excessive
shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding during
normal use by consumers.

Indeed, thousands of consumers have reported their hair failing out
shortly after or during actual use of the Products. The Defendant
provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact makes
numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of the
Products. For example, the Defendant's website makes statements
relating to its No-Poo Product such as "[t]raditional shampoo can
be too harsh for curls. That's why we made No-Poo Original! The
non-lathering formula with peppermint and grapeseed oil gently
cleanses without stripping the natural oils your curls need." With
regard to its One Condition Original product, the Defendant's
website states "When it comes to curls, it's all about condition,
condition, condition. So apply, rinse and repeat as often as
needed!" These statements and others were and are false, deceptive,
and misleading and have harmed the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The Defendant appears to be aware of the issues with its Products
but conceals and fails to disclose that the Products cause hair
loss and shedding, by intentionally blaming other risk factors such
as giving birth, stress, scalp buildup, dandruff, losing weight,
certain illnesses, and more.

Deva Concepts LLC manufactures hair care products. The Company
produces and markets a range products for cleaning, conditioning,
and styling curly hair. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW GROUP P.C.
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1915
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 767-2271
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177


DHALIWAL BROTHERS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Harrell Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CHALMON HARRELL III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DHALIWAL BROTHERS TRUCKING, INC.;
and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-2020-2189 (Cal. Super., Joaquin Cty., Feb. 13, 2020) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Harrell III was employed by the Defendants as truck
driver.

Dhaliwal Brothers Trucking Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Lathrop, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: JLAPUYADE@JCL-LAWFIRM.COM


DUTTON RANCH: Bid for Preliminary Class Certification Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as OMAR HERNANDEZ, et al., v.
DUTTON RANCH CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-00817-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting Hernandez's
motion for preliminary class certification.

Because preliminary certification is warranted, notice to the
putative collective is proper, the Court says.

The parties have not yet met and conferred on how notice should be
effectuated. At the hearing, the Court provided guidance to the
parties:

-- The parties shall meet and confer to select the third-party
    administrator.

-- The parties shall meet and confer, along with the third-
    party administrator, to determine the best means to effect
    notice.

-- The notice shall implicate a three-year statute of
    limitations rather than a two-year statute of limitations.

-- Putative collective members shall be given 4 months to opt
    in (particularly because some members are in Mexico and
    there may be more than one round of notice if notice proves
    ineffective).

-- The notice shall not include a header referring to the
    Court but the text of the notice may indicate that the
    notice is being issued as part of a case pending before
    the Court.

-- The notice shall include contact information for both
    Plaintiffs' counsel and Dutton's counsel.

-- Dutton asks that the notice include a statement as to what
    its litigation position is. This is a fair request,
    although the Court acknowledges that there is some language
    in the notice indicating that Dutton denies the claims
    being asserted against it. The parties should meet and
    confer on this issue as they should be able to reach
    agreement.

-- Dutton argues that the notice contains confusing language
    about what happens if a worker does not join the lawsuit.

-- The notice need not contain language informing members that
    costs could be assessed against them if they do not
    prevail. Plaintiffs' counsel has stated on the record that
    they will cover taxable costs. The prospect of nontaxable
    costs is not sufficiently substantial to warrant a warning.

-- The notice need not contain detailed language informing a
    member about his or her obligations as a litigant (e.g., to
    be subject to a deposition); however, the notice should
    contain some language notifying a member that he or she
    does have an obligation to participate in the case and
    provide relevant information.[CC]

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Park Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Juhyeon Park,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01671 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2020).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAGLE BANCORP: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in SDNY
------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.  

On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the
same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel.

The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports
and other public statements and disclosures contained materially
false or misleading statements about, among other things, the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting
in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline
in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure
of increased legal expenses associated with certain government
investigations involving the Company.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims
asserted.

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States.  It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits.  Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Boston Retirement System Named as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, 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 Boston Retirement
System has been named as the lead plaintiff in the class action
suit entitled, Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW.

On September 23, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and
captioned as Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW.  

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The complaint alleges that the Company made material misstatements
and/or omissions during the period from March 1, 2019 through
September 2, 2019. The allegations relate to disclosure concerning
the subpoenas that certain of the Company's directors and officers
received from the SEC, which have been previously disclosed in the
proxy statement/prospectus filed by the Company relating to the
pending transaction with Caesars.  

The SEC investigation is ongoing.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased the Company's securities during the
period from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019.  

The Boston Retirement System has been named as the lead plaintiff.


The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming
operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars,
entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract
customers to its properties.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Deal Reached in Caesars Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, 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 parties to the
litigation related to the company's merger with Caesars
Entertainment Corporation have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the claims.  

On June 24, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further
amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with  Caesars
Entertainment Corporation (Caesars) pursuant to which a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company will merge with and into
Caesars, with Caesars surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company (the "Merger").

Eight putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger. The Company has been named as a party in three of
such actions: Cazer v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil
Action No. A-19-801900-C, Eighth Judicial District Court Clark
County, Nevada (9/13/2019), Gershman v. Caesars Entertainment
Corp., et al, Civil Action No 1:19-cv-01720-UNA, United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (9/12/2019), and Palkon
v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01679-UNA, United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (9/9/2019).  

In general, the complaints assert claims under sections 14(a),
20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
challenging the adequacy of certain disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger.  

In addition, one of the complaints alleges state law breach of
fiduciary duty claims against the Caesars directors.  

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing
consummation of the Merger, damages in the event that the Merger is
consummated and attorneys' fees.

The parties to the litigation have an agreement in principle to
settle the claims. However, there can be no assurances that the
claims will be settled on the expected terms or at all.  

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming
operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars,
entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract
customers to its properties.


EVENFLO COMPANY: Kids' Booster Seats Not Safe, Xavier Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE XAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00053-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 12, 2020) is a class action for
damages and injunctive relief on his own behalf and all other
persons and entities nationwide who purchased a "Big Kid" booster
seat manufactured by Evenflo.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, to better compete with
the Evenflo's archrival Graco, Evenflo labeled and advertised its
"Big Kid" booster seats as "side-impact tested" and safe for
children as small as 30 pounds. But Evenflo's tests were
self-created and entirely unrelated to the actual forces in
side-impact collisions. Legitimate science and legitimate testing
reveals that the Big Kid booster seats provide dubious benefit to
children involved in side-impact collisions, especially those under
40 pounds.

Had Evenflo disclosed the results of its side-impact testing to the
public, no parent or guardian would have purchased a Big Kid
booster seat. Instead, Evenflo kept these tests secret, and
embarked on a disinformation campaign aimed at convincing millions
that its Big Kid booster seats are safe.

Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures and markets infant and juvenile
products. The Company offers juvenile travel systems, car seats,
strollers, child carriers, saucers, gates, jumpers, monitors, and
oral development items. Evenflo serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
          Telephone: (513) 345-8297
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Ted Wojcik, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tom@hbsslaw.com
                  tedw@hbsslaw.com


GOSSAMER BIO INC: Faces Kuhne Securities Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gossamer Bio, Inc.; Sheila Gujrathi, M.D.; Bryan
Giraudo; Faheem Hasnain; Joshua H. Bilenker, M.D.; Kristina Burow;
Russell Cox; Thomas Daniel, M.D.; Renee Gala; Otello Stampacchia,
Ph.D.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; SVB
Leerink LLC; Barclays Capital Inc.; and Evercore Group L.L.C., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., April 3, 2020), seeks to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Gossamer Bio, Inc. common stock between February
8, 2019, and December 13, 2020, inclusive, and/or who acquired
Gossamer shares pursuant or traceable to Gossamer's Registration
Statement and Prospectus in connection with its February 8, 2019
Initial Public Offering.

The Company's lead drug, GB001, is an oral antagonist of
prostaglandin D2 receptor 2, or DP2, in development for the
treatment of moderate-to-severe eosinophilic asthma and other
allergic conditions. Gossamer's GB001 product is in Phase 2
development for asthma and rhinosinusitis. In the IPO, Gossamer and
the underwriters sold 19,837,500 shares of common stock at an
initial public offering price of $16.00 per share, for a total
offering price of $317.4 million. Proceeds to the Company, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions, were $256.68 million. The
Defendants in this action consist of Gossamer, Gossamer executives
and directors, who signed the Registration Statement, and the
underwriters to the IPO.

In violation of the 1933 Act, the Plaintiff contends, the
Defendants issued untrue statements of material facts and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated from the Registration
Statement and accompanying and incorporated offering materials that
Gossamer filed with the SEC in support of the IPO. Specifically,
the Defendants misrepresented, inter alia, that: (1) a separate,
248-patient Phase 2 trial showed that neither GB001 nor asthma
treatment montelukast had met the primary endpoint for improvement
in asthma symptoms because of "study design and execution issues
related to patient selection, including adherence"; and (2) that
Novartis, who had a product that would compete against GB001 in the
works, had a successful Phase 2 trial that had clinically validated
DP2 antagonism.

In October 2019, Novartis announced that its fevipiprant product
had failed to improve long function in two Phase 3 trials, as
measured by FEV1, over placebo. On December 16, 2019, Novartis
announced that it was terminating the development of its DP2
antagonist fevipiprant for asthma after it failed another pair of
Phase 3 clinical trials. On this news, the stock plummeted from a
December 13, 2019 closing price of $25.37 per share to $15.96 per
share, a one day drop of $9.41 or over 37%. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired shares of Gossamer common stock at alleged
artificially inflated prices.

Gossamer is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering, acquiring, developing, and commercializing
therapeutics in the disease areas of immunology, inflammation, and
oncology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          Fax: (617) 507-6020


GRUBHUB INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grubhub 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 pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665.   

On November 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company, Chief
Executive Officer Matthew Maloney, and Chief Financial Officer Adam
DeWitt in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665.  

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on its allegation that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's growth, competitive
landscape, and strategy.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees, among other relief.  

The defendants believe that the complaint is without merit.  

Grubhub said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time."

Grubhub Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a leading online
and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders,
which the Company refers to as takeout. The Company connects more
than 300,000 restaurants with hungry diners in thousands of cities
across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout
experience. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


HABIT RESTAURANTS: Bounds & Company Sues over Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOUNDS & COMPANY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, INC.; A.
WILLIAM ALLEN III; RUSSELL W. BENDEL; IRA FILS; JOSEPH J. KADOW;
ALLAN W. KARP; CHRISTOPHER K. REILLY; KARIN TIMPONE; and IRA
ZECHER, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0124 (Del. Ch., Feb. 24, 2020) is
an action against Habit and its Board of Directors for their
breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the definitive merger
agreement (the "Merger Agreement") between and among Habit, YUM!
Brands, Inc. ("Parent"), and YEB Newco Inc. ("Merger Sub," and,
together with Parent, "YUM!").

On January 6, 2020, Habit issued a press release announcing that
the Board had caused the Company to enter into the Merger
Agreement. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company will be
acquired (the "Proposed Transaction") by Parent and YEB Newco Inc.
("Merger Sub") in exchange for $14 for each share of Habit common
stock (the "Merger Consideration").

On February 4, 2020, the Company filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Form PREM14A with the United States Securities &
Exchange Commission. On February 19, 2020, the Company filed a
Definitive Proxy Statement on Form DEFM14A (the "Proxy"), setting
the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for March 18,
2020. The Proxy is materially deficient and misleading because,
inter alia, it fails to disclose material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest faced by Company management and the
background of the Proposed Transaction. These material omissions
mean that Habit stockholders cannot make an informed vote on the
Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties
owed to Habit stockholders by the Individual Defendants.

The Habit Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates chain of restaurants.
The Company offers grilled chicken, salads, shakes, and burgers.
Habit Restaurants serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
          824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Tel: (202) 524-4290
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          E mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


HEAT AND CONTROL: Draughn Seeks OT Pay for Service Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE DRAUGHN, Plaintiff v. HEAT AND CONTROL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01402-ODE (N.D. Ga., March 31, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and all
others similarly-situated field service technicians at one-and-one
half times their regular hourly rate for each hour they worked in
excess of 40 hours during each work week as mandated by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Draughn was employed by Defendant as a field service technician
from March 5, 2018 through April 27, 2019.

Heat and Control, Inc. is a California-based manufacturer of food
processing and packaging equipment systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
          Michael A. Caldwell, Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN LLC     
          101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3150
          Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
          E-mail: benjamin@dcbflegal.com
                  michaelcaldwell@dcbflegal.com

HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Hann Suit Over Metformin Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/b/a AVET
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03415 (D.N.J.,
March 30, 2020) is a class action against regarding Defendant's
manufacturing, distribution, and sale of the generic medication
metformin that contains dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.

According to the complaint, Metformin is a prescription medication
that has been sold under brand names such as Glucophage.  Metformin
is used to control high blood sugar in patients with type 2
diabetes. However, Avet's manufacturing process has caused
metformin to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA.

