/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200416.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 77

                            Headlines

ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: LaChance Says Dialog Merger Deal Lacks Info
ADVANCE AUTO: Delaware District Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
ALECTO HEALTHCARE: Lucas, Ullum Sue Over Abrupt Worker Layoffs
ALL MARKET INC: Ali & Gibson Call Vita Coco Labeling "Deceptive"
ALLEGHENY CTY: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Graham Suit

ALTRIA GROUP: Sued by Reece Over Monopolistic Sale of E-Cigs
AMEREN ILLINOIS CO: Rossman Files Suit in Illinois
APCT INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Medina Alleges
APPLE INC: iPhone XR Has Connectivity Issue, Anderson et al. Claim
ARDENT COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Orozco Suit with Prejudice

BENGAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Barahona Claims
BEXAR COUNTY, TX: Lozano Seeks Overtime Pay for VA Counselors
BOOHOO.COM USA: Khan Sues over Phantom Discounts
BRICKS CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL: Martinez Alleges Improper Pay for Laborers

BROKERS EDGE GENERAL: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Loyhayem
CANON BUSINESS: Fowler Alleges Misconduct on Data Breach Incident
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Lewis Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation
CENTERSTATE BANK: Precision Roofing Alleges Improper Overdraft Fees
CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Murga Sues in California Over Violation of FCRA

CF ARCIS: $240K Settlement in Hart Suit Gets Final Court Approval
CLARK COUNTY, KY: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jones Suit
COLONIAL PENN LIFE: Faces Kelley Suit Over Life Insurance Policies
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Thervil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Class Suit Removed to S.D. California

COVINGTON CREDIT: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Jones Claims
CRM PROPERTY: Mendez Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CRUNCH LLC: Chavez Seeks Proper Wages for Personal Trainers
DEVA CONCEPTS: Souza Sues Over Hair Care Products' Side Effects
DEVON ENERGY: Price Seeks Overtime Pay for Utility Inspectors

DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Thompson Suit Wants to Stop Excessive Rents
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Rickenbaker Suit Over Tuition Fee Refund
DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
E-HOUSE CHINA: Maso Capital et al. Sue Over 2016 Merger
FAMILY VENTURES: Igoe Hits Insufficient Vehicle Reimbursement

FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Remand of Walters Suit to State Court Denied
FINANCE SYSTEMS: Forman Sues in S.D. Ohio Over FDCPA Violation
FORMULA 5: Tenley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP: Lee Sues Over Excessive Charges
FS HOTELS: Maldonado Seeks OT Pay, Rest & Meal Periods for Staff

FUSION PHARMACY: Katz Balks at Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Varga Appeals March 5 Judgment to 2nd Circuit
GENERAL NUTRITION CORP: Clausen Suit Transferred to New York
GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Brighton Trustees Suit in E.D. Virginia
H. BEST LTD: Nisbett Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind

HAYCO CORP: Huitzil et al. Seek Proper Pay for Superintendents
HERB & DEE'S: Staub et al. Sue over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOT TOPIC: Class Settlement in Soukhaphohn Suit Gets Final Approval
HP: Gould Questions Decision to Block Xerox Buyout
INTUIT INC: Deceives Taxpayers With TurboTax, Williams Suit Says

KALYAN HOSPITALITY: Underpays Salaried Hotel Staff, Pinon Claims
LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Advisor Group Merger-Related Class Suit
LOUISIANA: Gets Favorable Ruling in Little Detainees Suit
LUCKIN COFFEE: Misleads Securities Buyers, Gopu et al. Claim
LYFT INC: Seeks First Circuit Review of Ruling in Cunningham Suit

MAINTENX INT'L: Binion Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Maintenance Staff
MDL 2433: Dupont Can't Modify Expert Affirmative Causation Opinions
MEET GROUP: Paskowitz Sues over Misleading SEC Proxy Statement
MEET GROUP: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Post Claims
MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Robinson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

MINNESOTA: Faces Evenstad Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
MONROE COUNTY, FL: Lola Sues Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
NATIONAL CREDIT: Summary Judgment Bid in Portnoy Partly Granted
NEON THERAPEUTICS: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Franchi Claims
NESTLE USA: NESQUIK Labeling "Deceptive," Santini Claims

OAKDALE, PA: Livas Seeks Writ of Habeas Corpus for Detainees
OXFORD HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Johnathan Z. ERISA Suit
PATRIOT INSPECTION: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Stanley Claims
PEP BOYS-MANNY: Pa. Eastern District Narrows Claims in Thorne Suit
PHEAA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Silver TCPA Suit

PHILIP MORRIS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Securities Suit
PLASTER & WALD CONSULTING: McBrayer Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
PNC BANK: Bid to Certify MLO Class in Kazi Suit Partly Granted
PSI LLC: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Wiggins Claims
PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Church Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid Shutdown

RATNER STEEL: Harris Seeks OT Pay to Crane Line Operators
RICHMOND, VA: Class in Yerbey FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
ROBINHOOD GROUP: Users Hits Trading App Downtime, Claims Losses
RT PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Delivery Drivers, Hurt Says
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Settlement in Kahn Suit Gets Final Court Approval

SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Kupfer Alleges Violation under FDCPA
SILVER LAKE GROUP: Hill Alleges Insider Trading in Intelsat  
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Williams Seeks Civil Penalties for Unpaid Wages
STEVE & SONS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Aguilar Claims

TARGET CORP: Settlement Agreement in Atherton Suit Partly Granted
TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Discriminates Against Female Staff, Rocha Says
TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Data Breach Suit From Boykin, Robbins
THEMAVEN INC: Jones Claims Website not Deaf-accessible
TOWN SPORTS: Members Still Charged Despite Closure, Radford Says

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Ferraguto Suit Over False Marketing
TRUEACCORD CORP: Burch Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
ULTIMATE CARWASH: Underpays Car Washers & Detailers, Mitchell Says
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in David P. ERISA Suit
UNITED STATES: DeSuze Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dixon Files Suit in South Carolina
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Ziarno Sues Over Automobile Sunroof Defect
WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Miller Suit in Eastern District of New York
WESTON MEMORY: Underpays Caregivers, Troutman Claims
YONKERS, NY: Malkawi Files Civil Rights Suit in New York

ZOOM VIDEO: Brams Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents

                            *********

ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: LaChance Says Dialog Merger Deal Lacks Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAIN LACHANCE, Plaintiff, vs. ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
NELSON CHAN, NARBEH DERHACOBIAN, HERVÉ FAGES, FRANCIS LEE, KEVIN
PALATNIK, and SUSAN UTHAYAKUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02344
(N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) is an action brought by Plaintiff
against Adesto Technologies Corporation and the members of Adesto's
Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
Rule and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Adesto will be acquired by Dialog Semiconductor plc through
Dialog's wholly owned subsidiary Azara Acquisition Corp.

On February 20, 2020, Adesto and Dialog issued a joint press
release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated February 20, 2020 to sell Adesto to Dialog. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Adesto common
stock will receive $12.55 in cash for each share of Adesto common
stock they own.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $500 million.

On March 27, 2020, Adesto filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC.  The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Adesto stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the data and inputs underlying the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Cowen and Company,
LLC and (ii) potential conflicts of interest faced by Cowen.
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Adesto Technologies Corporation is a California-based leading
provider of innovative, application-specific semiconductors and
embedded systems that provide the key building blocks of Internet
of Things edge devices operating on networks worldwide. The
Company's product portfolio includes analog, digital and
non-volatile memory technologies delivered in the form of standard
products, application-specific integrated circuits and intellectual
property cores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
            WEISSLAW LLP
            9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
            Beverly Hills, CA 90210
            Telephone: (310) 208-2800
            Facsimile: (310) 209-2348

                    -and-
        
            Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
            WEISSLAW LLP
            1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
            New York, NY  10036
            Telephone: (212) 682-3025
            Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

ADVANCE AUTO: Delaware District Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civ. No. 18-212-RGA (D. Del.), Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (i) granted in part and
denied in part the Advance Auto Defendants' motion to dismiss, and
(ii) granted the Starboard Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Lead plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
asserts claims for federal securities fraud under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Section
10(b) claim is asserted against Advance Auto, Thomas R. Greco, and
Thomas Okray ("Advance Auto Defendants").  Messrs. Greco and Okray
("Individual Defendants") were the CEO and CFO of Advance Auto,
respectively.  The Section 20(a) claim is asserted against
Starboard Value LP and Jeffrey C. Smith ("Starboard Defendants") as
well as the Individual Defendants.  Starboard is a hedge fund that
owned approximately 3.7% of Advance Auto's shares, and Smith was
the CEO of Starboard.  In connection with Starboard's investment in
Advance Auto, Smith was also appointed to the Board of Directors
for Advance Auto.

In a nutshell, the complaint alleges that the Defendants projected
increased sales and operating margins for Advance Auto in fiscal
year 2017 ("FY17 projections") at a time when they knew those
projections were unattainable.  When "the truth finally emerged" in
August 2017, the Company's stock price dropped.  The Plaintiff
thereafter initiated the lawsuit.

The Advance Auto Defendants and the Starboard Defendants have each
filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended class action
complaint.