Avet had not yet issued a recall of metformin and continues to tout
on its website that it manufactures "high quality generic
medicines." However, these representations are false, as
Defendant's metformin medication contains the carcinogenic impurity
NDMA.

Plaintiff and the Class were injured by the full purchase price of
their metformin medications. These medications are worthless, as
they contain harmful levels of NDMA. As the medications expose
users to NDMA well above the legal limit, the medications are not
fit for human consumption. Plaintiff is further entitled to
statutory damages, damages for the injury sustained in consuming
high levels of acutely-toxic NDMA, and for damages related to
Defendant's conduct.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a Avet Pharmaceuticals Inc., is
a manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals based in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
            Max S. Roberts, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.   
            888 Seventh Avenue
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (646) 837-7150
            Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
            Email: aobergfell@bursor.com
                   mroberts@bursor.com

                 – and -

            L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
            Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
            Walnut Creek, CA 94596
            Telephone: (925) 300-4455
            Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
            Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                   ndeckant@bursor.com

HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Wages and Repay Expenses, Almanzar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Almanzar, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00699-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., April 3,
2020), arises out of the Defendant's failure to pay wages for all
time worked, to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest
periods and to reimburse necessarily incurred business expenses.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide timely
and uninterrupted meal and rest periods to its California
non–exempt Traveling Merchandisers 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 Defendant failed to provide statutorily
mandated rest periods and timely off–duty meal periods; failed to
pay them overtime for work in excess of eight hours a day or 40
hours a week, failed to reimburse incurred necessary business
expenses, failed to furnish timely and accurate wage statements,
and, is in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid Night Team Merchandising Execution Associate.

The Defendant supplies tools and construction products and services
throughout 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
          Phone: 619.399.3995
          Fax: 619.615.2067
          Email: 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
          Phone: 888.474.7242
          Fax: 562.256.1006
          Email: walterhaines@yahoo.com


HORIZONTAL WELL: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION and WILBERT GLOVER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HORIZONTAL WELL DRILLERS, LLC, Case
No. Case 5:17-cv-00879-J (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Bernard M.
Jones denied a motion for class certification and dismissed,
without prejudice, the class claims, saying Plaintiff-Intervenor
lacks standing to pursue the class claims.

The Court said, "Plaintiff-Intervenor argues that he did suffer an
injury -- the disclosure of his private health information. The
Plaintiff-Intervenor frames the disclosure as an invasion of
privacy and argues that courts have long viewed such violations as
sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact. Plaintiff-Intervenor is
certainly correct that disclosure of confidential information can
amount to a potential injury. But Plaintiff-Intervenor has not
established that type of disclosure here. All of the cases cited by
Plaintiff-Intervenor deal with situations where private information
was disclosed without a parties' consent. Here, there is no
evidence that the information Plaintiff-Intervenor provided was
disclosed to anyone. Nor was the information gathered without
Plaintiff-Intervenor's consent. Even if the inquiries were
impermissible, Plaintiff-Intervenor simply cannot show that he
suffered -- or could suffer -- any harm stemming from the
inquiries. Therefore, Plaintiff-Intervenor fails to establish
standing regarding the class claims because he cannot show that he
suffered anything more than procedural violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Having determined that the
named plaintiff lacks standing, the Court will deny the motion for
certification and dismiss the class claims without prejudice."

Horizontal Well is an Oklahoma oil and gas drilling contractor.[CC]

III OFFICE RESOURCE: Underpays Warehouse Laborer, Cerda et al Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO CERDA, EDELMAN SANCHEZ, MARVIN LEONEL LOPEZ GRAMAJO, EDDIE
ESTIVER LAM YOC, and WILLIAM ALEXANDER LOPEZ SANCHEZ, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. III OFFICE
RESOURCE GROUP, INC. and PAUL ROSS LOWE III, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00249-ALM (E.D. Tex., March 25, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to perform warehouse labor,
furniture assembly, furniture delivery, and furniture installation
during the period of at least 2017 through 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs customarily worked more than
40 hours per week during the period of their employment, and
occasionally worked more than 55 hours per week. But, Defendants
allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals at overtime time-and-one-half rate for hours worked per
week in excess of 40 as required by the Federal FLSA.

Plaintiffs seek back-pay, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs, and all other relief that is just, reasonable, and
equitable.

Paul Ross Lowe III is the primary owner and President of the Office
Resource Group, was primarily in charge of the day-to-day
operations of the company, and was in charge of recording or
delegating the recording of the compensable work hours of the
company's employees, including Plaintiffs.

III Office Resource Group, Inc. is a corporation formed in Texas
that operates in commerce, selling, delivering, and installing new
and used office furniture. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St. Paul St., Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214)210-2100
          Fax: (214)346-5909
          Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com

                - and -

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


INSTRUCTURE INC: Post Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Instructure, 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 plaintiff in Post v.
Instructure, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00034, had voluntarily
dismissed the complaint.

Between January 13, 2020 and January 30, 2020, five lawsuits were
filed by purported stockholders of Instructure challenging the
proposed acquisition of Instructure by Thoma Bravo.

The first and second lawsuit, brought as putative class actions,
are captioned Post v. Instructure, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00034
(D. Del. filed Jan. 13, 2020) and Zhang v. Instructure, Inc., et
al., No. 1:20-cv-00042 (D. Del. filed Jan. 13, 2020).

The third, fourth, and fifth lawsuits, brought by the plaintiffs
individually, are captioned Bushansky v. Instructure, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:20-cv-00113 (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 16, 2020); Domenico v.
Instructure, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-00814 (D.N.J. filed Jan. 24,
2020); and Rubin v. Instructure, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-00193
(S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 30, 2020) (collectively, the "Complaints").

The Complaints name as defendants Instructure and each member of
the Board. The Complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder against all defendants, and assert violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.

The Zhang complaint additionally alleges claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and an aiding and
abetting claim against Instructure. The plaintiffs contend that
Instructure's revised definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC
on January 7, 2020 omitted or misrepresented material information
regarding the Merger.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory
damages, and an award of plaintiffs’ costs, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The Post and Rubin complaints also seek dissemination of a proxy
statement that discloses certain information requested by those
plaintiffs.

On February 5, 2020, Instructure filed an amendment to the Proxy
Statement, which contained certain supplemental disclosures
intended to moot plaintiffs’ disclosure claims.

On February 5, 2020, the plaintiff in the Post action voluntarily
dismissed his case.

Instructure said, "We believe the claims asserted in the complaints
are without merit, and that the outcome of these proceedings will
not have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, cash flows, or financial position. However, any
litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive
relief entered against us or any adverse settlement could
materially and adversely impact our business, results of
operations, financial condition, and prospects."

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Instructure, Inc. offers
cloud-based learning management platform for academic institutions
and companies worldwide. The Company's applications, Canvas that
serves the education market and Bridge that serves the corporate
market, enable its customers to develop, deliver and manage
face-to-face and online learning experiences.


INVITRX THERAPEUTICS: Dillard Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RONNIE DILLARD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. INVITRX THERAPEUTICS, INC. and
HABIB TORFI, and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00624 (C.D. Cal., March 30, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' scheme to improperly promote, market, and sell stem
cell related products from their Irvine, California headquarters to
consumers including the Plaintiff across the U.S.

Invitrx's customers are typically sick, disabled, and severely
impaired individuals for whom conventional medicine and medical
procedures offer little or no hope. Invitrx preyed and continues to
prey upon these unsuspecting individuals by touting its products as
nothing less than "breakthrough technologies" that "have led to the
creation of numerous life-changing cell therapy products."

In addition to touting the alleged near-miraculous properties of
its products, Invitrx also provides detailed "Quality Assurance" of
its cord-blood stem cell (CBSC) products.

Plaintiff contends that Invitrx knew its processing and testing
operations were inadequate and that Invitrx willfully ignored
warning signs regarding its operating standards and source
products. Plaintiff was the recipient and victim of an injection of
one such potentially adulterated and recalled lot of CBSCs.
Plaintiff further believes that Invitrx has sold many more
contaminated products and has done so for a longer period of time
than its recall suggests.

Invitrx Therapeutics Inc. is a biotechnology company specializing
in the culture and engineering of adult stem cells by which we
develop innovative products and therapies that are used in
aesthetics, wound closure, and healing as well as plastic and
reconstructive surgery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
            Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
            Shannon F. Nocon, Esq.
            SCHACK LAW GROUP
            16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
            San Diego, CA  92127
            Telephone: (858) 485-6535
            Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
            Email: alexschack@schacklawgroup.com
                   natashaserino@schacklawgroup.com
                   shannonnocon@schacklawgroup.com

                 – and -

            Derek Gilliland, Esq.
            R. Daniel Sorey, Esq.
            John Hull, Esq.
            SORREY, GILLILAND & HULL, LLP
            109 W. Tyler St.
            Longview, TX 75601
            Telephone: (903) 212-2822
            Facsimile: (903) 212-2864
            Email: Derek@SoreyLaw.com
                   Dan@SoreyLaw.com
                   John@SoreyLaw.com

                 – and -

            Timothy Micah Dortch, Esq.
            POTTS LAW FIRM
            2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., #1000
            Dallas, TX 75219
            Telephone: (214) 396-9429
            Email: mdortch@potts-law.com

J2 GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Davis Neurology P.A. Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's affiliates have
moved to dismiss the amended pleading in the class action suit
initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A..  

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the
District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed
by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2
Global affiliates. On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to district court with
instructions to return the case to state court.

On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case
was remanded to the Arkansas state court. On April 1, 2019, the
state court granted a motion for class certification filed by the
plaintiff in 2016.

Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state
court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed
an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion.

The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order. On July 15, 2019, the
J2 Global affiliates removed the case to federal court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On November 26, 2019, the
court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On December 20,
2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
its complaint. The J2 Global affiliates have moved to dismiss the
amended pleading.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.


KAYDEX PTE: Clifford Sues to Recover Costs Paid for KNC Tokens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Clifford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KAYDEX PTE. LTD., LOI LUU, VICTOR TRAN, and
YARON VELNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-02812 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), is
brought on behalf of investors, who purchased Kyber Network Crystal
tokens in the United States, to recover the consideration paid for
the KNC tokens, together with interest thereon, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

Various digital assets can reside on blockchains, including
cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as
so-called "smart contracts" that operate under a set of
predetermined conditions agreed to by users. Certain of these
digital tokens are classified as "utility tokens" and are
associated with particular projects. Their primary purpose is to
allow the holder to use or access the associated project. Other
tokens are more speculative and are referred to as "security
tokens," and like a traditional security essentially represent
one's investment in a project. Although they take value from the
startup behind the project, they do not give the holder ownership
in that startup. Rather, investors purchase these tokens with the
idea that their value will increase as the network in which the
token can be used is expanded based upon the managerial efforts of
the issuer and those developing the project. Because such "security
tokens" are properly classified as securities under federal and
state law, the issuers of these tokens, including Kyber Network,
were required to file registration statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Kyber Network, however, failed to do so, the Plaintiff alleges. By
selling these unregistered tokens to investors, Kyber Network
reaped millions of dollars in profits, the Plaintiff contends.

According to the complaint, the scheme worked as follows: First,
Kyber Network issued a "whitepaper" to investors that described in
highly technical terms the supposed utility to which KNC would be
placed. The Kyber Network whitepaper, however, omitted the
disclosures that securities laws and the SEC have long deemed
essential to investor protections in initial public offerings,
including use of "plain English" to describe the offering; a
required list of key risk factors; a description of key information
and incentives concerning management; warnings about relying on
forward-looking statements; an explanation of how the proceeds from
the offering would be used; and a standardized format that
investors could readily follow. Without these critical disclosures,
investors in KNC tokens were thus left to fend for
themselves--precisely the opposite of what the securities laws
require.

The Plaintiff alleges that Kyber Network did not disclose at
issuance that KNC was a security. In fact, the Kyber Network
whitepaper expressly stated that its protocol that relied on the
KNC token would allow "instant exchange and conversion of digital
assets (e.g. crypto tokens) and cryptocurrencies (e.g. Ether,
Bitcoin, ZCash) with high liquidity." Although Kyber Network
described the KNC tokens as something other than securities, they
were securities. This was not clear to a reasonable investor at
purchase, however, and would not have been reasonably apparent
until, at the earliest, April 3, 2019, when the SEC released a
detailed "Framework" to analyze digital assets, indicating that KNC
and other similar digital tokens are "investment contracts" and
therefore securities under Section 2 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the
consideration paid for the KNC tokens with interest thereon at the
legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of purchase, says the complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Class
brings claims to recover the consideration paid for the KNC tokens,
together with interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff purchased KNC, an unregistered security.

Kyber Network describes itself as an "on-chain liquidity protocol
that aggregates liquidity from a wide range of reserves, powering
instant and secure token exchange in any decentralized
application."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
          David Coon, Esq.
          Michelle Foxman, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10104
          Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
                 jgoldstein@selendygay.com
                 dcoon@selendygay.com
                 mfoxman@selendygay.com

               - and -

          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          Edward Normand, Esq.
          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Delich, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Email: kyle@rcfllp.com
                 tnormand@rcfllp.com
                 vel@rcfllp.com
                 jdelich@rcfllp.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Hollywood Cops Retirement System Sues over Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, 3G CAPITAL PARTNERS, 3G
CAPITAL, INC., 3G GLOBAL FOOD HOLDINGS, L.P., 3G GLOBAL FOOD
HOLDINGS GP LP, 3G CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, 3G CAPITAL PARTNERS II LP,
3G CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD., BERNARDO HEES, PAULO BASILIO, and
ALEXANDRE BEHRING, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01970 (N.D. Ill.,
March 25, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Sections 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

Plaintiff has purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Kraft
Heinz Company common stock during the period from July 2, 2015 to
November 4, 2015.

The complaint stems from a joint press release issued on March 25,
2015 announcing the agreed merger between Kraft Foods Group and
H.J. Heinz Company and telling the investors that the combined
company would have "significant synergy opportunities."

Allegedly, the press release statements as well as Heinz's final
amended registration statement and proxy statement filed with SEC
on June 2, 2015 were false and misleading because it did not
disclose the truth that the aim of the merger was to slash costs
indiscriminately, and definitely not to generate long-term and
sustainable growth nor maximizing long-term value for its
shareholders.

Moreover, the truth came to light when Kraft CEO Miguel Patricio
admitted to investors in August 2019 that Kraft Heinz had been
suffering from double-digit losses in its global supply chain and
that the Company would have undergo a "fundamental change" in order
to finally "pursue organic growth." This revelation has
consequently made Kraft Heinz's stock declined.

The complaint asserts that Defendants employed devices, schemes,
and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale
of Kraft Heinz common shares; and made untrue statements of
material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made not misleading.

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages by paying
artificially inflated prices for Kraft Heinz common stock.

Kraft Heinz manufactures food and beverages in North America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: +1 646 722 8500
          Fax: +1 646 722 8501
          Emails: dberger@gelaw.com
                  cmoyna@gelaw.com

                - and –

           Karyn L. Bass Ehler, Esq.
           GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
           30 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2350
           Chicago, IL 60602
           Tel: +1 312 610 5350
           Fax: +1 312 214 0001
           Email: kbassehler@gelaw.com


LANDSTAR RANGER: Misclassifies Truck Drivers, McDaniel Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JERRY MCDANIEL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. LANDSTAR RANGER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01993 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2020) is a
putative class action arising out of the Defendant's unlawful
scheme of misclassifying its over-the-road truck drivers as
independent contractor "owner operators," rather than employees.

According to the complaint, Landstar is the legal employer of the
drivers but has labeled them as independent contractor "owner
operators." The distinction between an independent contractor and
an employee is critical because the State of Illinois provides
certain protection to employees, but not independent contractors,
under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).

Further, Landstar is using an unlawful misclassification scheme to
pass its own costs of doing business onto the drivers, thereby
evading critical protections it owes to the drivers as their legal
employer, under the IWPCA.

Landstar is a freight and cargo company providing trucking services
in Illinois and across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
            Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
            The Law Offices of Michael M. Mulder
            1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600
            Evanston, IL 60201
            Telephone: (312) 263-0272
            Email: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
                   eliveris@mmulderlaw.com

                         – and -

            Joshua Konecky, Esq.
            Leslie Joyner, Esq.
            Nathan Piller, Esq.
            SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
            2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
            Emeryville, CA 94608
            Telephone: (415) 421-7100
            Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
            Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                   ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
                   npiller@schneiderwallace.com

LIBERTY OILFIELD: Faces Joseph Securities Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Joseph, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES INC., CHRISTOPHER A. WRIGHT,
MICHAEL STOCK, CARY D. STEINBECK, WILLIAM F. KIMBLE, PETER A. DEA,
N. JOHN LANCASTER, JR., BRETT STAFFIERI, KEN BABCOCK, JESAL SHAH,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., TUDOR,
PICKERING, HOLT & CO. SECURITIES, LLC, HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL,
INC., INTREPID PARTNERS, LLC, PETRIE PARTNERS SECURITIES, LLC,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., RIC ENERGY IV DIRECT PARTNERSHIP,
L.P., and RIC IV LIBERTY HOLDINGS, L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-00946 (D.
Colo., April 3, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Liberty Oilfield's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with Liberty Oilfield's January 17, 2018
initial public offering.

On February 14, 2017, Liberty Oilfield filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 which
in combination with subsequent amendments on Forms F-1/A and filed
pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4), would be used for the IPO. On January
16, 2018, Liberty Oilfield filed with the SEC the final prospectus
for the IPO of common stock on Form 424B4, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, Liberty Oilfield sold 14.6
million shares at $17.00 per share. The Company received gross
proceeds of approximately of $220.4 million in offering proceeds,
after deducting $23.4 million of underwriting discounts,
commissions, and other costs.

By the commencement of this action, Liberty Oilfield's shares trade
significantly below its IPO price, the Plaintiff alleges. As a
result, investors were damaged, the Plaintiff adds.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was
an oversupply in the hydraulic fracturing services market; (2) the
Company's pricing power was weak; (3) the Company's services were
not increasing and its competition was not decreasing; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 5, 2020, Liberty Oilfield issued a press release
announcing disappointing results for the fourth quarter and full
year of 2019. In particular, the Company announced a quarterly loss
of $0.15 per share compared to consensus estimates of only $0.04
per share. Revenue was only $398 million, a decrease of 23%
quarter-over quarter. The price of Liberty Oilfield's securities
has plummeted since the IPO. Liberty Oilfield securities have
traded significantly lower than the IPO price of $17.00 per share.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Liberty Oilfield's
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Liberty Oilfield securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO.

Liberty Oilfield purports to be a provider of hydraulic fracturing
services to onshore oil and natural gas exploration and production
("E&P") companies in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, 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


LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGIES: Owen et al. Sue over Special Board Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY OWEN, PALM INVESTMENTS, LLC, BB INVESCOR I, LLC, for itself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively
and on behalf of nominal defendant LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and BHARAT BHISE, Plaintiffs v. DAMIAN KASSAB; BRUCE CAMPBELL; PAUL
SHAMO; MARTIN DIFIORE; MICHAEL MCCLEAR; and LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2020-0219 (Del. Ch., March 23, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary
duties to Lightning Technologies by holding a Special Board Meeting
without proper notice and without providing Plaintiffs with correct
call-in information necessary in order to participate in the Board
Meeting.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent an Outlook
invitation via email to the board members, including the
Plaintiffs, on March 12, 2020 to announce that a special board
meeting will be held on March 18, 2020. However, during the time
for the call, the Plaintiffs cannot connect to the meeting because
the dial-in number and access code provided to them did not work.
Despite their efforts to reach other board members, including
Kassab, via email that they were not able to join the meeting, they
did not receive any response.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim that the board meeting was used by
Defendants to elect DiFiore and McClear, Kassab's business partners
at Solyco, LLC, as board members, which was made in violation of
the Lightning Technologies' Bylaws and Voting Agreement.

Palm Investments, LLC is a limited liability company that offers
commodities and futures trading investment services.

BB Invescor I, LLC is an investment company owned by Bharat Bhise
and his son, Aditya Bhise.

Lightning Technologies, LLC is a manufacturer of pallet
technologies based in Oxford, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Bonkowski, Esq.
          Andrew L. Cole, Esq.
          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410
          Wilmington, DE 19801          
          Telephone: (302) 651-2002
          Facsimile: (302) 574-2102
          E-mail: mbonkowski@coleschotz.com

               - and -
           
          Patrick F. Hickey, Esq.
          Mark E. Hauck, Esq.
          HICKEY HAUCK BISHOFF & JEFFERS P.C.
          1 Woodward, Ave., Suite 2000
          Detroit, MI 48226          
          Telephone: (313) 964-8600
          Facsimile: (313) 964-8601
          E-mail: phickey@hhbjlaw.com
                  mhauck@hhbjlaw.com

               - and -
           
          Brett A. Rendeiro, Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG
          Stoneridge West
          41000 Woodward Ave.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304          
          Telephone: (248) 258-1616
          Facsimile: (248) 258-1439
          E-mail: rendeiro@butzel.com

LIN'S GARDEN: Underpays Restaurant Delivery Staff, Hong Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YINGCAI HONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. LIN'S GARDEN RESTAURANT INC.,
d/b/d LIN'S ASIAN CUISINE; NEW DYNASTY CHINESE RESTAURANT LLC,
d/b/a DYNASTY; HUAYONG LIN; LIANRONG HUANG; and RU HAI LIN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02633 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay the Plaintiff and all similarly-situated employees the mandated
minimum wages rates for all hours worked, failure to reimburse for
expenses incurred to delivery experts on the road, and failure to
compensate overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as deliveryman from on or
about April 26, 2019 to January 31, 2020.

Lin's Garden Restaurant Inc. is a restaurant operator with a
principal address at 1506 Bronxdale Avenue, Bronx, New York. It is
also doing business as Lin's Asian Cuisine.

New Dynasty Chinese Restaurant LLC is a Chinese restaurant company
with principal place of business at 1470 East Avenue, Bronx, New
York. It is also known as Dynasty. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Leanghour Lim, Esq.
          TROY LAW PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355          
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

LIVENT CORP: Suits over 2018 IPO Underway in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
Livent 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 company continues to
defend class action suits related to its October 2018 initial
public offering (IPO).

Beginning on May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed putative class action complaints in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with the
Company's October 2018 initial public offering (IPO).

On August 20, 2019, the actions then pending in federal court were
consolidated under the caption, Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-02218.

In an order entered on September 23, 2019, the actions then pending
in state court were consolidated under the caption,In re Livent
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2019-0501229.

The operative complaints in both the state and federal actions
assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and
former executives and directors, in connection with the Company's
October 2018 IPO.

The actions also name as defendants the underwriters in the IPO and
FMC Corporation, whom the Company is generally obligated to
indemnify. The complaints allege generally that the offering
documents for the IPO failed to adequately disclose certain
information related to the Company's business and prospects, in
purported violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and/or 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  

The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.

On October 11, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the state action
in its entirety, and on November 18, 2019, defendants moved to
dismiss the federal action in its entirety.

Briefing on the motions is complete, but the courts have not yet
ruled.

Pursuant to an order of the state court dated October 22, 2019,
discovery in the state action is stayed pending further order of
the Court.

By operation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
discovery in the federal action is stayed pending a ruling on
Defendants' motion to dismiss that action. At this point, a range
of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated by the
Company.

Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. Its produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.


LOWE'S HOME: Underpays Managers, Ceniceros et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------
APRIL CENICEROS; EUFRONIO LOMIBAO II; and JAKE MIRES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
37-2020-00010047-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Feb. 24,
2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as managers.

Lowe's Home Centers Inc. retails home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances. The Company markets lumber, garden
tools and supplies, home electrical devices, electrical components,
ceilings, wall panels, hardwood flooring, fasteners, fireplaces,
and humidifiers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-2126
          Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
          E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jthompson@sommerspc.com


LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Lyft, 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 several class action suits alleging violation of securities
laws in connection with its initial public offering (IPO).

Beginning in April 2019, several putative class actions were filed
in California state and federal court against the company, its
directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters
named in the company's IPO Registration Statement alleging
violation of securities laws in connection with the company's IPO.


These cases have been consolidated into two putative class actions,
one in California state court and the other in federal court.

The company filed its demurrer to the consolidated complaint in
California state court on December 30, 2019. The hearing on the
company's demurrer is set for March 25, 2020. A scheduling order in
the federal case has yet to be issued.

Lyft said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend against them."

Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers
ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in
San Francisco California.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Fails to Pay Workers' Service Charge, Kraft Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Kraft, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and NFNY HOTEL MANAGEMENT
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-02789 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), alleges that
the Defendants have longstanding policies and practices, which fail
to properly compensate all non-exempt service workers for service
charge payments remitted to them as wages, in violation of the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants impose mandatory "service charge" and/or "delivery
fee" surcharges on the sale of food and beverages to their
customers, but fail to distribute the total proceeds of those
service fee surcharges to non-managerial service employees as
required by New York law. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated workers are denied payment for all service fees charges to
customers that are reasonably perceived to be meant as gratuity
payments, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a food and beverage server by the
Defendants at the Sheraton Niagara Falls in New York from 2012 to
September 2019.

The Defendants each individually and/or jointly own, operate,
and/or manage hotels, restaurants, and resorts throughout New York
and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Phone: (510) 740-2946
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Kristabel Sanchez, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                 ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 338-2560
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com


MAX INSURANCE: Faces Wilson Suit in Southern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Max Insurance Agency,
Inc. The case is captioned as TIM WILSON, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAX INSURANCE
AGENCY, INC., d/b/a Mutualaid Exchange, Case No.
2:20-cv-00807-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 12, 2020). The case is
assigned to Judge Michael H. Watson and referred to Magistrate
Judge Kimberly A. Jolson.