Judge Andrews granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss filed by the Advance Auto Defendants.  For Count I, based
on Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, the motion is
denied as to the claims based on the projection statements and the
opinion statements, and the motion is granted as to all remaining
statements.  The dismissed claims are dismissed without prejudice.
For Count II, based on Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act, the motion is denied as to the projection statements and
opinion statements, and the motion is granted as to all remaining
statements.  The dismissed claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Among other things, Judge Andrews finds that a projection is an
untrue statement under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 if it was
issued "without a reasonable basis."  A projection lacks a
reasonable basis, and is thus actionable, if it was made with
either (1) an inadequate consideration of the available data or (2)
the use of unsound forecasting methodology.  The complaint states a
claim that the projections lacked a reasonable basis due to an
inadequate methodology.

The Court also finds that the complaint has, contrary to the
Defendants' assertions, alleged particularized facts suggesting a
lack of reasonable basis for the opinions.  The Defendants further
argue that the opinion statements are not actionable, because the
complaint does not allege that the opinions were not honestly
believed.  But that allegation is not required, because the
Plaintiff is not proceeding under the first prong of Omnicare.
Only the first prong of Omnicare requires the speaker to not
actually hold the stated belief.  The Plaintiff, however, is
proceeding under the third prong.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Starboard
Defendants, and the claims against them are dismissed without
prejudice.  Even if the complaint adequately alleged control by the
Starboard Defendants, it does not allege culpable participation.
Culpable participation for purposes of Section 20(a) refers to
either knowing and substantial participation in the wrongdoing or
inaction with the intent to further the fraud or prevent its
discovery.

The complaint does not allege that the Starboard Defendants
controlled the drafting or publishing of the press releases at
issue, or that the Starboard Defendants reviewed or signed them
before publication.  Instead, the complaint's allegations regarding
Starboard Defendants' culpable participation are entirely
conclusory.  Such conclusory allegations do not satisfy the PSLRA's
particularity requirement.  Accordingly, the Section 20(a) claims
against the Starboard Defendants are dismissed without prejudice,
the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020
Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/tVjiyp from Leagle.com.

Jewel Wigginton, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Farnan --
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP & Michael J. Farnan --
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Thomas R. Greco & Thomas Okray,
Defendants, represented by Renee Marie Mosley -- mosley@rlf.com --
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Douglas P. Baumstein --
dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice,
Katharine Lester Mowery -- mowery@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton &
Finger, PA, Samuel A. Nolen -- nolen@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton &
Finger, PA & Susan L. Grace -- susan.grace@whitecase.com -- White
&
Case LLP, pro hac vice.

Gardiner Murphy, Movant, represented by Brian E. Farnan, Farnan
LLP.

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Movant,
represented by Peter Bradford deLeeuw -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com --
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

Sudhir Kapoor, Movant, represented by Ryan M. Ernst --
rernst@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC.


ALECTO HEALTHCARE: Lucas, Ullum Sue Over Abrupt Worker Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTINA LUCAS and AUGUST "BOB" ULLUM, II, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ALECTO HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a ALECTO HEALTHCARE SERVICES
WHEELING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00067-JPB (N.D. W.Va.,
April 7, 2020) arises out of a violation of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act after Defendant fails to
provide workers with the notice of layoff following the closure of
its Ohio Valley Medical Center facility.

As a result of Defendant's willful disregard of its statutory
obligations to its employees, workers were blindsided by the
widespread job loss and individuals, as well as the community,
suffered as a result.

Ullum was employed as a physical therapist while Lucas as an
emergency room technician when they were laid off after the closure
of the Ohio Valley Medical Center.

Alecto Healthcare Services, LLC is a California-based healthcare
infrastructure services provider. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Aubrey Sparks, Esq.
            Bren Pomponio, Esq.
            Mountain State Justice, Inc.
            1217 Quarrier Street
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 344-3144
            Facsimile: (304) 344-3145

                     – and –

            F. Alex Risovich, Esq.
            Risovich Law Offices, PLLC
            3023 Pennsylvania Avenue
            Weirton, WV 26062
            Telephone: (304)723-2588
            Facsimile: (304)723-2504

ALL MARKET INC: Ali & Gibson Call Vita Coco Labeling "Deceptive"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ali, Margaret Gibson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- All Market, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-02823 (S.D.N.Y. April 6, 2020) alleges
that the Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells coconut milk beverages purporting to be flavored only with
vanilla, under the Vita Coco brand.

According to the complaint, the Product is misleading because
although labeled as "Vanilla," it has less vanilla than the label
represents and contains non-vanilla flavors that supply most of the
vanilla taste. The unqualified, prominent and conspicuous
representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading
because the Product contains non-vanilla flavors which imitate and
extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla bean, yet these
flavors are not disclosed to consumers as required and expected.

The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably and justifiably relied
on these negligent misrepresentations and omissions, which served
to induce and did induce, the purchase of the Product.

All Market, Inc. is a New York-based company that provides
non-carbonated beverages and offers coconut water, sparkling, milk,
oil, and other related products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
            Sheehan & Associates, P.C.  
            505 Northern Blvd Ste 311
            Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
            Telephone: (516) 303-0552
            Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
            Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

ALLEGHENY CTY: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Graham Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed in the class
action styled as Michael Graham, Alexus Diggs and Heather Connolly,
on behalf of themelves and all others similarly situated,
Petitioners v. Allegheny County and Orlando Harper, Warden of
Allegheny County Jail, Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-00496-CRE
(W.D., Penn., April 8, 2020).

Allegheny County is a county in the southwest of the U.S. state of
Pennsylvania. As of 2019, the population was 1,216,045, making it
the state's second-most populous county, following Philadelphia
County. The county seat is Pittsburgh.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Bret Grote, Esq.
   Abolitionist Law Center
   PO Box 8654
   Pittsburgh, PA 15221
   Tel: (412) 654-9070
   Email: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org



ALTRIA GROUP: Sued by Reece Over Monopolistic Sale of E-Cigs
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas J. Reece, on his own behalf and all others similarly
situated v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and JUUL LABS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-02345 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants concerning anticompetitive agreements between them in
which Altria agreed to refrain from competing against Juul in the
United States market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in
return for a substantial ownership interest in Juul, in violation
of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

In light of declining sales in the market for traditional
cigarettes and a shift by consumers to alternative nicotine
delivery devices, Altria viewed participation in the e-cigarette
market as essential to its long-term survival. In 2013, Altria
entered the market through its subsidiary Nu Mark LLC. Its flagship
product was the MarkTen e-cigarette. In 2015, Juul entered the
relevant market with a sleek new device and quickly captured a
substantial share of the market. By 2018, Juul had amassed market
share of over 70 percent stunning Altria and other competitors.
Juul's swift rise posed a grave competitive threat to Altria in the
both the e-cigarette and traditional cigarette markets. To
eliminate that threat, Altria began a two-prong strategy of trying
to acquire Juul while continuing to compete aggressively against
it, the Plaintiff avers.

According to the complaint, Altria continued to press the
acquisition. In the fall of 2018, Juul agreed to negotiate with
Altria under the condition that Altria stop competing with Juul in
the market for e-cigarettes. Discussions would not begin until
Altria had pulled its products off the shelves. Altria, at first,
refused to consider this condition, but in October 2018 it
succumbed to the pressure and began to withdraw its e-cigarette
products from the relevant market. Two months later in December
2018, Altria announced its intention to cease competing entirely in
the relevant market. Approximately two weeks after making this
announcement, Altria disclosed that, on October 20, 2018, it had
executed a Purchase Agreement and related agreements with Juul.

The Transaction's anticompetitive effects were particularly clear
in the market for closed-system e-cigarettes given high barriers to
entry, such as U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval, the
Plaintiff contends. He notes that repositioning new products in the
market was also unavailing to counter the anticompetitive impact of
the Transaction. He asserts that the Defendants cannot show the
transaction restricting competition resulted in cognizable
efficiencies sufficient to outweigh the competitive harm caused by
Altria's agreement to exit the relevant market; nor can the
Defendants point to pro-competitive benefits that could not have
been achieved through less restrictive means. In fact, he adds,
much of the Defendants' collaboration was restructured in January
2020 to eliminate its marketing aspects, further reducing the scope
of theoretical benefits from their agreements.

The Defendants' conduct has illegally restrained competition in the
relevant market in violation of federal antitrust laws, the
Plaintiff argues. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, entities that purchased Juul
products were overcharged and sustained injury to their business
and property, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Juul products directly from Juul on the
Juul.com.

Altria is one of the country's largest tobacco companies and was
formerly a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett Beasley, Esq.
          SALIM BEASLEY LLC
          1901 Texas Street
          Natchitoches, LA 71457
          Phone: (318) 354-1043
          Fax: (318) 354-1227
          Email: bbeasely@salim-beasley.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 577-0050
          Fax: (212) 577-0054
          Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                 mclerkin@motleyrice.com


AMEREN ILLINOIS CO: Rossman Files Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameren Illinois
Company. The case is styled as Kevin Rossman, individually and for
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ameren Illinois Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02214 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory
Actions filed pursuant to the Fed. Election Commission: Failure
Enforce Compliance.