MutualAid eXchange (MAX) operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides auto, home, business, church, farm and life
insurance services. MAX serves customers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
          WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
          2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
          Thornville, OH 43076
          Telephone: (740) 785-7730
          Facsimile: (740) 205-8898
          E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend class action suits in Colorado and in Canada alleging
violation of the federal securities laws.

On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the District Court of Colorado (the "Colorado Action"), naming
Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other
things, that the Company’s public disclosures were deficient in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary
damages. On August 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.

On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members
of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or
misleading during the class period.

On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado
Action, which motion is currently pending.

Also in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued
a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar
Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming
misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and seeking
monetary damages. This action was later discontinued.

On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder
resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit
captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management
and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's
auditor, KPMG LLP.

On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 claim was discontinued. The
Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements regarding
the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets,
and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class
period, and claims damages of $700 million.

The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Class Action in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar
Technologies Inc., et al. No. T19-074.

On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al.
No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara (the "California Action"), naming Maxar, and
certain members of management and the board of directors as
defendants.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2,
2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of
its October 17, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe.

The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual
allegations as the Colorado Action.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements
regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those
related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or
misleading when made.

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

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

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.


MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INC: Faces Gilmore FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Trent Gilmore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INCORPORATED (DBA AMERICAN SEALS WEST,
INC.); GARY HENDRYX, JUSTIN HENDRYX, DEB C. HALL, and DOES 1
through 20, Case No. 2:20-at-00344 (E.D. Cal., April 3, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act over
unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have refused to pay the
wages due and owed to him and other non-exempt employees employed
by, or formerly employed by the Defendants. As a result of these
violations, the Defendants have violated the FLSA, as well as
provisions of California labor laws, which in turn has resulted in
additional violations entitling the Plaintiff to prompt payment of
wages and penalties, and entitling him to seek civil penalties
pursuant to PAGA, on behalf of the State of California, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a master lapper and
soft foreman in Ceres, California, in Stanislaus County.

McMillan-Hendryx Incorporated, a California corporation,
specializes in making and repairing mechanical seals, and making
gaskets, pumps, valves, and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Leanna M. Sac, 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
                 LMSac@TheMMLAwFirm.com


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 24, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit involving the
acquisition of Covidien PLC.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and
reversed in part. On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court
granted the Company's petition to review the issue of whether most
of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or
derivative under Minnesota law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are
ongoing.

Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters."

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

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, 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 against a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram
made material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") in
October 2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement (the
"DPA") that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of
Justice in November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter.

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

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS: Winters Sues in Arizona Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgage Solutions of
Colorado. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mortgage
Solutions of Colorado LLC d/b/a Mortgage Solutions Financial, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00665-SRB (D. Ariz., April 2, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Mortgage Solutions of Colorado, LLC, provides mortgage financing
services. The Company offers home loans, debt consolidations, and
refinancing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (602) 900-1288
          Email: david@kazlg.com
                 ryan@kazlg.com


MYLAN NV: Class Cert. Bid in EpiPen(R) Purchaser Suit Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 Kansas district court
overseeing the class action suit initiated by indirect purchasers
of EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector has issued an order denying in part and
granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named
as defendants in putative indirect purchaser class actions relating
to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law
claims.

Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.

A Mylan officer and other non-Mylan affiliated companies were also
named as defendants in some of the class actions. These lawsuits
were filed in the various federal and state courts and have either
been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and
have been consolidated. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part. On December 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification.

On February 27, 2020, the District Court issued an order denying in
part and granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The Court declined to certify consumer protection
and unjust enrichment damages classes, as well as an injunctive
relief class. The Court certified an antitrust class that applies
to 17 states and a RICO class.

Mylan said, "We are evaluating our options for a potential appeal.
A trial date has been scheduled for April 2021. We believe that the
remaining claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Class Certification Bid in New York Suit Unopposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 defendants in the
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector related class suit filed a non-opposition
to plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their current and
former directors and officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. on the
NASDAQ.

The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the maximum
drug retail prices (MDRP). The complaints sought damages, as well
as the plaintiffs' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially
similar relief, but adding allegations that defendants made false
or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact
in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect
to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both federal securities laws (on behalf of a
purported class of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.
and/or Mylan Inc. on the NASDAQ) and Israeli securities laws (on
behalf of a purported class of certain purchasers of securities of
Mylan N.V. on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange).

On March 28, 2018, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was granted in part (including the dismissal of
claims arising under Israeli securities laws) and denied in part.

On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
including certain current and former directors and officers and
additional allegations in connection with purportedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and
certain generic drugs. On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted in part
and denied in part on March 29, 2019.

On June 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
including certain current and former directors and
employees/officers and additional allegations in connection with
purportedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to certain generic
drugs. On July 31, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims in the third amended complaint, which remains
pending.

On August 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which remains pending.

On December 9, 2019, defendants filed a non-opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which noted that the
parties continue to dispute the end date of the class period, an
issue that will be resolved by the pending motion to dismiss
certain of the claims in the third amended complaint.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Class Suit over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 over personal injuries related to
valsartan.

Mylan N.V., and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous
other manufacturers, retailers and others, have been named (or
plaintiffs are seeking to name certain Mylan entities) as
defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Canada and other
countries stemming from recalls of valsartan-containing
medications.

The United States litigation, which is taking place in an
multi-district litigation in the District of New Jersey, includes
class action and individual allegations seeking the refund of the
purchase price and other economic damages allegedly sustained by
consumers who purchased valsartan-containing products as well as
claims for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the
medication. Moreover, Mylan has received requests to indemnify
purchasers of Mylan's active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or
finished dose forms of the product.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Faces EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Direct Purchasers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 Mylan Specialty and other
Mylan-affiliated entities, together with other non-Mylan affiliated
companies, have been named as defendants in a putative direct
purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2020.  The plaintiff asserts
federal antitrust claims which are based on allegations that are
similar to those in the putative indirect purchaser class actions.


Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 IEC Fund securities
action remains stayed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic
Division) until a judgment is issued in a securities litigation
pending in the United States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and
officers, in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) (the
"Friedman Action).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the MDRP, in violation of both U.S. and Israeli securities laws,
the Israeli Companies Law and the Israeli Torts Ordinance.

The plaintiff seeks damages, among other remedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law
(the "IEC Fund Action").

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the
IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the purported class
action securities litigation pending in the U.S.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


NANTHEALTH INC: June 15 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, 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 hearing for final
approval of the settlement in the case, Deora v. NantHealth, Inc.,
2:17-cv-01825, is scheduled for June 15, 2020.

In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its current or former executive officers and directors.


These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case
captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. ("Deora") In
June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement
and in subsequent public statements.

In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles
in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business
with the University of Utah, donations to the university by
non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr.
Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer.

The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired
NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1,
2016 through May 1, 2017.

In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 30, 2019, the
court certified the case as a class action. On October 23, 2019,
the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement
in principle to resolve the action on a classwide basis in the
amount of $16.5 million, which is included in accrued and other
current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December
31, 2019.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January
31, 2020, and a hearing for final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for June 15, 2020.

NantHealth said, "The majority of the settlement amount will be
funded by the Company's insurance carriers, and a portion will be
funded by the Company. The settlement is contingent upon certain
matters, including final approval by the court. Also, the parties
have the right to terminate the settlement in certain
circumstances."

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NANTHEALTH INC: Retirement Fund's Suit Stayed Until May 7
---------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, 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 Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330,
have agreed to stay the case until the next case management
conference, scheduled for May 7, 2020.

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.

That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330.

The parties have agreed to stay the case until the next case
management conference, scheduled for May 7, 2020.

The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces ERISA Suit From Retirees
-------------------------------------------------
The case, Ryan Sweeney and Bryan Marshall, as individuals, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
Nationwide Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, vs. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company; Nationwide Life Insurance Company; the Human
Resources Committee of the Boards of Directors of Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company; the Investment Committee of the Nationwide
Savings Plan; the Administrative Committee of the Nationwide
Savings Plan; and John and Jane Does 1-60, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01569 (S.D. Ohio, March 26, 2020) is a civil enforcement
action brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for violations of
ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions provisions.

The complaint is about the prohibited transfer of employees'
retirement assets to Defendants and the detrimental effect these
transfers had on Plaintiffs' retirement security.

The case asserts that ERISA fiduciaries are bound to act with an
"eye single" to the interest of the plan participants and
beneficiaries to whom they owe a duty. Defendants in this case
violated that bedrock principle by favoring the economic interests
of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company over those of the Plan
participants to whom they owe the highest duty.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is an Ohio-based insurance and
financial services company, focusing on domestic property and
casualty insurance, life insurance and retirement savings, asset
management and strategic investments.

Nationwide Life Insurance Company is a stock life insurance company
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
            ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
            5077 Waterford Drive, Suite 302
            Elyria, OH 44035
            Telephone: (216) 771-1000
            Email: eric@zagrans.com

                    – and –

            Karen Handorf, Esq.
            Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
            Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
            Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.    
            Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
            1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
            Washington, DC 20005
            Telephone: (202) 408-4600

NATURAL LIFE: Faces Gardenhire ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
LANCE GARDENHIRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURAL LIFE COLLECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00140-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla., Feb. 12,
2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is assigned to Judge Brian J. Davis and referred to Magistrate
Judge Monte C. Richardson.

Natural Life Collections, Inc. was founded in 1995. The company's
line of business includes the wholesale distribution of non-durable
goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEILMED PHARMA: Cooper Seeks to Certify Class of Fax Recipients
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RUTH ANN COOPER, D.P.M.,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:16-cv-00945-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all successful recipients of the P3990 Fax which can be
      ascertained entirely from WestFax's broadcast records";

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

   3. appointing Montgomery Jonson LLP as class counsel.

This case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act or Junk Fax Prevention Act.

NeilMed manufactures and supplies saline nasal irrigation systems.
The company offers products such as nasal and ear care, first aid,
sterile saline and nasal decongestant spray, dry noses, and other
devices and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 768-5227
          E-mail: gjonson@mojolaw.com
                  mstubbs@mojolaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ross Good, Esq.
          Ryan Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Nix Amended TV Ads Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
and strike the second amended consolidated complaint in the class
action suit entitled, In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust
Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785, is pending.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.  

The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.  

On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").  On
January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs’ lead and liaison counsel. The MDL Litigation is
ongoing.

The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019.  

Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019.  This
complaint added additional defendants and allegations.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8,
2019.  

That motion is currently pending. Nexstar and Tribune deny the
allegations against them and will defend their advertising
practices.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


NMC HEALTH: Faces Huang Suit Over 64% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
SHENGMING HUANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NMC HEALTH PLC, PRASANTH MANGHAT, KHALIFA
BIN BUTTI, PRASHANTH SHENOY, H. J. MARK TOMPKINS, and B. R. SHETTY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02895 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2020) is a
class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded NMC securities between March 13,
2016 and March 10, 2020, inclusive which seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Muddy Waters Capital LLC published a report explaining that NMC had
misled investors and failed to disclose: (i) its lack of internal
controls; (ii) (de facto) related party transactions; (iii) its
true debt burden; (iv) its true cash-on hand and asset values; and
(v) its use of reverse factoring. The Report noted that NMC's
build-out costs of NMC Royal Women's Hospital were double the
market price -- as opposed to NMC's continued statements regarding
its internal controls and lack of improper related party
transactions.

According to the Report, following the Aspen acquisition, NMC has
not included the approximately $320 million finance leases the
Company inherited. The Report claims that this is in addition to
the $352.2 million of operating leases which NMC failed to include
in its Annual Report 2018 but then disclosed in its H1 2019.
Moreover, the Report claims that the undiscounted liability NMC
holds from the Aspen acquisition is approximately $450 million, not
$350 million.

On this news, NMC ADSs fell $3.28 per ADS, or almost 64%, to close
at $1.85 per ADS on March 10, 2020, further damaging investors.

The case further states that Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class would not have purchased NMC securities at the artificially
inflated prices that they did, or at all, if they have been aware
that the market price of NMC securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements and by the
material adverse information which Defendants did not disclose.

NMC Health PLC provides healthcare services in the United Arab
Emirates, the United Kingdom, Spain, and internationally. The
Company purports to offer medical services as well as research and
medical services in the field of gynecology, obstetrics, and human
reproduction; and management services to hospitals, as well as
retail pharmaceutical goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
            POMERANTZ LLP  
            1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90024
            Telephone: (310) 405-7190
            Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                         – and -  

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

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has filed
an agreed motion asking a district court in Tel Aviv, Israel to
stay class action proceedings in Israel until a final decision in
the class action suit initiated by Mac Costas in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada is adjudicated.

On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in
Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11
officers and directors.  

The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat
shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and
May 13, 2018".

The motion alleges that the Company violated  Sections 31(a)(1) and
38C of the Israeli Securities Law because it allegedly: (1) misled
investors by stating in its financial statements that it maintains
effective internal controls over its accounting policies and
procedures, however the Company's internal controls had material
weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited
quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to
the Company's net income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed
to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018,
analogous to the report that was released in the United States on
May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial
reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its
2017 annual report.

The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court
to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the
U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.

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

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.


PADGETT LAW: Faces Cherefrere Suit over Debt Collection Protocol
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, YOLINE CHEREFRERE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. TIMOTHY D. PADGETT, PA D/B/A PADGETT
LAW GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-60676 (S.D. Fla., March 31,
2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a debt
collection letter from the Defendant on January 16, 2020 informing
her that the Defendant represents Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
regarding a loan that is collateralized by a mortgage on her
property. The Plaintiff was also advised that the letter's purpose
is to inform that her loan is in default and has been sent to the
Defendant for legal proceedings. However, the Plaintiff claims that
the letter failed to provide with a detailed validation notice,
which allows her to confirm that she owes the debt sought by the
collector before paying it, as required by the FDCPA.

Moreover, the demand of the Defendant that she needs to make a
payment of $14,578.40 within 10 days caused confusion as she was
also advised on the letter that she had 30 days to dispute the
debt. The contradiction and confusion on the Defendant's written
communication also violated the FDCPA provision.

Timothy D. Padgett, PA is a debt collection company with its
principal office in Leon County, Florida. It is also doing business
as Padgett Law Group. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

PARK SAN BAL: Misclassifies and Underpays Workers, Chom Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CHOM, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARK SAN BAL INC. (DBA Parksanbal Babs) and
CHIN S. CHOE (individually), Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01595
(E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2020) is a collective and class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Wage
Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from the Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendants who were ostensibly employed as an all-around worker, a
busboy, kitchen helper and dishwasher, and regularly works for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- appropriately compensate Plaintiff and the Class for any of
the overtime hours they worked;

     -- pay them the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which they have to work over 10 hours a day; and

     -- maintain accurate recordkeeping for all hours worked by
Plaintiff and the Class as required by the FLSA and the NYLL.

Chin S. Choe operates and controls Park San Bal Inc. and employs
Plaintiff.

Park San Bal Inc. operates a construction contracting company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Tel: (212)203-2417
          Website: www.FightForUrRights.com


PAYSIGN INC: Chase Sues over Misleading Info & Securities Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORNA CHASE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYSIGN, INC., MARK NEWCOMER, and MARK
ATTINGER, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00585-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.,
March 25, 2020) is a federal securities class action brought
against Defendants for their alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff has purchased Paysign securities between March 12, 2019
and March 15, 2020.

According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies when it changed its name from 3PEA
International Inc. to Paysign, Inc. on April 23, 2019. Allegedly,
Defendants failed to disclose that its internal control over
financial reporting and information technology general controls
were not effective.

Moreover, Paysign's stock price fell $0.93 per share on March 16,
2020 when it announced during pre-market hours that it would be
unable to file its annual financial report with the SEC in a timely
fashion because of an ongoing audit of its internal controls over
financial reporting and IT general controls.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered losses and damages due to Defendant's wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline of Paysign securities'
market value.

Paysign Inc. provides prepaid card programs and processing services
under the PaySign brand to corporations, government agencies,
universities, and other organizations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
          MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          7915 West Sahara Ave., Ste. 104
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Tel: (702)330-4505
          Fax: (702)825-0141
          Email: Andrew@mlolegal.com

                - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212)661-1100
          Emails: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

                - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle St., Ste. 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: (312)377-1181
          Fax: (312)377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

                - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Tel: (770)392-0090
          Fax: (770)392-0029
          Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits over Andexanet Alfa Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portola Pharmaceuticals, 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
has been named as a defendant in two class action suits related to
the sales of andexanet alfa.

On January 16, 2020, a stockholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, captioned Hayden v.
Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-00367-VC (N.D.
Cal.).  

On February 7, 2020, another stockholder filed a related putative
class action against Defendants, captioned McCutcheon v. Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-00949 (N.D. Cal.).

The stockholder plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act by making
misrepresentations and omissions in public disclosures concerning
the Company's sales of andexanet alfa, marketed as Andexxa in the
United States and Ondexxya in Europe, between May 8, 2019 and
January 9, 2020.  

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements about the demand for Andexxa,
and usage of Andexxa by hospitals and healthcare organizations.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements about the Company's accounting for its
reserve for returns, and that the Defendants failed to disclose
that the Company was shifting from a short-dated version of Andexxa
to a longer-dated version, impacting the reserve for returns and
impacting revenue for the Company.

The Plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud was revealed on
January 9, 2020, when the Company announced its preliminary
unaudited financial results for the fourth quarter of 2019.  A lead
plaintiff has not yet been appointed, and the Company has not yet
responded to the complaints.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Portola said, "Given the early stage of these proceedings, we
cannot presently predict the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of
the case, nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss at
this time."

Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics in the areas of thrombosis, other hematologic diseases
and inflammation for patients who currently have limited or no
approved treatment options. The company's headquarters is located
in South San Francisco, California.


PROFESSIONAL ROOFING: Underpays Employees, Espinoza et al Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUAN ESPINOZA, OMAR ESPINOZA, JORGE ORELLANA-GAITAN,
ANGEL RIVERA, FRANKLIN COTO, and FELICIANO GOMEZ, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PROFESSIONAL ROOFING TECHNOLOGY, LLC and EDUARDO GARCIA-BERRIOS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01308-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 25, 2020)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants
as chauffeurs and roofers, and despite working in excess of 40
hours during their employment, they were paid straight-time pay for
all hours worked. Allegedly, Defendants willfully failed to pay
them overtime premium wages in violation of the FLSA.

Eduardo Garcia-Berrios is an owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Professional Roofing Technology, LLC.

Professional Roofing Technology, LLC, formerly known as
Professional Roofing Garcia, LLC, is a registered motor carrier and
operates a roofing business that sends employees outside Georgia to
install roofs for various clients. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:  

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Tel: (678)330-2909
          Fax: (678)638-6201
          Email: Brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

                - and –

          Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS
          FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC  
          101 Marietta St., Ste. 2650
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Tel: (404)979-3150
          Fax: (404)979-3170
          Emails: benjamin@dcbflegal.com
                  charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


PROSHARES TRUST II: Notice of Appeal Filed in NY Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II 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 plaintiffs in the
consolidated class action suit have taken an appeal from a trial
court ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") and ProShares Trust
II (the "Trust") are named as defendants in the following purported
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on the following dates: (i) on
January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.;
(ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust
II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v.
ProShares Trust II, et al.

The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act, and
Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sections
229.303(a)(3)(ii)), 229.105 by issuing untrue statements of
material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the
Trust are also defendants in the actions, along with a number of
others.

The Court consolidated the three actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On January 3, 2020, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action in its
entirety and ordered the case closed. On January 31, 2020,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The Trust and Sponsor will continue to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome
of this action. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may
incur expenses in defending against such claims.

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.


PTGMB LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Roth Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
KELLI ROTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PTGMB LLC d/b/a MERCEDES-BENZ OF FRESNO,
Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-00231-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

PTGMB LLC d/b/a Mercedes-Benz Of Fresno offers passenger cars,
buses, vans, coaches, trucks, and sports utility vehicles, as well
as related spare parts and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Litvak, Esq.
          DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-5575
          Facsimile: (310) 477-7090
          E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Mariam Grigorian, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: mgrigorian@shamisgentile.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Interest Rate in Hsu Settlement Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 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 court in the
class action suit initiated by Hsingching Hsu has entered an order
specifying the rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any
valid claims at the 52-week Treasury Bill rate.  

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.

A trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15 to January 29,
2019. At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus found in the
defendants’ favor on those claims. The jury found liability as to
one statement and awarded a maximum of $4.50 per share in damages,
which represents approximately 5% of the total claimed damages of
$87.20 per share.

Trading models suggest that approximately ten million shares traded
during the class period may be eligible to claim damages.

Based on prior lawsuits, the company believes that the number of
stockholders who submit proof of claims sufficient to recover
damages is typically in the range of 20% to 40% of the total
eligible shares. Based on these assumptions, total damages after
claims could range from $9 million to $18 million. The total amount
of aggregate class-wide damages remains uncertain and will be
ascertained only after an extensive claims process and the
exhaustion of any appeals, and it is reasonably possible that the
total damages will be higher than this estimate.  However, the
amount is not estimable at this time.

On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order specifying the
rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any valid claims at
the 52-week Treasury Bill rate. The Court's order also established
a claims process, which is expected to take about twelve months.

A final judgment has not been entered.

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

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Quanta 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 the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom
Network Specialists, Inc., et al.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in
this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties
associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and
overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

In February 2019, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff class's
final motion for summary judgment on damages, awarding the class
approximately $7.5 million for its meal/rest break and overtime
claims, and denied the motion as to penalties. Quanta believes the
court's decisions on liability and damages are not supported by
controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the
damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter.


In July 2019, TNS prevailed, in part, on its own motion for summary
judgment on the remaining wage statement and penalty claims, with
the court dismissing the claims for penalties based on alleged meal
and rest break violations.

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

Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


RCI HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.  

In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading
statements made in the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as
they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and
management.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming
the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the
Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall).

The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the
purported class actions.

On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman,
and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is
styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.

On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition to naming the
Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall, the amended complaint also
adds director Nour-Dean Anakar and former director Steven Jenkins
as defendants.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action and
will move to dismiss the lawsuit.

RCI Hospitality said, "This action is in its preliminary phase, and
a potential loss cannot yet be estimated."

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Amos FDCPA Class Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, et al. The case is styled as Tariq Amos, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital
Services, LP., LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:20-cv-01272-BHH (D.S.C., April 2, 2020).

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

Resurgent Capital Services is a manager and servicer of domestic
and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and
debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
          NORSWORTHY LAW LTD. CO.
          218 Trade Street, Suite D
          Greer, SC 29651  
          Phone: (864) 804-0581
          Fax: (864) 670-5009


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications 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 filed in the class action suit initiated by Ron Miller is
pending.

On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the Company and three of its former officers, claiming to
represent a class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the
period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the Company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.

On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019.

On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

The Defendants filed a reply to such opposition on November 1,
2019. There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on
February 12, 2020.

Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.


ROSE HILL ASSET: Cabrera Sues over OT, Incorrect Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
TENISLAO TORIBIO CABRERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSE HILL ASSET MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION A/K/A RHAMCO, AND BRUDAVA CORP., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02699 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly-situated maintenance workers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek and also for failure to
provide correct wage statements of all hours worked as mandated by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a handyman from on or
about November 11, 2019 to on or about February 28, 2020.

Rose Hill Asset Management Corporation is a provider of property
management services with its principal place of business located at
696 E 187th Street, 2nd Floor, Bronx, New York. It is also known as
Rhamco.

Brudava Corp. is a real estate company based in Bronx, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          Abdul Hassan Law Group PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427          
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000          
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com

ROYAL BANK: Bid to Dismiss Euro-Denominated Bonds Suit 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 seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to
Euro-denominated bonds remains pending.  

Class action antitrust claims commenced in March 2019 are pending
in the SDNY against NatWest Markets Plc (NWM Plc), NatWest Markets
Securities Inc. (NWMSI) and other banks in respect of
Euro-denominated bonds issued by European central banks (EGBs).

The complaints allege a conspiracy among dealers of EGBs to widen
the bid-ask spreads they quoted to customers, thereby increasing
the prices customers paid for the EGBs or decreasing the prices at
which customers sold the bonds.

The class consists of those who purchased or sold EGBs in the US
between 2007 and 2012.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this matter, which
remains pending.

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: Bid to Dismiss USD ICE LIBOR Suit Still 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 to dismiss filed in the class action suit related to USD ICE
LIBOR, remains pending.

In January 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed in
the Southern District of New York (SDNY) alleging that the
defendants (USD ICE LIBOR panel banks and affiliates) have
conspired to suppress USD ICE LIBOR from 2014 to the present by
submitting incorrect information to ICE about their borrowing
costs.

The RBS Group defendants are RBSG plc, NWM Plc, NWMSI, and NWB Plc.


A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants in August 2019, and
remains pending before the court.

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 Cert. Bid in Interest Rate Swaps Suit 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 class certification filed in the class action suit
related to interest rate swaps remains pending.

NatWest Markets Plc (NWM Plc) and other members of RBS Group,
including RBSG plc, as well as a number of other interest rate swap
dealers, are defendants in several cases pending in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) alleging violations of the US antitrust
laws in the market for interest rate swaps.

There is a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of persons
who entered into interest rate swaps with the defendants, as well
as non-class action claims by three swap execution facilities
(TeraExchange, Javelin, and trueEx).