Ameren Corporation is an American power company created December
31, 1997, by the merger of St. Louis, Missouri's Union Electric
Company and the neighboring Central Illinois Public Service Company
of Springfield, Illinois. It is now a holding company for several
power companies and energy companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
   Werman Salas P.C.
   77 West Washington, Suite 1402
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 419-1008
   Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com

      - and -

   Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
   Werman Salas P.C.
   77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 419-1008
   Email: msalas@flsalaw.com

      - and -

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

   
The Defendant is represented by:

   Jennifer Joy Froehlich, Esq.
   Holland & Knight LLP
   150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 715-5775
   Email: jennifer.froehlich@hklaw.com





APCT INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Medina Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHIE MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APCT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
20CV365251 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 18, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing
to pay minimum and overtime wages, to provide meal periods and
permit rest breaks, and to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary and injunctive
relief arising from the Defendants' violations of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

Apct, Inc., manufactures electrical components. The Company
specializes in providing printed circuit boards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-malil: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


APPLE INC: iPhone XR Has Connectivity Issue, Anderson et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELAINE ANDERSON, DIANA ATKINS, SCOTT BURST, BETH CHAVEZ,
COLEA CHILDS, EUIHWAN CHO, ALISON COLEMAN, VICTORIA CORNWELL,
DONALD DAHL, JACQUELINE DEMERITTE, CANDACE MARTINO, SCOTT SAPKOSKY
and ERIK VILLAGRAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02328 (N.D. Cal., April 6,
2020) contends that the Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells
their iPhone XR with defects that the Defendant was aware of.

The Defendant fails to disclose at the point of sale or otherwise
inform consumers including the Plaintiffs that this design
difference causes the iPhone XR to have half the signal
connectivity and 4G speed of the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max and
renders the XR far less capable of obtaining a reliable connection
in the same areas where the XS and Max can reliable connect.

Plaintiffs bring this action for the Defendants' alleged violation
of California consumer protection acts and for breach of express
and implied warranties on behalf of a nationwide class. Plaintiffs
seek damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.

Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
            Ben Harrington, Esq.
            HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
            715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
            Berkeley, CA 94710
            Telephone: (510) 725-3000
            Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
            Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
                   benh@hbsslaw.com

                       – and –

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

ARDENT COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Orozco Suit with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George W. Hu of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed with prejudice the case, EDGAR
OROZCO, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated,
Assigned to George H. Wu Plaintiff, v. ARDENT COMPANIES, INC., a
Louisiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. CV 18-2763-GW-SSx (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Order dated Feb. 3, 2020 adopting its tentative
ruling as the Court's final ruling and thereby granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
Attorneys' Fees, and Service Award, the parties will comply with
the terms of the Settlement as approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Judgment
is available at https://is.gd/B5VVEN from Leagle.com.

Edgar Orozco, an individual, for himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Anthony Strauss --
mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC, Andrew Clayton
Ellison -- andrew@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC &
Aris Edmund Karakalos -- aris@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and
Strauss APC.

Ardent Companies, Inc., a Louisiana company, Defendant, represented
by Joshua D. Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
PC & Perry K. Miska, Jr. -- pmiska@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
PC.


BENGAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Barahona Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALDO BARAHONA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. BENGAL RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a BENGAL INDIAN CUISINE,
and MAINUL M. CHOWDHURY, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-21492 (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020) is a collective action
seeking to recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-219.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempted, full time,
hourly cook, dishwasher, kitchen cleaner, and janitor, from
approximately January 15, 2018 to March 20, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently and regularly
worked 72 hours weekly, but compensated for only 40 hours. Also,
Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunch periods during his
employment with Defendants.

Allegedly, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every
hour that he worked in excess of 40.

Moreover, when Plaintiff complained about the unpaid overtime hours
on or about March 20, 2020, he was immediately fired by Defendant
Chowdhury.

Mainul M. Chowdhury is the owner/officer and manager of Bengal
Indian Cuisine.

Bengal Restaurant LLC d/b/a Bengal Indian Cuisine is an Indian
restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEXAR COUNTY, TX: Lozano Seeks Overtime Pay for VA Counselors
-------------------------------------------------------------
MOSES LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00450 (W.D. Tex., April 9, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a salaried Veterans Affairs
(VA) Claims Counselor from September 2017 until February 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
VA Claims Counselors regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, Defendant deprived them of overtime compensation for
all of the hours worked over 40 per week.

Plaintiff seeks overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of
forty per week, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and other
costs.

Bexar County, Texas operates the Bexar County Military and Veterans
Services Center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOOHOO.COM USA: Khan Sues over Phantom Discounts
------------------------------------------------
FARID KHAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BOOHOO.COM USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, BOOHOO GROUP PLC, a United Kingdom public limited
company, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03332 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff against Boohoo.com USA, Inc. and Boohoo Group PLC for
their false and deceptive pricing practices in connection with
their sale of "boohoo" branded clothing, accessories and other
items on their U.S. website, http://us.boohoo.com.

According to the complaint, Boohoo does so by advertising fake and
inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a
false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain
price. For example, anyone visiting Boohoo's site on a given day
during a "50% OFF EVERYTHING SALE" who buys a dress "on sale" for
$20 based on a crossed-out reference price of $40 is being misled.
This is deception because that dress has rarely, if ever, been sold
in the recent past on the site for $40.

By this action, Plaintiff seeks to put an immediate end to the
Defendant's untruthful marketing practices and recover restitution
and damages on behalf of all persons who have fallen victim to
Boohoo's sham sales by purchasing products on Boohoo's website from
April 2016 to the present.

Boohoo.com USA, Inc. is a California-based company engaged in the
business of marketing and selling "boohoo" branded clothing and
accessories on the Internet.

Boohoo Group PLC serves as the parent company of the online
clothing brands boohoo, boohooMAN, PrettyLittleThing, Nasty Gal,
Karen Millen, Coast, and Miss Pap. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Yasin M. Almadani, Esq.
            ALMADANI LAW
            14742 Beach Blvd., Suite 410
            La Mirada, CA 90638
            Telephone: (213) 335-3935
            Facsimile: (213) 296-6278
            Email: yma@lawalm.com

                        – and –

            Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq.
            AI LAW, PLC
            4343 Von Karman Ave, Suite 250
            Newport Beach, CA 92660
            Telephone: (949) 260-1240
            Facsimile: (949) 260-1280
            Email: aibrahim@ailawfirm.com

BRICKS CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexei Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aztec Party Handlers and Rentals,
Inc. and Bricks Construction Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01010 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2020), seeks unpaid compensation,
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of
court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Hernandez worked for Bricks Construction, currently a contractor
for Aztec, as a laborer from October 2019 until March 7, 2020,
setting up tents, tables, chairs and lighting for special events at
hotels and other venues. He claims that he works more than 40 hours
per week without overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL: Martinez Alleges Improper Pay for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA MARTINEZ, both individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., and TMG MAILING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03722 (D.N.J., April 7, 2020) is a class action brought
to remedy Defendants' failure to comply with federal and state
wage-and-hour laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a manual laborer
in the Edgewood Facility since March 2018.

Ms. Martinez and the FLSA and New York class members she seeks to
represent are current and former manual laborers who perform the
hauling, sorting, and packing of printed materials at Defendants'
mailing and printing facility in Edgewood, New York and generally
have the position title of Hauler, Sorter, or Packer, or other
similar titles.

Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. provides a broad array of
communication and technology services including mailing and
printing services to companies around the globe.

TMG Mailing Solutions, Inc. is a national provider of office
management, mailing, and printing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Glen D. Savits, Esq.
            GREEN SAVITS, LLC
            25B Vreeland Road. Suite 207
            Florham Park, NJ 07932
            Telephone: (973) 695-7777
            Email: Gsavits@greensavits.com

                     – and –

            Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
            Artemio Guerram, Esq.
            GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
            260 Fair Street
            Kingston, NY 12401
            Telephone: (845) 255-9370
            Email: Msweeney@getmansweeny.com
                   Aguerra@getmansweeney.com

BROKERS EDGE GENERAL: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Loyhayem
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN LOYHAYEM, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BROKERS EDGE GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03323 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020)
is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, Defendant regularly makes autodialed
telephone calls to consumers in order to solicit business. At no
point did Plaintiff inquire Defendant about its services or provide
authorization to receive autodialed calls on his cellular telephone
from Defendant.

The Defendant's call forced Plaintiff and other similarly situated
class members to live without the utility of their cellular phones
by occupying their cellular telephone with one or more unwanted
calls, causing a nuisance and lost time.

Brokers Edge General Insurance Services, Inc. is a California-based
insurance broking company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                    – and -  

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

CANON BUSINESS: Fowler Alleges Misconduct on Data Breach Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case STEVEN FOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CANON BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES,
INC. and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02903 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020) arises out of a data breach
that was perpetrated against Defendant Canon, which held in its
possession personally identifiable information ("PII") of Defendant
GE's employees, former employees, and other beneficiaries entitled
to benefits from GE.

The PII exposed in the Data Breach included, among other things:
direct deposit forms, driver's licenses, passports, birth
certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, medical
child support orders, tax withholding forms, beneficiary
designation forms and applications for benefits such as retirement,
severance and death benefits with related forms and documents, may
have included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, bank account numbers, passport numbers, dates of
birth, and other information contained in the relevant forms.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect employees' and former employees'
PII.

Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Class
Member PII; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps
to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
            Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            888 7th Avenue
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (646) 837-7150
            Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
            Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                   aleslie@bursor.com

                         – and –

            L. Timothy Fisher, 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

                         – and –

            Gary E. Mason, Esq.
            David K. Lietz, Esq.
            MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
            5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 305
            Washington, DC 20016
            Telephone: (202) 429-2290
            Email: gmason@masonllp.com
                   dlietz@masonllp.com

                         – and –

            Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
            MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
            227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
            Chicago, IL 60630
            Telephone: (312) 283-3814
            Email: gklinger@masonllp.com

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Lewis Sues in N.D. Georgia Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts LLC.
The case is captioned as Angela Lewis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Capital Accounts, LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-01216-WMR-WEJ (N.D. Ga., March 18,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II.

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

Capital Accounts specializes in the collection of overdue
balances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, LLC
          1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


CENTERSTATE BANK: Precision Roofing Alleges Improper Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRECISION ROOFING OF N. FLORIDA INC. individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTERSTATE BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla., April 6,
2020) is a civil action seeking monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief from Defendant, arising from bank's routine
practice of assessing and collecting "overdraft fees" on accounts
that were never actually overdrawn.

The Defendant issues debit cards to its checking account customers,
including Plaintiff, which allows its customers to have electronic
access to their checking accounts for purchases, payments,
withdrawals and other electronic debit transactions.

According to the complaint, the Defendant charges fees (currently
in the amount of $35) for debit card transactions that purportedly
result in an overdraft, pursuant to its standard account
agreement.

The Centerstate's customers have been injured by its improper
practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their
accounts in violation of their agreements with Centerstate.  

Centerstate Bank is 75th largest bank in the United States and
holds more than $17 billion in assets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
            Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
            Daniel Tropin, Esq.
            KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
            One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
            Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
            Telephone: 954-525-4100
            Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                   streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                   tropin@kolawyers.com

                        – and –

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

CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Murga Sues in California Over Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cenveo Worldwide
Limited, et al. The case is styled as Ramon Murga, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cenveo Worldwide
Limited, a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-03179 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Cenveo Worldwide Limited is located in Richmond, Virginia, and is
part of the commercial printing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
          NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 553-3600
          Fax: (310) 553-3603
          Email: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com


CF ARCIS: $240K Settlement in Hart Suit Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE HART, CLYDE STEPHEN LEWIS, JAMES PRESTI, and
MICHAEL RALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CF ARCIS VII LLC d/b/a THE CLUB AT
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, d/b/a TPC AT SNOQUALMIE RIDGE, and d/b/a
SNOQUALMIE RIDGE GOLF CLUB, CF ARCIS IV HOLDINGS, LLC, ARCIS EQUITY
PARTNERS, LLC, BLAKE S. WALKER, individually and on behalf of the
marital community of BLAKE S. WALKER and JANE DOE WALKER, and
BRIGHTSTAR GOLF SNOQUALMIE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-CV-01932-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
class action settlement, and (ii) the Class Counsel's motion for an
award of fees and costs.

The District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
class action settlement between the parties in September 2019.  The
Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class's claims against
Arcis in exchange for Arcis' agreement to provide an agreed number
of immediate refunds upon approval, to provide a minimum number of
refunds for three years following Jan. 1, 2020, and to provide
future refunds as set forth in the Agreement.

Upon consideration of all papers filed and proceedings in the
matter, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement.  The
Court finds the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the Settlement Class, within the authority of the
parties, and the result of extensive arm's length negotiations with
the guidance of an experienced mediator.

The Court confirmed that the proposed Settlement Class satisfies
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.23.

Two members of the Settlement Class - John Yae, and Ray and Shannon
Coleman -have timely requested to be excluded from the Settlement
Class and the Settlement.  Accordingly, the Order will not bind or
affect these Settlement Class Members.

There was one timely objection to the Settlement by Robert C.
Feldmann, which after due consideration of all points made, the
Court has overruled.  The Court interprets it as a timely request
to be excluded from the Settlement Class and Settlement and,
accordingly, the Order will not bind or affect Robert C. Feldmann.

The Court dismissed with prejudice all the claims of the members of
the Settlement Class that have been, or could have been, alleged in
the action, including the claim that Arcis unlawfully introduced
non-refundable memberships and materially limited the frequency
with which members with refundable memberships could receive
refunds without the required notice or membership approval, as well
as any other claims arising from the 2013 revisions to the June 30,
2008 Membership and Operating Policies.

The Representative Plaintiffs, for themselves and as the
representatives of the Settlement Class, and on behalf of each
Class Member who has not timely opted out, and each of their
respective agents, successors, heirs, assigns, and any other person
who can claim by or through them in any manner, fully, finally, and
forever irrevocably release, relinquish, and forever discharge with
prejudice all Released Claims against the Released Parties.

The Settlement requires Arcis to pay a $240,000 Distribution Amount
into a non-reversionary fund.  From this amount, the Parties will
make Immediate Refunds to eight Settlement Class Members totaling
$181,000.

The Settlement also provides prospective relief.  Arcis will make a
minimum of four refunds per year for three years.  Arcis will also
pay a refund in the amount of 70% of the then-current price of a
refundable membership each time it collects cash from membership
fees (from the sale of both refundable and non-refundable
memberships) equal to three times the refund amounts.  And once the
Club has 420 or more active golf members, Arcis will increase the
frequency of refunds.  Each time Arcis collects cash from
membership fees (from the sale of both refundable and
non-refundable memberships) equal to 1.5 times the refund amount,
Arcis will pay a refund in the amount of 85% of the then-current
price of a refundable membership.

In all cases, Arcis will protect against any artificial reduction
of the refund amount by agreeing to never sell refundable
memberships at a price less than 150% of the then-current published
price for nonrefundable memberships. Finally, for seven years,
Arcis will prepare and furnish to the Settlement Class Members, on
a semi-annual basis, statements detailing the Net Membership Fees
Arcis has received, and the number and amount of refunds made in
the previous year.  Arcis will send the statements by email, if
available, or by U.S. mail to all the Settlement Class Members who
have not yet received a refund.

The Court approved payment of attorneys' fees and costs in the
amount of $59,000.  The amount will be taken out of the
Distribution Amount that is paid by Arcis.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/EnP79R from Leagle.com.

Clyde Stephen Lewis, James Presti & Michael Ralls, individually
and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented
by Adrienne McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

CF Arcis VII LLC, doing business as The Club at Snoqualmie Ridge,
TPC at Snoqualmie Ridge, Snoqualmie Ridge Golf Club, Arcis Equity
Partners, LLC & CF Arcis IV Holdings, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Rebecca J. Francis , DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stephen M. Rummage
, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle,
WA
98101-3045

Robert C Feldmann, Interested Party, pro se.


CLARK COUNTY, KY: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jones Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Jones, Individually; and David Jones, On Behalf
of All Persons Similarly SITUATED, Appellants, v. CLARK COUNTY,
KENTUCKY; AND FRANK DOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees, Case No.
2018-CA-001710-MR (Ky. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the Nov. 1, 2018 order of the Clark Circuit Court granting
summary judgment to Clark County and Doyle, individually on Jones'
claims.

David Jones was arrested and incarcerated on Oct. 26, 2013, in the
Clark County Detention Center.  While in the detention center,
Jones was charged a $35 booking fee and $10 fee for each day of his
confinement.  Jones was incarcerated for approximately 14 months
and was released on Dec. 15, 2014, after posting bond.  All charges
against Jones were ultimately dismissed.  Subsequently, Jones
received a bill totaling $4,008.85 for fees associated with his
incarceration at the detention center.  Jones submitted a one-time
payment of $20.

Jones then filed an action against Clark County, Kentucky, and
Frank Doyle, Clark County Jailer, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Therein, Jones alleged that the
assessed fees for his incarceration violated Kentucky Revised
Statutes (KRS) 441.265 and the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Jones also raised
various claims under state law.  Clark County and Doyle thereafter
filed a motion to dismiss.

The federal district court determined that no violations of the due
process clause occurred citing to Sickles v. Campbell County.  The
district court dismissed Jones' claims.

Jones then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.  The Sixth Circuit concluded that the due process
clause presented no impediment to the assessed incarceration fees.
The court declined to exercise jurisdiction on Jones' state law
claims.

On Feb. 3, 2017, Jones filed a Class Action Complaint against the
Appellees in the Clark Circuit Court.  Jones alleged that he brings
the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23.01, et seq. of the
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.  The class consists of all
persons admitted to, incarcerated in, or released from the Jail who
have had their cash confiscated and kept by the Defendants, or have
been billed by the Defendants, for the costs of their confinement
when the charges for which they were incarcerated were subsequently
dismissed.