The plaintiffs allege that the swap execution facilities would have
successfully established exchange-like trading of interest rate
swaps if the defendants had not unlawfully conspired to prevent
that from happening through boycotts and other means.

Fact discovery in these cases is complete, and the class plaintiffs
have filed a motion for class certification, which as of January
2020 is fully briefed.

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 Reached in FX-Related Class 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
parties in the two FX-related class action suits in Southern
District of New York (SDNY) have reached a settlement.

Two FX-related class actions remain pending in the SDNY. First,
there is a class action on behalf of "consumers and end-user
businesses," which is proceeding against NWM Plc in the discovery
phase following the SDNY's denial of the defendants' motions to
dismiss in March 2018.

Second, there is a class action on behalf of "indirect purchasers"
of FX instruments (which plaintiffs define as persons who
transacted FX instruments with retail foreign exchange dealers that
transacted directly with defendant banks).

In January 2020, the parties in this case reached a settlement
subject to agreement on non-monetary terms, documentation, and
court approval. A provision has been established to cover the
amount that NWM Plc would pay pursuant to the settlement.

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.


SAFELINK WIRELESS: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Ezold Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MATTHEW EZOLD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. d/b/a SAFELINK
WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-21346 (S.D. Fla., March 27,
2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant sent
prerecorded calls to both cellular telephone subscribers and
residential landline telephone subscribers who have not expressly
consented to receiving such calls and/or who have expressly
requested not to receive such calls, even if their telephone
numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.

TracFone Wireless, Inc. is a mobile telecommunication company
located at 9700 NW 112th Avenue, Miami, Florida. It is also doing
business as SafeLink Wireless. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132          
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -
           
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 483-1032
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -
           
          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113          
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

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

SCHOOLADVISOR LLC: Munoz Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARDO MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOLADVISOR, LLC, d/b/a DEGREESEARCH.ORG,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00440-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 26, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to stop its practice
of placing unsolicited telemarketing text message calls to cellular
telephone users nationwide without obtaining prior express written
consent, and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured by
its conduct in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant allegedly utilized bulk text messaging to reach
consumers. The text messages were for telemarketing purposes and
offered, advertised, and announced the availability of
DegreeSearch's goods or services.

Plaintiff has never provided his prior express consent to
DegreeSearch to send text messages to him and has no business
relationship with DegreeSearch. The calls disturbed and interfered
with Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the
wear and tear on the phone's hardware and the consumption of memory
on Plaintiff's phone.

SchoolAdvisor, LLC, d/b/a DegreeSearch.org is a free service that
connects prospective students with accredited online or campus
colleges and universities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Richard T. Drury, Esq.
            Rebecca Davis, Esq.
            LOZEAU DRURY LLP
            1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
            Oakland, CA 94612
            Telephone: (510) 836-4200
            Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
            Email: richard@lozeaudrury.com
                   rebecca@lozeaudrury.com

                         – and –
  
            Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
            Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
            WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
            3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
            Denver, CO 80210
            Telephone: (720) 213-0675
            Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
            Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                   tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com

SEALIFT HOLDINGS: Baduria Suit Moved From New York to Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eufronio Jollado Baduria, Daniel Llagas,
Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Sealift Holdings Inc., Sealift Inc., Sealift Inc. of Delaware,
Black Eagle Shipping LLC, Fortune Maritime LLC, Sagamore Shipping
LLC, Sealift LLC, Sealift Tankships Inc., Remington Shipping Inc.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00364, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana on April 2, 2020.

The Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00417
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violation of maritime regulations.

Sealift Holdings, Inc. operates as a shipping company. The Company
offers general cargo, breakbulk liner, paper, and rice handling
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob Shisha, Esq.
          TABAK & MELLUSI
          71 Hudson St.
          New York, NY 10013-0071

               - and -

          Kenneth H. Hooks, III, Esq.
          Richard J. Dodson, Sr., Esq.
          DODSON & HOOKS
          112 Founders Dr., Ste. 101
          Baton Rouge, LA 70810
          Phone: (225) 756-0222
          Fax: (225) 756-0025
          Email: kenny@dodsonhooks.com
                 jerry@dodsonhooks.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan R. Davis, Esq.
          LUGENBUHL WHEATON, ET AL.
          601 Poydras St., Ste. 2775
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 568-1990
          Fax: (504) 310-9195
          Email: adavis@lawla.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Tadros, Esq.
          CHAFFE MCCALL, ET AL.
          1100 Poydras St., Ste. 2300
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2300
          Phone: (504) 585-7000
          Fax: (504) 585-7075
          Email: tadros@chaffe.com

               - and -

          Ifigeneia Xanthopoulou, Esq.
          CHAFFE MCCALL, et al.
          1100 Poydras St., Ste. 2300
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2300
          Phone: (504) 585-7000
          Email: xanthopoulou@chaffe.com


SIMPLY NOURISH PET FOOD: Grossman Balks at Deceptive Business Acts
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXA GROSSMAN, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIMPLY NOURISH PET FOOD COMPANY
LLC and PETSMART, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01603-KAM-ST
(E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff
which seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of the Defendants with respect to the marketing and sales
of the Simply Nourish product line throughout the State of New York
and throughout the U.S.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, sell, and
distribute the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign
centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers
who want to keep their pets healthy by feeding them natural pet
products. However, Defendants' advertising and marketing campaign
is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain
non-natural, synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendants'
misrepresentations that the Products are "Natural" when purchasing
the Products. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium
for the Products based on Defendants' misrepresentations that they
are "Natural," Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in
the amount of the premium paid.

Simply Nourish Pet Food Company LLC is a Phoenix, Arizona-based
company which manufactures, markets, advertises and distributes pet
products throughout the United States.

PETSMART, Inc. is a manufacturer of pet products based in Phoenix,
Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
            THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.  
            85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
            Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
            Telephone: (845) 483-7100
            Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
            Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

                       – and –

            Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
            Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
            PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
            800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (612) 389-0600
            Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
            Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                   jbourne@pswlaw.com

SIMS GROUP USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO BERNAL-RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMS GROUP USA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02121-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2020)
is a collective and class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for common law breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in the parties' contract for employment.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Heavy
Equipment Mechanic from June 1999 through approximately September
2019.

Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective allege that
Defendant failed to:

     -- pay them proper premium overtime compensation for all hours
they worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek;

     -- incorporate shift differential premiums in the regular rate
calculation; and

     -- properly maintain timekeeping and payroll records.

Sims Group USA (d/b/a Sims Metal Management) is a global metal
recycler engaged in processing, buying, and selling of ferrous and
non-ferrous recycled materials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Tel: (949)387-7200
          Emails: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

                - and –

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Tel: (248)355-0300
          Fax: (248)436-8453
          Emails: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

                - and –


          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619)762-2125
          Fax: (619)762-2127
          Email: tkashima@sommerspc.com


SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, In Re Skechers Securities
Litigation (formerly Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Skechers
USA, Inc. Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg and John Vandemore), is
pending.

On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a
securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased the company's stock
between October 20, 2017 and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"),
against the company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case
number 1:18-cv-8039.  

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period we made
materially false statements or omissions of material fact regarding
the company's sales growth and controlling expenses and asserts
claims for unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  

Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed, and on
January 22, 2019, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed as In Re Skechers Securities Litigation.

On May 13, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On June 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on
July 29, 2019, the company filed a reply. The court heard the
motion on January 23, 2020 and took it under submission.

Skechers U.S.A. said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and
intend to defend these matters vigorously. Given the early stages
of these proceedings and the limited information available, we
cannot predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an
adverse result in these cases would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations or financial position."  

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.


SKYLINE CHILI: Davis Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------
DENETRA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKYLINE CHILI, INC. c/o STATUTORY AGENT K &
P STATUTORY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01573-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 27, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly-situated restaurant workers for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and failure to keep accurate
records of all unpaid work pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as hourly-paid restaurant
server between June 2019 and November 2019.

Skyline Chili, Inc. is an operator of restaurants throughout Ohio,
Indiana, Kentucky, and Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Blvd.
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ALTENHOFEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01723 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Altenhofen was employed by the Defendant as welding
inspector.

Southern California Gas Company operates as a natural gas company.
The Company distributes, transmits, and stores natural gas.
Southern California Gas serves customers in the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., Suite 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          Facsimile: (713) 999-1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law


SOUTHERN STAR: Underpays Inspectors, Altenhofen Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON ALTENHOFEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS
PIPELINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00030 (W.D. Ky., Feb.
24, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Altenhofen was employed by the Defendant as
inspector.

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline Inc. provides natural gas
transmission and storage. The Company operates a natural gas
pipeline system and services cities and power generation providers
in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and
Wyoming. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & MOORMAN
          401 Frederica St., Suite A202
          P.O. Box 549
          Owensboro, Ky 42302

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


STEEL PARTNERS: Sciabacucchi Class Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. 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 class
action settlement in Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., has been
approved.

On December 8, 2017, a stockholder class action, captioned
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of Handy
& Harman Ltd. ("HNH") challenging the Company's acquisition,
through a subsidiary, of all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of HNH not already owned by the Company or any of its
affiliates.

The action named as defendants the former members of the HNH board
of directors, the Company and Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. ("SPH
GP"), and alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the former public stockholders of HNH in
connection with the aforementioned acquisition.

The complaint sought, among other relief, unspecified monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement of the case,
solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to resolve each of the
plaintiff's claims against the defendant parties.

In the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff class
$30,000, but denied that they engaged in any wrongdoing or
committed any violation of law or breach of duty and stated that
they believe they acted properly, in good faith, and in a manner
consistent with their legal duties.

The settlement was approved by the court on December 2, 2019.

Steel Partners said, "Our insurance carriers agreed to contribute
an aggregate of $17,500 toward the settlement amount. The Company
recorded a charge of $12,500 in Selling, general and administrative
expenses in the consolidated statement of operations for the twelve
months ended December 31, 2019, which consisted of the legal
settlement of $30,000, reduced by $17,500 of insurance recoveries.
The settlement was paid on December 17, 2019. The Company made a
demand of an aggregate of $10,000 in further contributions from two
insurance carriers, which the carriers declined, and we are
pursuing claims in court to endeavor to recover this sum, although
there can be no assurance as to the outcome of this litigation."

Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in
industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management,
logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide. It operates
through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services
segments. Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general
partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in New York, New York.


STROUK GROUP: Marquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Concepcion Marquez, Individually and as an aggrieved employee and
on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. STROUK GROUP, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; STEPHANE STROUK, an
Individual; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV13243 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
earned overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to pay said
compensation.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked on average 70 to
80 hours per week. Additionally, the Plaintiff was required to
remain on premises when deliveries or repairs were being made
during off hours. Although, the Plaintiff was paid for some
overtime, he was not paid for all of the hours that he worked.

Plaintiff Marquez was hired and worked as a non-exempt cook at the
Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants owned and operated a restaurant under the name
Monsieur Marcel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Kim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD KIM
          6131 Orangethorpe Ave., Suite 370
          Buena Park, CA 90620
          Phone: (714) 276-1122
          Facsimile: (714) 276-1120
          Email: Rkim@Richkimlaw.com


TARGA RESOURCES: Hennigar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Hennigar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TARGA RESOURCES CORP., Case No. 4:20-cv-01209
(S.D. Tex., April 3, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and the other workers like him
regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week;
but these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime
as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a daily
rate with no overtime compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Hennigar worked for Targa from July 2017 until November
2017 as an inspector.

Targa is a midstream energy company primarily engaged in the
gathering, treating, storing, processing, and selling natural gas,
NGL, and crude oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, 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

               - 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


TOWN SPORTS: Illegally Charges Fees and Dues, Namorato Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY NAMORATO Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, -against- TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC and
TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a NEW YORK SPORTS
CLUBS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02580 (S.D.N.Y., March 26,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for taking advantage
of customers whose credit cards Town Sports International (TSI) has
on file and fraudulently charging them fees and dues.

According to the complaint, TSI, the publicly-traded company which
owns and operates the ubiquitous gym brand New York Sports Clubs
(NYSC), is outrageously continuing to charge members their monthly
membership dues, which are paid for one purpose and one purpose
only to access NYSC gyms, despite facility closures associated with
the health and economic crisis created by the novel coronavirus. By
contract and by law, TSI charges customers membership dues strictly
in exchange for gym access, and despite not providing such gym
access it continues to charge customers' credit cards.

Ms. Namorato has been a NYSC gym member from approximately January
2019 through the present.

Town Sports International, LLC is a New York-based company with its
primary business of operating of gyms under the brands New York
Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Washington Sports Clubs and
Philadelphia Sports Clubs.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. d/b/a New York Sports
Clubs is a foreign corporation incorporated in Delaware with its
primary business of operating of gyms under the brands New York
Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Washington Sports Clubs and
Philadelphia Sports Clubs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
            Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
            WIGDOR LLP
            85 Fifth Avenue
            New York, NY 10003
            Telephone: (212) 257-6800
            Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
            Email: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
                   tcrabill@wigdorlaw.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Hendricks Suit Over Defective Braking Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Hendricks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00263-TSB (S.D. Ohio, April 3,
2020), arises from an alleged defect that causes systemic braking
system failures in certain Toyota vehicles.