The Appellees filed an answer and, thereafter, a motion for summary
judgment.  They argued that the assessed fees were authorized under
KRS 441.265 and did not violate the Kentucky Constitution.  Jones
responded by arguing that under KRS 441.265, such fees could only
be assessed by a sentencing court and not by the detention center.
Moreover, Jones maintained that the assessed fees violated Sections
1, 2, 10, and 17 of the Kentucky Constitution.  As a result, Jones
also asserted he was entitled to damages upon the claims of
negligence, conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
restitution.

By order entered Nov. 1, 2018, the circuit court granted summary
judgment in favor of Clark County and Doyle.  It determined that
KRS 441.265 permitted the detention center to assess $4,008.85 in
fees and that no provision of the Kentucky Constitution was
violated.  The appeal follows.

Jones contends that the circuit court erroneously rendered summary
judgment in favor of Clark County and Doyle.  He initially
maintains the circuit court improperly interpreted KRS 441.265 as
permitting the detention center to assess fees in the absence of an
order from the "sentencing court."  Jones believes KRS 441.265
mandates that "an order of a sentencing court" is required before a
prisoner's confiscated money can be kept.

Considering the plain language of KRS 441.265, the interpretation
by the Court in Cole v. Warren County, and the definition of
prisoner contained in KRS 441.005(3)(a), the Appellate Court holds
that the trial court is bound by both statute and precedent to
reach the conclusion that a jail or detention center may assess
fees associated with incarceration against a prisoner who is only
charged with a crime and without an order from a sentencing court.

Jones next alleges that KRS 441.265 violates Sections 1, 2, 10, and
17 of the Kentucky Constitution.  He generally argues that it is
unconstitutional for the state to collect and keep monies from an
innocent person.  Jones cites to a plethora of cases; however,
Jones fails to set forth any specific arguments as to how KRS
441.265 violates the cited sections of the Kentucky Constitution.
Jones even fails to set forth the language of these sections.  The
Appellate Court concludes that Jones failed to demonstrate a
violation of Sections 1, 2, 10, or 17 of the Kentucky
Constitution.

Jones also argues that the assessed incarceration fees violates the
fundamentally American presumption of innocence.  He particularly
maintains that absent a plea or an adjudication of guilt, a person
is presumed innocent and owes the state nothing.  He maintains that
the United States Supreme Court ordered the state of Colorado to
return money it had confiscated from a prisoner after his
conviction was vacated on appeal and the state elected to not retry
the charges.

The Appellate Court views Nelson v. Colorado as distinguishable.
In Nelson, the appellant was ordered to pay after conviction sums
to a victim compensation fund, a victims' and witnesses' assistance
law enforcement fund, court costs, restitution, and a time payment
fee.  The time payment fee was imposed each year that appellant had
not fully paid the sums ordered by the court.  As such, it is clear
that Nelson did not involve incarceration fees, as in the case.
The Appellate Court, thus, rejected Jones' contention of error.

The Appellate Court views any remaining allegations of error as
moot or without merit.

In sum, the Appellate Court is the opinion that the circuit court
properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.  For
the foregoing reasons, the order of the Clark Circuit Court is
affirmed, the Appellate Court rules.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order
is available at https://is.gd/gu3C6I from Leagle.com.

Gregory A. Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Prospect, Kentucky, Matt
Boyd, Lexington, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellants.

Jeffrey C. Mando -- jmando@aswdlaw.com -- Jennifer L. Langen,
Covington, Kentucky Brief for Appellees.


COLONIAL PENN LIFE: Faces Kelley Suit Over Life Insurance Policies
------------------------------------------------------------------
THURMA J. KELLEY Individually, and on Behalf of the Class,
Plaintiff, vs. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03348-CBM-E (C.D. Cal.,
April 9, 2020) alleges that Colonial Penn refuses to comply with
mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code as well as
California common law regulating the lapse and termination of life
insurance policies.

Since January 1, 2013, the Defendant and other related entities
have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes
of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of
pending lapse or termination. Colonial Penn has refused to provide
required grace periods. It has also failed to notify thousands of
policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive
critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite
being required to do so on an annual basis. Each of these important
safeguards are required by, among other sources, California
Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.1 California law
requires strict compliance with these safeguards and Colonial Penn
has refused and continues to refuse to comply.

According to the complaint, Colonial Penn has failed to properly
administer policies, has failed to properly evaluate the status of
payments due under policies and failed to properly pay claims to
beneficiaries for policies lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of
premium as a result. Indeed, from January of 2013 until the
present, thousands of policy owners and beneficiaries have lost,
and continue to lose, the benefit, value and security of their life
insurance; have been, and continue to be, forced into unnecessary
reinstatements; and in many instances have lost all reasonable
access to any insurance at all. Ultimately, Colonial Penn has
robbed thousands of their customers and beneficiaries of the
investment in such policies, charged improper amounts for
reinstatement, and denied policy benefits as well as the security
intended to be provided from such insurance.

Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company is a Pennsylvania-based life
insurance company doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
            Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
            NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
            225 Broadway, 19th Floor
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 325-0492
            Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
            Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                   atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                      – and –

            Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
            Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
            Sarah Ball, Esq.
            WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
            8489 La Mesa Boulevard
            La Mesa, CA 91942
            Telephone: (619) 234-9000
            Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
            Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                   gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
                   sball@einsurelaw.com

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Thervil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth
Financial Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dukatlene
Thervil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., Pendrick Capital
Partners, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-60707-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., April 6, 2020).

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

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., provides financial services.
The Company offers first party outsourcing, check collectionn, skip
tracing, billing services, and debt purchasing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Nino Koller, Michelle Brown, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Consumer Reports, Inc., a
New York nonprofit corporation, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
37-02020-00011819-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00660-JLS-KSC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Consumer Reports is an independent, nonprofit organization that
works side by side with consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 623-4200
          Fax: (858) 623-4299
          Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                 zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Anthony Cocchia, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (619) 236-1414
          Fax: (619) 232-8311
          Email: Robert.Cocchia@dentons.com


COVINGTON CREDIT: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Jones Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Jones, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. COVINGTON CREDIT OF TEXAS, INC. (d/b/a and/or a/k/a
Covington Credit, SM Credit, and/or Southern Management
Corporation), Case No. 3:20-cv-00798-K (N.D. Tex., April 6, 2020),
is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act arising from the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek.

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

The Plaintiff worked as a branch network collector for the
Defendant.

Covington Credit is a small loan consumer finance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRM PROPERTY: Mendez Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANCISCO ALBERTO ACEVEDO MENDEZ, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. CRM
PROPERTY CORP., a Massachusetts Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10691-DLC (D. Mass., April 8, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Massachusetts General Laws, CH. 149 Sections 148 and 150.

Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt finishing carpenter with Defendant
from approximately February 2017 and continuing through November
2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours
during most work weeks for the period of his employment with
Defendant.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to:

     -- compensate Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times
his regular rate for those hours that he worked in excess of 40
hours per work week;

     -- compensate Plaintiff for the time he spent traveling to get
supplies for the Defendant; and

     -- maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA.

CRM Property Corp. provides construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          12 Ericsson St., Suite 2F
          Boston, MA 02122
          Tel: 857-383-4903
          Fax: 857-383-4928
          Email: kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com


CRUNCH LLC: Chavez Seeks Proper Wages for Personal Trainers
-----------------------------------------------------------
JORGE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRUNCH, LLC and DOES 1-100 Defendants,
Case No. Case 3:20-cv-02362 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020) alleges that
the Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated sick pay and/or paid time off ("PTO") at regular rate of
pay, all wages earned at time of their termination, all split shift
premiums, reporting time pay, meal period premium pay, as well as
rest break premium pay as required by California law.

Defendants implemented a policy of forcing Plaintiffs and Class
members to work off the clock and failing to pay them all minimum
wages and overtime wages earned. Defendants also failed to provide
Plaintiff and class members with itemized wage statements
containing the correct hourly rates for sick pay and/or PTO and
therefore, also failed to provide itemized wage statements listing
the accurate amount of gross and net wages earned during the pay
period.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee with
the job title of personal trainer.

CRUNCH, LLC is a California-based company in the business of owning
and operating gymnasiums and providing fitness related products to
the general public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Ashwin Ladva, Esq.
            Scott S. Nakama, Esq.
            LADVA LAW FIRM
            530 Jackson Street, 2nd Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94133
            Telephone: (415) 296-8844
            Facsimile: (415) 296-8847
            Email: Ladvalaw@gmail.com

DEVA CONCEPTS: Souza Sues Over Hair Care Products' Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02930 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for various law violations including the New York
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the New York False Advertising Act,
and the State Consumer Frauds Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engaged in deceptive and
false advertising by failing to disclose the harmful side effects
caused by its DevaCurl hair care products. The Defendant advertises
the products as safe, natural and free from harsh ingredients and
designed to moisturize, nourish and strengthen hair. However,
several consumer complaints have emerged that the products caused
hair loss, hair damage, balding, and scalp injury. The Plaintiff
claims that she would not have purchased the products had she known
about the harmful side effects.