The Affected Vehicles include at least the 2010–2015 Prius and
Prius PHV, the 2012–2015 Prius V, the 2012–2014 Camry Hybrid,
and the 2013–2015 Avalon Hybrid.

The Plaintiff contends that Toyota refuses to repair or replace the
defective systems until and unless unsuspecting drivers of Affected
Vehicles actually experience a brake failure--which could obviously
result in injuries or even deaths that could otherwise be avoided.

If further investigation reveals that additional Toyota and Lexus
vehicles contain the same defective brake system components, then,
the models identified as Affected Vehicles may be amended, the
Plaintiff says. She contends that the brake systems in the Affected
Vehicles are defective because the brake booster pump assembly
can--and with unreasonably frequency does--fail to operate as
necessary to ensure the brakes engage when the brake pedal is
depressed. She asserts that the defect endangers drivers,
passengers, and other persons and property in the vicinity of an
Affected Vehicle at any time that it is in motion.

The Plaintiff argues that the defects, thus, renders the Affected
Vehicles less safe and less valuable than consumers would
reasonably expect and it makes them less safe and less valuable
than the Affected Vehicles would be if Toyota did not design and
sell the Affected Vehicles with the defect. Unknown to the
Plaintiff at the time the Affected Vehicle was purchased, it was
equipped with a braking system that was defective and did not
function safely, as advertised, or as intended by its design.

Toyota's unfair, unlawful, and deceptive conduct in designing,
manufacturing, marketing, selling, and leasing the Affected Vehicle
with the brake defect has caused the Plaintiff out-of-pocket loss,
future attempted repairs, and diminished value of the Affected
Vehicle, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Toyota Prius in San Rafael, California,
for use in Ohio.

Toyota manufactured, sold, and warranted the Affected Vehicles
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS, CO., L.P.A.
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: 513.723.1600
          Fax: 513.723.1620
          Email: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, DC 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 toml@hbsslaw.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management 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 mediation
is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re Blue Cross Blue
Shield Antitrust Litigation.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association Antitrust Litigation.

Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service
area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue
Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under
federal antitrust laws.

As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro quo for said "market
allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and boycott conspiracy
implemented through BCBSA and whose benefits are allegedly derived
through the BCBSA's BlueCard/National Accounts Program. Among the
remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased compensation
rates and operational changes.

In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy
to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered
competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan
subscribers. Subscribers seek damages for the amounts that the Blue
Plan premiums allegedly have been artificially inflated as a result
of the alleged antitrust violations.

Both actions seek injunctive relief.

Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS, whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in
the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS.

Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined
BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims.
On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the
parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the
standard of review applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1
of the Sherman Act and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on the Blue Plan's single entity defense.

After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment
purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most
favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the
combination of Exclusive Service Areas and the National Best
Efforts Rule are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b)
there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether
defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense;
and (c) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules
are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard.

On April 16, 2018, Defendants moved the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to certify for immediate
interlocutory appeal the court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review
Ruling. On June 12, 2018, Hon. Judge Proctor agreed to grant
Defendant's motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b). Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018.


On December 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
denied Defendants' petition to appeal the District Court’s
Standard of Review Ruling. The parties re-commenced mediation with
subscribers in April 2019 and with providers in September 2019.

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

Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial,
Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life
Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management
Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.


TRUECAR INC: California Consumer Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 plaintiff has
voluntarily dismissed a consumer class action lawsuit in
California.

In December 2015, the company was named as a defendant in the
California Consumer Class Action. The complaint asserted claims for
unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA
Litigation.

In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of "all
California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar,
Inc.’s price certificate during the applicable statute of
limitations."

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended
complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retained the same proposed class definition as
the initial complaint.

Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint sought an award
of unspecified damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest,
disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

On September 12, 2016, the company filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part on
October 13, 2016, dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but
declining to dismiss the balance of the claims at the demurrer
stage of the litigation. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which the court denied on July 27,
2018.

On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's
denial of his motion for class certification, which the California
Court of Appeal affirmed on December 16, 2019. On February 19,
2020, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the California Consumer
Class Action.

TrueCar said, "As a result, the California Consumer Class Action is
currently resolved and we do not anticipate a loss related to this
matter. However, if similar litigation is filed against us, we may
incur significant legal fees, settlements or damages awards. If any
such matter is not ultimately resolved in our favor, losses arising
from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing
defense costs or adverse changes in our dealer network, could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. The company was formerly
known as Zag.com Inc. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


UNITED NATURAL: North Country Store Settlement Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NORTH COUNTRY STORE,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons or entities
who are similarly situated v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00052-WES-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith
entered an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying, for purpose of effectuating a
      settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all customers in the United States that paid Defendant
      one or more of the Fees at any time within the Class
      Period";

   2. appointing North Country Store as representative of the
      Settlement Class;

   3. preliminarily appointing Oscar M. Price, IV and Nicholas
      W. Armstrong, and their firm Price Armstrong, LLC, and
      Thomas J Enright of Enright Law LLC as Class Counsel for
      the Settlement Class;

   4. granting preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement
      as the product of informed, non-collusive negotiations,
      without obvious deficiencies, which falls within a
      reasonable range; and

   5. approving, as to form and content, the notice plan to the
      Settlement Class proposed in the Settlement Agreement and
      its exhibits, and finds that this notice is the best
      notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall
      constitute due and sufficient notice to the members of the
      Settlement Class.

The Court said, "Any Settlement Class Member may request to be
excluded from the Settlement Class. Such requests for exclusion
must be received Settlement Administrator, Class Counsel, and
Defendant's Counsel on or before 21 days before Final Fairness
Hearing and must otherwise comply with the requirements set forth
in the Class Notice documents and Settlement Agreement. If the
Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and enters
final judgment, all members of Settlement Class who have not
submitted valid requests for exclusion shall be bound by the Final
Judgment. The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before this
Court at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, August 10, 2020."

UNFI is a North American food wholesaler.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Faces Williams Prisoner Suit in Dist. of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, et al. The case is styled as Thurman Williams, Ronald Ian
Boatright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his
official capacity as Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA; QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director,
D.C. Department of Corrections; HOPE VILLAGE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00890 (D.D.C., April 2, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as "Prisoner Petition: Prison
Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights."

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is the federal agency under the
Department of Justice responsible for the care, custody, and
control of incarcerated individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin H. Metz, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Phone: (202) 637-2200
          Fax: (202) 637-2201
          Email: kevin.metz@lw.com


UNITED STATES: Kelley, Starnes Slam Contraceptive Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------
John Kelley and Joel Starnes, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated; Kelley Orthodontics, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated; Braidwood Management Inc., on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alex M. Azar
II, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human
Services; Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary
of the Treasury; Eugene Scalia, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Labor; United States of America, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00283-O (N.D. Tex., March 29, 2020) arises from the
enforcement of agency-issued preventive-care mandates by the
Defendants to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drugs such as
Truvada and Descovy starting in 2021.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor issued notice-and-comment
regulations to implement the decision of Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA) to require private insurers to cover
contraception, in response to the HRSA's decree of August 1, 2011
requiring that all FDA-approved contraceptive methods be covered as
"preventive care."

On May 4, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order
instructing the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor,
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to amend the
Contraceptive Mandate to address conscience-based objections.

The final rule also sought to accommodate individuals who object to
contraceptive coverage in their health insurance for sincere
religious reasons. Under the original Contraceptive Mandate,
individual religious objectors were forced to choose between
purchasing health insurance that covers contraception or forgoing
health insurance entirely -- unless they could obtain insurance
through a grandfathered plan or a church employer that was exempt
from Contraceptive Mandate. The final rule ensured that individual
religious objectors would have the option to purchase health
insurance that excludes contraception from any willing health
insurance issuer.

According to the complaint, the Contraceptive Mandate continues to
inflict injury on the Plaintiffs and other religious objectors who
wish to purchase health insurance.

The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from enforcing any
coverage mandate that requires religious employers to underwrite
coverage that violates their religious beliefs, or that prevents
religious individuals and entities from purchasing health insurance
that excludes objectionable coverage. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
            Mitchell Law PLLC
            111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
            Austin, TX 78701
            Telephone: (512) 686-3940
            Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
            Email: jonathan@mitchell.law

                       – and –

             H. Dustin Fillmore III, Esq.
             Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
             The Fillmore Law Firm, LLP
             1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860
             Fort Worth, TX 76102
             Telephone: (817) 332-2351
             Facsimile: (817) 870-1859
             Email: dusty@fillmorefirm.com
                    chad@fillmorefirm.com

UNITED STATES: Kuang Petitions Supreme Ct. for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jiahao Kuang and Deron Cooke filed with the Supreme
Court of the United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the matter styled JIAHAO KUANG; DERON COOKE, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Applicants v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARK ESPER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Respondents, Case No. 19-1194.

Response is due on May 4, 2020.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit under the Equal Protection
Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, Section 1, and Sections 706(1) and 706(2)(A) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Section 706.

On October 13, 2017, the DoD issued a policy (the "October 13
Policy") prohibiting lawful permanent residents (LPRs)--but not
U.S. nationals--from shipping to basic training until their
background checks were completed.  DoD's prior practice permitted
all enlistees to ship to basic training while certain background
checks were pending.  The October 13 Policy's new prohibition was
not targeted or limited to enlistees with suspicious foreign
contacts, particular criminal backgrounds, or known ties to
terrorist groups. Rather, it applied to every LPR, who enlisted--as
permitted by statute--in the United States military.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge John S. Tigap granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

     all persons who (i) are lawful permanent residents of the
     United States; (ii) have signed an enlistment contract
     with the U.S. military; and (iii) pursuant to Defendants'
     October 13 memo, have not been permitted to begin initial
     entry training, commonly referred to as "boot camp,"
     pending completion of their Military Service Suitability
     Determination and National Security Determination."

The lower court case is titled JIAHAO KUANG; DERON COOKE, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; JAMES MATTIS, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense of the United States Department of
Defense, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-17381, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JIAHAO KUANG; DERON COOKE, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by:

          Melissa Arbus Sherry, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2207
          Email: melissa.sherry@lw.com

Defendants-Respondents UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARK
ESPER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, are represented by:

          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          SOLICITOR GENERAL
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2203
          Email: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov


VBFS INC: Underpays Deliverymen & Cashiers, Carranza Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
FILI ABUNDIZ CARRANZA, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VBFS INC. d/b/a M&M Market Deli,
VIRGILIO BRANCO, and FERNANDO PINHO SANCHES, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02635 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged various
unlawful and willful employment policies, patterns and practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
from 1990 to February 28, 2020 as a Deliveryman and cashier for
Defendants at M&M Market Deli located at 529 Broome Street, Suite
A, New York, NY10013.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at least the
New York minimum wage for each hour worked;

     -- pay them their lawful overtime compensation of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a given workweek;

     -- keep full and accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours and
wages;

     -- provide them with Time of Hire Notice reflecting true rates
of pay and payday as well as paystub;

     -- provide meal period of at least 30 minutes required by NYLL
for everyday that Plaintiff worked; and

     -- reimburse Plaintiff for the cost of the gasoline or the
cost of maintaining the delivery vehicle for Defendant's benefit.

Virgilio Branco and Fernando Pinho Sanches are officers, directors,
managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of VBFS Inc.

VBFS Inc. d/b/a M&M Market Deli is in the grocery store industry in
New York which offers sandwiches food available for delivery or
takeout. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          Leanghour Lim, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Ste. 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Tel: (718)762-1324
          Emails: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com
                  http://troypllc.com/team/aaron-schweitzer/
                  leanghourlim@troypllc.com


VIRTU FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in CCERF Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, 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, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings,
Inc., et al., have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter.

On July 20, 2017, the company completed its all-cash acquisition of
KCG Holdings, Inc. ("KCG").

In connection with the Acquisition of KCG, a previously filed
complaint, which was initially captioned Greenway v. KCG Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-421-JTL and filed on behalf of a
putative class in Delaware Chancery Court, was recaptioned Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al.,
amended and refiled on February 14, 2018 to include claims for the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties against former KCG board
members, claims against each of the Company and Jefferies LLC for
allegedly aiding and abetting the KCG board members' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim against the Company and
Jefferies LLC for alleged civil conspiracy.

The amended complaint was again amended on July 16, 2018 with the
filing of the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint to
include additional factual allegations.

In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter.

The agreement is subject to customary conditions including
execution of definitive settlement documentation and final court
approval.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to
deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the
claims are without merit.

Virtu said, "Though the Company believes the likelihood of approval
of the settlement is probable, we cannot predict with certainty the
outcome of the litigation, and if an agreement is not reached or
the settlement is not finally approved by the Court, we believe
that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in the operative
complaint."

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

Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Virtu Financial,
Inc. was formerly a subsidiary of TJMT Holdings LLC.


VISTRA ENERGY: Price-Fixing Suits Ongoing in Wisconsin and Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Energy Corp.  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 remains as
defendants in two consolidated putative class actions (Wisconsin)
and one individual action (Kansas) both pending in federal court in
those states.

The company, through its subsidiaries, and other energy companies
are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting
of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading
and churn trading from 2000-2002.

The cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust
conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the relevant time
period and seek damages under the respective state antitrust
statutes.

The company remains as defendants in two consolidated putative
class actions (Wisconsin) and one individual action (Kansas) both
pending in federal court in those states.

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

Vistra Energy Corp. is a Texas-based energy company focused on the
competitive energy and power generation markets.


VONS PHARMACY: Edmunds Sues Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------
GINNY EDMUNDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a VONS
PHARMACY and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00612-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 31, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing
system without prior written express consent in an attempt to
promote its services. The Defendant's misconduct caused the
Plaintiff and Class members to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which they had previously paid.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a retail grocery and pharmacy company
based in Idaho. It is also doing business as Vons Pharmacy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

WAYFAIR INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company has filed a motion
to dismiss the class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts with prejudice.

On January 10, 2019 and January 16, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and three of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The two complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to
certain prior disclosures of the Company. Each plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock
of the Company between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018 and
seeks damages and other relief based on allegations that the
defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

On August 30, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

Wayfair said, "At this time, based on available information
regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably
assess the ultimate outcome of these cases or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses."

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

Wayfair Inc., incorporated on August 8, 2014, offers browsing,
merchandising and product discovery for a range of products from
various suppliers. The Company operates through two segments: U.S.
and International. The U.S. segment consists of amounts earned
through product sales through the Company's five sites in the
United States and through sites operated by third parties in the
United States. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.


WELLS FARGO: Underpays Loan Adjusters, Easton Claims
----------------------------------------------------
JOSEPHINE EASTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02193 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
including failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated workers regular and minimum wages, requiring
them to work off-the-clock hours without compensation, and denying
them to take timely meal and rest breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a loan adjuster in San
Bernardino County, California, from approximately June 2013 to
approximately December 19, 2019.

Wells Fargo Bank & Company is a provider of consumer and financial
banking services, including operating financial centers, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a financial services company
headquartered in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Alejandro Quinones, Esq.
          Brianna M. McCovey, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630          
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  axq@quintlaw.com
                  bmm@quintlaw.com

               - and -
           
          Roger R. Carter, Esq.
          Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 245-7500
          E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net
                  bianca@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -
           
          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949)629-2533
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

WPX ENERGY: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Ongoing in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, 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 putative class action
initiated by purchasers of natural gas is ongoing in Wisconsin
court.

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.

The company is currently a defendant in class action litigation and
other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states.

These cases were transferred to the federal court in Nevada.

In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in
favor of the company and most of the other defendants based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied
the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado
dismissal and entered judgment in the company's favor.

On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying
class certification and remanded to the MDL Court. On September 7,
2018, those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to the
originally filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin.


In February, 2019, settlement agreements with the Kansas and
Missouri class claimants were executed, and on August 5, 2019,
after the final fairness hearing, the court approved the settlement
and entered final judgment.

In the Wisconsin putative class action, the case was remanded to
its originally filed court of the Western District of Wisconsin for
trial.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based WPX Energy, Inc. operates in the exploration
and production segment of the oil and gas industry and its
operations are primarily located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico
and Colorado. The Company specialize in development and production
from tight-sands and shale formations in the Delaware, Williston
and San Juan Basins.


WPX ENERGY: Suit over Felix Energy Acquisition Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 28, 2020, that
the company is defending against suits including two class actions
related to its acquisition of Felix Energy Holdings II, LLC.

On December 15, 2019, WPX Energy, Inc., and Felix Investments
Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
"Seller"), entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement pursuant to
which Seller will sell, and the Company will purchase, one hundred
percent (100%) of the issued and outstanding membership interests
of Felix Energy Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Felix"), in accordance with Delaware law and upon the
terms and subject to the conditions of the Purchase Agreement.

Pursuant to and subject to the terms and conditions of the Purchase
Agreement, Felix will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company (the "Acquisition"). On February 5, 2020, the Company filed
a proxy statement on Schedule 14A, relating to the special meeting
of the stockholders of the Company to approve certain matters
related to the Acquisition, which will be held on March 5, 2020.

Since the filing of the Proxy Statement, three actions, including
two putative class actions, have been filed in state and federal
court in Delaware and federal court in New York by purported
Company stockholders in connection with the Acquisition: Hudson v.
Muncrief, et al., No. 2020-0095-JRS (Del. Ch., filed February 14,
2020) (the "Hudson Action"); Post v. WPX Energy, Inc., et al., No.
20-cv-0225 (D. Del., filed February 17, 2020) (the "Post Action");
and Bushansky v. WPX Energy, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-01426
(S.D.N.Y., filed February 19, 2020) (the "Bushansky Action").

Each of the Hudson Action, the Post Action, and the Bushansky
Action names the Company and its directors as defendants.

The Hudson Action alleges that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, filing a Proxy
Statement that is false and misleading and/or omits material
information concerning the Acquisition.

The Post Action and the Bushansky Action allege, among other
things, that the Proxy Statement is false and misleading and/or
omits material information concerning the Acquisition in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act.

Each of the Hudson Action, the Post Action, and the Bushansky
Action seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, including
enjoining the Acquisition, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based WPX Energy, Inc. operates in the exploration
and production segment of the oil and gas industry and its
operations are primarily located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico
and Colorado. The Company specialize in development and production
from tight-sands and shale formations in the Delaware, Williston
and San Juan Basins.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner et al. Sue Over Timeshares
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER, ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and NAZRET Z.
GEBREMESKEL, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-UNA (D. Del., March 27, 2020)
contends that the Defendant fails to disclose to prospective
Wyndham timeshare owners that instead of purchasing Wyndham
timeshares for an average price of $21,000, they can often obtain
equal or greater access to Wyndham resort destinations at an equal
or lesser cost without buying timeshares. The Prospective owners
are not told of the significant availability issues of trying to
book through the Wyndham Owner website, myclubwyndham.com, nor are
they told that due to ever increasing annual maintenance fees, it
will be often be cheaper to go to the same destinations without
being a Wyndham timeshare Owner.

Wyndham fails to disclose material information about fundamental
aspects of its timeshare program including the minimal resale value
of timeshare points, the persistent availability issues, the true
nature of maintenance fees, and the cost of travel through Wyndham
timeshare ownership versus websites such as trivago, trip advisor
and google.

As a result of these omissions, Wyndham is able to sell timeshare
points at prices ranging from $15,000 to $25,000, while the same
number of points can be purchased on eBay for amounts as little as
$1.

Wyndham's timeshare sales policies and practices are consistently
deceptive and misleading, in violation of the Nevada Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Timeshare Act.

The omissions and misrepresentations made to Plaintiffs at the
Wyndham sales meetings are typical of misrepresentations made to
other Class Members. The same fraudulent representations and
omissions are made time and again with uncanny regularity to Class
Members.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. is the largest timeshare ownership
program in the world with 925,000 members and over $5 billion in
revenue in 2017. The Company develops and operates a portfolio of
over 220 resorts throughout the world with 25,000 individual units.
Wyndham markets and sells vacation ownership interests in the form
of points, provides consumer financing in connection with the sale
of points, provides property management services to the purchasers,
and develops and acquires vacation ownership resorts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
            Margolis Edelstein
            300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
            Wilmington, DE 19801
            Telephone: (302) 888-1112
            Facsimile: (302) 888-1119
            Email: hmondros@margolisedelstein.com

                          – and –

            Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ
            1014 Ontario Street
            Oak Park, IL 60302
            Telephone: (708) 203-5747
            Email: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com

WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts Limited 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 securities class action suit initiated by John V. Ferris and
Joann M. Ferris remains pending.

On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M.
Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs.  The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which
are currently pending before the court.

The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the
claims pleaded against them.

Wynn Resorts said, "These actions are in preliminary stages and
management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is
currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of
these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any."

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

Wynn Resorts Limited, owns and operates destination casino resorts.
The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


YELP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
and operations on February 9, 2017.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018.

On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a
class in this action. The case remains pending.

Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
the lawsuit."

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


ZEN RESTORATION: Faces Fazekas et al. Suit over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABOR FAZEKAS, WACLAW PIATEK, ROMAN JEGLINSKI, JOHNNY P.D. TORRES,
PATEREK LUKASZ, LUIS PATRICIO RODRIGUEZ SEPA, ANGEL DIAZ, JULIO M.
CARABALLO, STANISLAW R. SIURDA, STANISLAW KURAS, ANDRZEJ KOLANO,
BOGDAN S. KOSCIELNY, SLAWOMIR KOMOROWSKI, ROBERT LIPSKI, ROBERT
SADOWSKI, HENRYK SAGAN, ZBIGNIEW STORCZYNSKI, JOSE I. GUAZHIMA,
PRISCILIANO F. GUZMAN, SEGUNDO RAUL PULLUTACI TOASA, PETER
FURTKEVIC, ZDZISLAW DANIEC, SAMUEL GALINDO, MAREK POMASKI,
PIECZYKOLAN MARIUSZ, BILSKI LUKASZ, DARIUSZ STOPYRA, MARCIN KUTYLA,
BARTLOMIEJ KOCHANCZYK, JOSE RODRIGO DOTA TORRES, LECH S.
KUNIKOWSKI, SALATIEL E.C. PASTEN, and SAMUEL G. JUAREZ, Plaintiffs
v. ZEN RESTORATION, INC.; ZEN EUROPEAN RESTORATION, CORP.; PRIMO
PLUMBING & HVAC, CORP.; MIDWAY ELECTRIC CORP.; BERNARD Z. SOBUS;
and PRZEMYSLAW SOBUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01587 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including misclassifying Plaintiffs as independent contractors,
failing to pay them overtime wages at a rate of one-and-one-half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week, and failing to keep accurate records of their
hours worked.

The Plaintiffs were hired as construction workers and/or laborers
by Defendants.

Zen Restoration, Inc. is a construction business specializing in
high-end renovations and restorations in buildings, with its
principal place of business located at 273 Russell Street,
Brooklyn, New York.

Zen European Restoration, Corp. is a construction firm with its
principal place of business located at 330 Calyer Street, Brooklyn,
New York.

Primo Plumbing, Corp. is a plumbing services provider with its
principal place of business located at 273 Russell Street,
Brooklyn, New York.

Midway Electric, Corp. is a provider of electrical services with
its principal place of business located at 273 Russell Street,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
          Diego O. Barros, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 406-6890

ZOOM VIDEO: Sells Private Info of 200 Mil. Users, Ohlweiler Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ohlweiler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03165 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2020),
alleges that Zoom sells the private information of its 200 million
users without their knowledge or permission.

The lawsuit is brought to seek injunctive relief and restitution
against Zoom for false and misleading advertising in violation of
Business and Professions Code, and for violating the Consumer
Privacy Act, and on behalf of all those who used and/or purchased
the Zoom software Product believing that the Product was secure and
that their information was safe.

According to the complaint, Zoom sells the private information of
its 200 million users without their knowledge or permission. Zoom
also falsely advertises end-to-end encryption. While many companies
are prioritizing people over profits to fight COVID-19, Zoom is
prioritizing profits over people. Zoom is capitalizing off of the
global pandemic by selling user information to Facebook without
user consent. Zoom compounds this felony by falsely advertising
that its software is equipped with end-to-end encryption. Zoom
pedals its products knowing that hackers are accessing to user
webcams, exposing its users to extreme invasions of privacy.

Zoom consistently violates its duty to implement and maintain
reasonable security practices, and misleads consumers about the
security benefits of the Product, the Plaintiff alleges. Zoom
claims to offer users the privacy and protection of end-to-end
encryption, the most secure form of internet communication. In
reality, the Plaintiff avers, Zoom does not offer end-to-end
encryption, and its software cannot even support such security
measures. Zoom accesses private information that users share on the
Zoom network, the Plaintiff adds.

Zoom also fails to remedy a known vulnerability that allows hackers
and other Web sites to forcibly join a user to a Zoom call without
their permission, the Plaintiff contends. This has led to serious
invasions of privacy and allows hackers to target users with
specific advertisements.  Zoom made and continues to make these
false and misleading statements in its advertising of the Product.
Zoom also continues to invade the privacy of innocent users and
leave them vulnerable to security threats. Compliance with remedial
statutes like those underlying this lawsuit will benefit the
Plaintiff, the putative class, consumers, and the general public,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased and used Zoom in California within the last
four years of the filing of this Complaint.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.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 ***