Deva Concepts, LLC is a manufacturer of hair care products with its
principal place of business at 560 Broadway, Suite 206, New York,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -
          
          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
                  david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  alia.abdi@zimmreed.com

DEVON ENERGY: Price Seeks Overtime Pay for Utility Inspectors
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PRICE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00316-GBW-GJF (D. N.M., April 8, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Utility Inspector from
approximately August 2016 until October 2017 and regularly worked
for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated utility inspectors overtime for all hours
that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages.

Devon Energy Corporation operates as an independent energy company
that is involved primarily in oil and gas exploration, development
and production, the transportation of oil, gas, and NGLs and the
processing of natural gas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Thompson Suit Wants to Stop Excessive Rents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Cobb Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dominium Management Services, LLC, St. Anthony Leased
Housing Associates II, Limited Partnership, St. Anthony Leased
Housing Associates U, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-20-4576 (Minn. Dist.,
Hennepin Cty., March 18, 2020), seeks permanent injunction
enjoining the Defendants from charging rents in excess of fair
market rent for all current and future Legends tenants.

According to the complaint, since 2015, the Defendant has
unlawfully overcharged rent to dozens of low-income senior citizens
living in an apartment complex in St. Anthony, Minnesota-The
Legends at Silver Lake. Dominium has imposed rents well above
statutorily mandated limits even as it falsely assured tenants that
it was complying with the required rent limits.

According to the complaint, when Dominium was confronted last year
with evidence that it had overcharged rent to Legends tenants for
years, it refused to either refund the overcharges to tenants or
comply with the rent limits going forward. The Plaintiff files this
class action to stop Dominium unlawful conduct and remedy the harm
caused to the tenants.

Linda Cobb Thompson has been a tenant since 2015 at The Legends at
Silver Lake, an apartment complex at 2500 3rd Avenue NE, in St.
Anthony, Minnesota, which is in Ramsey County.

The Defendants are all associated with a business enterprise called
"Dominium." Dominium is private affordable housing developers in
the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Prentiss Cox, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
          CONSUMER PROTECTION CLINIC
          190 Mondale Hall
          229 19th Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55455
          Telephone: 612 625-5515
          Facsimile: 612 624-5771

               - and -

          Margaret Kaplan, Esq.
          John Cann, Esq.
          Timothy Thompson, Esq.
          James Poradek, Esq.
          HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER
          382 Banfil Street.
          St. Paul, MN 55102
          Telephone: 612 600-4028
          E-mail: mkaplan@hjcmn.org
                  jcann@hjcmn.org
                  tthompson@hjcmn.org
                  jporadek@hjcmn.org


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Rickenbaker Suit Over Tuition Fee Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAINGER RICKENBAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01358-BHH (D.S.C., April 8, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated individuals, alleges that the Defendant has
failed and continues to fail to adequately and fully refund him and
all others similarly-situated, tuition fees and other mandatory
fees that they already paid for the 2020 Spring Semester. The
Defendant has been unable to provide the contracted for services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities due to its closure
following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Drexel University is an institution of higher learning located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888

DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gizze, on behalf of himself and other employees and former
employees of Defendant similarly situated v. DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION
& DEVELOPMENT, INC., and ROY F. DUNWORTH, Case No.
2:20-cv-14104-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Missouri's Minimum Wage Laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was never paid overtime.
At various times, Mr. Gizze did inquire, but was advised that
overtime was not available. He was told that he was exempt as a
salaried employee. The Plaintiff was paid straight time and
expected to work in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
those hours exceeding 40 hours per week.

Mr. Gizze was employed by the Defendants on a construction crew
since January 2019.

Defendant, DC, is a corporation of the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Address, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STUART M. ADDRESS, P.A.
          611 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite A
          Stuart, FL 34994
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Phone: (772) 781-8003
          Facsimile: (772) 781-8005
          Email: stuart@stuartaddresslaw.com


E-HOUSE CHINA: Maso Capital et al. Sue Over 2016 Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
MASO CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLACKWELL PARTNERS LLC – SERIES
A, and CROWN MANAGED ACCOUNTS SPC FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CROWN/MASO
SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. E-HOUSE (CHINA) HOLDINGS LIMITED,
XIN ZHOU, NEIL NANPENG SHEN, E-HOUSE HOLDINGS LTD., CHARLES CHAO,
BING XIANG, HONGCHAO ZHU, JEFFREY ZENG, WINSTON LI, DAVID JIAN SUN,
CANHAO HUANG, SINA CORPORATION, KANRICH HOLDINGS LIMITED, ON
CHANCE, INC., JUN HENG INVESTMENT LIMITED, SMART CREATE GROUP
LIMITED, and SMART MASTER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02943 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of former owners of
E-House American Depository Receipts (ADS), who sold their shares
from April 15, 2016 until August 31, 2016, allege that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements about their stock
merger deal, where each ADS would be bought for $6.85 per ADS.  The
Defendants claim the deal was fair and in the best interest of
investors, although there were no plans for post-merger
transactions, and that the proxies' published projections as the
best available. The Plaintiffs and Class members contend that the
Defendants' fraudulent scheme aimed for them to accept the deal on
August 12, 2016. After the merger, E-House relisted a portion of
its business at a price reflecting a valuation far higher than the
$6.85 per ADS. The Defendants' wrongful act caused losses and
damages to the Plaintiff and Class members.

E-House (China) Holdings Limited is a real estate services company
with principal place of business located at 11/F, Yinli Building,
383 Guangyan Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai, China.

E-House Holdings Ltd. is an operator of real estate businesses. It
was founded through a merger deal entered by E-House (China)
Holdings Limited.

SINA Corporation is a technology company based in Beijing, China.

Kanrich Holdings Limited is a business company with limited
liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands.

On Chance, Inc. is a business company with limited liability
incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands.

Jun Heng Investment Limited is a business company with limited
liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands.

Smart Create Group Limited is a business company with limited
liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands.

Smart Master International Limited is a business company with
limited liability incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005          
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com
                  cvillegas@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com
                  jbissell-linsk@labaton.com

FAMILY VENTURES: Igoe Hits Insufficient Vehicle Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Diedrich Igoe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Family Ventures 1 LLC and
Kerri-Lea Hayman, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01123, (D. S.C., March
21, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages and statutory
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
throughout South Carolina and Georgia where Igoe worked as a
delivery driver. Delivery drivers use their own automobiles to
deliver pizzas and other food items to their customers. Igoe claims
that their vehicle expense reimbursement rates are insufficient
causing their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com

             - and -

      Jake Modla, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
      454 S Anderson Rd., Suite 303
      Rock Hill, SC 29730
      Telephone: (803) 328-0898
      Email: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com


FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Remand of Walters Suit to State Court Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case, GREGORY WALTERS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FAMOUS
TRANSPORTS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-08016-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), to state court.

On Oct. 15, 2019, Plaintiffs Gregory Walters and Christi Walters
filed the putative class-action lawsuit against Defendants Famous,
Panther II Transportation, Inc, ArcBest Logistics, Inc., and
ArcBest Corp. in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco, captioned Walters, et. al. v. Famous
Transports, Inc., et. al., Case No. CGC-19-579980 ("State Court
Action").

The Plaintiffs commenced the action for the Defendants' failure to
provide (1) required meal periods, and (2) required rest periods;
failure to pay (3) overtime wages, (4) minimum wage, and (5) all
wages due to discharges or quitting employees; (6) failure to
maintain records; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized
statements; (8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties; (9) unlawful
deductions from wages; (10) breach of contract; (11) breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (12) unfair and
unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) asserts class
claims against the Defendants as set forth.  The CAC defines the
putative class as follows: All current and former drivers,
including but not limited to those misclassified as independent
contractors, who performed work for Defendants in the State of
California at any time within the period beginning four years prior
to the filing of this action and ending at the time the action
settles or proceeds to final judgment.

As noted in the class definition, the statutory period begins four
years prior to the filing of the action to the date of final
judgment.  The CAC does not allege the amount of monetary damages
sought by the class, consistent with California practice.

The Defendants filed their notice of removal on Dec. 6, 2019,
asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 based on
original jurisdiction as provided by the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005.  In so filing, they alleged that the amount in controversy
was "over $5 million."

On Jan. 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for remand
citing three grounds: namely, that Defendants failed (1) to provide
evidence or even allege that the purported 100 putative class
members ever drove in California as specified in the Plaintiffs'
class definition; (2) to proffer evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million; and (3) to meet their burden of
proof showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

In the Plaintiffs' reply, they concede that, in light of the
evidence filed alongside the opposition, the Defendants have now
sufficiently demonstrated that there are more than 100 putative
class members; however, the Plaintiffs the remaining two grounds.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants have
inappropriately calculated the amount by aggregating all deductions
the Defendants made from the Plaintiffs' and the class members'
pay, rather than by limiting the amount of the Plaintiffs'
deductions claims to work performed in the State of California.

Judge Rogers agrees that the Defendants' calculations, including
all relief available to the class members for work performed in and
outside the state of California, are appropriately based on the
allegations in the CAC.

The Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary do not persuade.  First,
the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments that the narrow class
definition supports its interpretation of the allegations that the
relief sought is limited to California.  Though the proposed class
definition limits the membership of the class to drivers who, at
some point, performed work in California, nothing in the CAC limits
the geographic reach of the conduct that the Plaintiffs' claim
violated California law and the damages they seek for that
allegedly unlawful conduct.

Second, the Plaintiffs' own arguments, that damages are limited to
only work performed in California but also include work performed
by California residents in other states, is unsupported by the
allegations of CAC.  These arguments illogically seek to carve out
an exception -- work performed by non-California citizens out of
the state of California -- that is otherwise not supported by the
allegations.  The Plaintiffs cannot now escape their inartful
pleadings as to the geographic scope of damages incurred by the
class with post-hoc arguments and characterizations.

Accordingly, because the Court has concluded that the Defendants
have appropriated based their calculations as to the amount in
controversy on the allegations in the CAC, it will deny the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/xmYa26 from Leagle.com.

Gregory Walters, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Christi Walters, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Joseph Bass -- daniel@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm APC, Roy
Karngwon Suh, The Kick Law Firm, APC & Taras Peter Kick, The Kick
Law Firm, APC.

Panther II Transportation, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, ArcBest
Logistics, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation & ArcBest Corporation, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher Chad
McNatt, Jr., Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP,
Christopher James Eckhart, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and
Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, E. Ashley Paynter --
APAYNTER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and
Feary, P.C., pro hac vice & James Anthony Eckhart --
JECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson and
Feary.


FINANCE SYSTEMS: Forman Sues in S.D. Ohio Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance Systems of
Richmond, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Forman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Finance Systems of Richmond, Inc. dba Finance Systems, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00127-TMR (S.D. Ohio, April 6,
2020).

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

Finance System, Inc., is a third generation family owned and
operated accounts receivable management company delivering service
since 1955.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


FORMULA 5: Tenley Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------
Hardin Tenley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Formula 5 Capital, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02571 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Formula 5 Capital, Inc. operates as Formula Funding, an online
advertising company. Tenley claims to have received auto-dialed
telemarketing calls from Formula on his phone despite being
registered in the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORP: Lee Sues Over Excessive Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Lee and Patti Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation,
Case No. 20-cv-01970, (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2020), seeks damages
for breach of contract and for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and California Business and Professions
Code.

Freedom Mortgage services mortgages across the country. Phillip and
Patti Lee's home located in Salinas, Monterey County CA is serviced
by Freedom. Lee claims that Freedom Mortgage charges borrowers
between $10.00–15.00 for making their mortgage payments online or
over the phone which was not stipulated in their contract. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hank Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      519 W. 7th St.
      Little Rock, AR, 72201
      Tel. (501) 312-8500
      Fax. (501) 312-8505
      Email: hbates@cbplaw.com

              - and -

      Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      475 14th Street, Suite 610
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 207-8633
      Email: twalburg@baileyglasser.com


FS HOTELS: Maldonado Seeks OT Pay, Rest & Meal Periods for Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FS HOTELS LA, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV13849 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 9, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of the Labor Code Section 226.7 and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Order 12-2001, Section 12(A).

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated hotel employees, alleges that the Defendants
failed to provide them with duty-free rest and meal periods, failed
to pay them all minimum wages and overtime compensation, and also
failed to reimburse them for any employment-related expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hotel
employee.

FS Hotels LA, Inc. is a company that owned and operated the Four
Seasons Hotel Los Angeles at Beverly Hills in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Stephen F. Biegenzahn, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Flawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
           E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                   steve@rastegarlawgroup.com

FUSION PHARMACY: Katz Balks at Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case BRUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Juva Skin and Laser
Center, a New York professional corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. FUSION PHARMACY, LLC, a Utah limited liability
company, and FUSION SPECIALTY PHARMACY, INC., a Utah corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02907 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020)
challenges Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
advertisements via facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

On or about January 17, 2020, Defendants sent Plaintiff an
unsolicited fax that describes the commercial availability and/or
quality of Defendants' property, goods or services, namely,
Defendants' "GENERIC ACCUTANE(R) / ISOTRETINOIN," and other
pharmaceuticals.

Defendants' unsolicited faxes have damaged Plaintiff and the class
in that a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine,
paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's
valuable time that would have been spent on something else. A junk
fax intrudes into the recipient's seclusion and violates the
recipient's right to privacy. Unsolicited faxes occupy fax lines,
prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their
use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the
recipients' fax machines, and require additional labor to attempt
to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class who were sent the Fax and other
unsolicited fax advertisements that were sent without prior express
invitation or permission and without compliant opt-out language.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA
and injunctive relief.

Fusion Pharmacy, LLC is a Utah-based management company providing
access to pharmacy benefits with low or no out-of-pocket cost at
the pharmacy for those injured in an auto accident.

Fusion Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. is dedicated to formulating
creative, individualized, and compounded medications that can
improve compliance, maximize the potential for therapeutic success
and reduce the overall cost of healthcare. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
            BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
            50 Main Street, Suite 1000
            White Plains, NY 10606
            Telephone: (914) 358-5345
            Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
            Email: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

                      – and –

            Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
            ANDERSON + WANCA
            3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
            Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
            Telephone: 847-368-1500
            Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Varga Appeals March 5 Judgment to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adele Varga filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated March 5, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Varga
v. General Electric Company, Case No. 18-cv-1449, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges in the complaint that for years, the Defendant improperly
manipulated its earnings and inflated its stock price by improperly
under reserving for the insurance liabilities of its wholly-owned
insurance subsidiaries.

The Plaintiff and putative class members, believing that GE's
publicly traded stock price reflected the company's financial
strength and the GE Stock Fund was a prudent investment option,
continued to save for retirements by investing their contributions
and matching funds in the GE Stock Fund.

On January 16, 2018, GE announced that it had under reserved for
the insurance liabilities of its two insurance subsidiaries by
approximately $15 billion, and that it needed to contribute
approximately $15 billion to its insurance subsidiaries, all of
which had a materially negative impact on earnings. Shortly
thereafter, GE also announced that the SEC was investigating the
$15 billion shortfall. The value of GE common stock dropped on the
news and has continued moving downward as GE has disclosed even
more financial problems. In August 2009, GE's common stock traded
at roughly $14 per share and then steadily rose from August 2009 to
June 2017, reaching a high in July 2016 of nearly $33 per share.

The appellate case is captioned as Varga v. General Electric
Company, Case No. 20-1144, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Adele Varga, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

           Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
           CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
           4532 North Oakland Avenue
           Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
           Telephone: 414-410-3900
           Email: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com

Defendants–Appellees General Electric Company; Jeffrey Robert
Immelt, are represented by:

           Nicholas John D'Ambrosio, Jr., Esq.
           BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
           22 Corporate Woods Boulevard
           Albany, NY 12211
           Telephone: 518-533-3214
           Email: ndambrosio@bsk.com


GENERAL NUTRITION CORP: Clausen Suit Transferred to New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dale Clausen and Timothy Duncan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania with the assigned Case No. 2:20-mc-00464 to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
on April 8, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-mc-00186-LGS.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

General Nutrition Corporation distributes health and wellness
products. The Company offers vitamins and minerals, herbal
supplements, beauty, and weight loss products. General Nutrition
provides its products to customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
   Lowey Dannenberg, P.C
   Four Tower Bridge
   200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
   West Conshohocken, PA 19428
   Tel: (914) 733-7268
   Fax: (914) 997-0035
   Email: achristina@lowey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Rachel Bevans, Esq.
   45 Broadway
   16th Floor
   New York City, NY 10006
   Email: rbevans@cozen.com

        - and –
   
   Mark E. Utke, Esq.
   Cozen O'Connor
   1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 665-2164
   Email: mutke@cozen.com

GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Brighton Trustees Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company. The case is styled as Brighton Trustees,
LLC, on behalf of and trustee of Diamond LS Trust, Bank of Utah
solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life
and Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240-HEH (E.D.
Va., April 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as insurance for breach of contract.

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company offers annuity and life
insurance underwriting services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ellen D. Marcus, Esq.
          Kathleen Joanna Lynch Holmes, Esq.
          HOLMES COSTIN & MARCUS PLLC
          301 N Fairfax St., Suite 202
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Phone: (703) 260-6401
          Fax: (703) 439-1873
          Email: emarcus@hcmlawva.com
                 kholmes@hcmlawva.com


H. BEST LTD: Nisbett Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
---------------------------------------------------------
Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. H. Best,
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02382 (S.D. N.Y., March 18, 2020),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

H. Best, Ltd. is an online retailer of clothing and skincare for
men and women operating as "2(x)ist" and through its website,
www.2xist.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that
Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


HAYCO CORP: Huitzil et al. Seek Proper Pay for Superintendents
--------------------------------------------------------------
PERFECTO HUITZIL, ROGELIO HUITZIL, FRANCISCO DIAZ, FRANCISCO DIAZ
III, OBISPO MONTERO, JESUS ROJAS and SIXTO REYNOSO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against-
HAYCO CORP., ALEX HAY, and FRED HAY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02940 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated for Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of: (i)
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the
overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and Comp.
Codes R. & Regs (NYCCRR); (iii) the wage deductions provisions of
NYLL; (iv) the requirement that employers furnish employees with a
written statement at the time of hiring containing specific
categories of information under the NYLL, as codified as the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "NYWTPA"); (v) the requirement
that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each
payday containing specific categories of accurate information under
the NYLL; and (vi) the anti-retaliation provisions of the NYLL; and
any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts
set forth herein.

Plaintiffs are superintendents who have worked for properties owned
and//or managed by Defendants at various times between 2000 and the
present.

Hayco Corp. is a New York-based real estate company specializing in
multi-residential rentals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
            JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
            225 Broadway, Suite 2700
            New York, NY 10007
            Telephone: (212) 227-5700
            Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
            Email: chaya@norinsberglaw.com

                      – and –

            Gregg A. Waxman, Esq.
            THE WAXMAN LAW FIRM
            1051 Port Washington Blvd
            Port Washington, NY 11050
            Telephone: (516) 468-6888
            Facsimile: (516) 468-6889
            Email: gregg@waxmanfirm.com

HERB & DEE'S: Staub et al. Sue over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
KORI STAUB and MORGAN JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERB & DEE'S BREAK ROOM SOCIAL
CLUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex., April 8,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant during the three-year period
to provide services at the pool hall and regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

The complaint alleges that current and former employees of
Defendants, including Plaintiffs, were not compensated at a rate of
at or above the minimum wage and were not paid overtime at one and
one half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in
excess of forty hours each workweek. Instead, Defendant compensate
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in the form of
tips.

Herb & Dee's Break Room Social Club, Inc. owns and operates a pool
hall located at 1408 W. Marshall Ave. Suite A, Longview, Texas
75604. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Kolder, Esq.
          Archer K. Ramey, Esq.
          RAMEY & FLOCK LAW FIRM
          100 E. Ferguson, Suite 404
          Tyler, TX 75702
          Tel: (903)597-3301
          Fax: (903)597-2413
          Emails: ekolder@rameyflock.com
                  aramey@rameyflock.com


HOT TOPIC: Class Settlement in Soukhaphohn Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANA SOUKHAPHONH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOT TOPIC, INC., a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV 16-5124-DMG (AGRx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement
and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses,
And Incentive Award.

The Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable
standards for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, solely for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement, the Court has certified the Settlement
Class, defined as all Persons who received one or more text
messages sent by or on behalf of Defendant Hot Topic to a cellular
phone between Aug. 1, 2012 and July 26, 2019.  

The Court further gave final approval to the Settlement Agreement.
It finds that the Settlement Agreement meets the fair, reasonable,
adequate standard, and is in the best interests of the Settlement
Class.  The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement
Agreement according to its terms and provisions.   

The Court awarded to the Class Counsel the amount of $835,800 in
attorneys' fees and $100,000 as reimbursement for costs.  The Court
also approved the payment of an incentive award in the amount of
$15,000 to Diana Soukhaphonh to compensate her for her efforts and
commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class.

All payments made to the Settlement Class Members pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement that are not cashed within 180 days of
issuance will be void.  In the event uncashed check funds allow for
a subsequent distribution of Cash Awards of $1 or more per
claimant, after administration costs, a subsequent distribution of
payments to the Settlement Class Members will be made.

In the event the amount of uncashed check funds does not allow for
a subsequent distribution of $1.00 or more per claimant, then the
remaining uncashed funds will be distributed as directed by the
Court upon application made by the Settlement Class Counsel and the
Defense Counsel for such funds to be distributed to a charitable
organization, selected by the Parties, concerned with consumer
protection issues of the general character presented by thes Action
such that the charitable organization's work coincides, or at least
overlaps, with the interests of the Settlement Class.  Except as
otherwise set forth in the Order, the Parties will bear their own
costs and attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Final
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/VvTLgV from Leagle.com.

Diana Soukhaphonh, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Ahdoot --
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Tina Wolfson,
-- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP,
pro hac vice, Patrick E. Gonya, Carey Rodriguez Milan Gonya LLP,
pro hac vice & Ruben Conitzer, Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP,
pro hac vice.

Hot Topic, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by Anne-Marie D. Dao, Troutman Sanders LLP, Arameh Zargham O'Boyle,
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, Joshua M. Briones,
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, Kathryn Lafferty
Ignash -- KLIgnash@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and
Popeo PC & E. Crystal Lopez -- ECLopez@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin
Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC.


HP: Gould Questions Decision to Block Xerox Buyout
--------------------------------------------------
James R. Gould, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aida Alvarez, Shumeet Banerji,
Robert R. Bennett, Chip Bergh, Stacy Brownphilpot, Stephanie A.
Burns, Mary Anne Citrino, Richard L. Clemmer, Enrique Lores, Yoky
Matsuoka, Stacey Mobley, Subra Suresh and Dion J. Weisler,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00244 (D. Del., February 20, 2020) seeks
judgment on the pleadings and an order requiring the Defendants to
disclose a full and fair summary of the analysis underlying the
Inadequacy Opinions with regards to the acquisition of HP Inc. by
Xerox Holdings Corporation under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On March 2, 2020, Xerox commenced the Tender Offer to acquire all
outstanding shares of HP common stock for consideration comprised
of $18.40 in cash and 0.149 shares of Xerox common stock. The HP
board recommended that HP stockholders reject Xerox's tender
offer.

Gould claims that the HP board failed to provide the legally
required financial analyses supporting the Inadequacy Opinions in
support of their recommendation that HP stockholders not tender
their shares into the Tender Offer and omitted a fair summary
information material to stockholders.

HP is a global provider of personal computing and other access
devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies,
solutions and services. Defendants are the board of the directors
of said company.

Gould is a stockholder of HP and has owned HP common stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Email: markl@blbglaw.com
             Jacqueline.Ma@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108
      Email: jfriedman@fotpllc.com
             dtejtel@fotpllc.com

             - and -

      D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
      KASKELA LAW LLC
      18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
      Newtown Square, PA 19073
      Tel: (484) 258-1585
      Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 364-3601
      Email: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com


INTUIT INC: Deceives Taxpayers With TurboTax, Williams Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTUIT INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01908-JSC
(E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020), arises from Intuit's campaign to
intentionally divert and deceive lower income taxpayers, who are
eligible to receive free tax preparation and filing services under
the United States Internal Revenue Service's Free File program, to
its paid TurboTax products.

TurboTax is a tax preparation software owned and manufactured by
Intuit. TurboTax is utilized to file more than 36 million tax
returns for taxpayers every year.

Pursuant to an agreement with the IRS, TurboTax and other tax
preparation providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of
U.S. taxpayers based on Adjusted Gross Income the option to file
their taxes for free.

The agreement was specifically designed so that the IRS would not
need to create its own free online filing system. According to the
government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the
IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal
tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged
and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual
user or to the public treasury."

The Plaintiff contends that Intuit has long been luring customers
into paying for a service that it promised the government and
consumers it would give away for free.

Intuit Inc. is an American business and financial software company
that develops and sells financial, accounting, and tax preparation
software and related services for small businesses, accountants,
and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


KALYAN HOSPITALITY: Underpays Salaried Hotel Staff, Pinon Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BRANDON PINON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KALYAN HOSPITALITY, LLC, KALYAN
HOSPITALITY, LLC II, and ROANOKE AIRPORT HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00205-EKD (W.D. Va., April 9, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a General Manager at the
Holiday Inn Roanoke on or about February 1, 2019 until January 27,
2020.

The complaint says that Plaintiff and other similarly situated
exempt hotel staff were paid on a salary basis by Defendants and
were required to work more than 40 hours in a week, otherwise they
will be subjected to salary deduction if they work less than 50
hours per week.  Due to Defendants' actual policy improper wage
deductions, Plaintiff and other hotel staffs were deprived of
lawful overtime compensation.

Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wage compensation, an equal amount
of liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Roanoke Airport Hotel Partners, LLC is a hotel owned and operated
by Kalyan and/or Kalyan II.

Kalyan Hospitality, LLC and Kalyan Hospitality, LLC II are a
full-service, Virginia based company providing management,
development, consulting, and accounting expertise for the
hospitality industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
          Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
          L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
          STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
          Warehouse Row
          119 Norfolk Ave., S.W., Suite 330
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Tel: (540)283-0802
          Emails: brittany@strelkalaw.com
                  thomas@strelkalaw.com
                  leigh@strelkalaw.com

                - and –

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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Faces Advisor Group Merger-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action shareholder complaint in Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit
Court.

On November 11, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the company,
Advisor Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Advisor
Group"), and Harvest Merger Sub, Inc., a Florida corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Advisor Group ("Merger Sub"), pursuant
to which Merger Sub would be merged with and into us (the
"Merger"). On January 30, 2020, the company's shareholders voted to
approve the Merger.

In January 2020, a purported class action shareholder complaint was
filed against the Company, its former directors, Advisor Group,
Harvest Merger Sub, Inc. and AG Artemis Holdings, LP ("Artemis") in
Miami-Dade County, Florida Circuit Court.

The complaint alleges that the director defendants received
benefits from the Company's merger with Merger Sub not shared by
the plaintiff and class members, agreed to an unfair merger price
and solicited shareholder approval through allegedly materially
misleading proxy materials and that the director defendants
therefore breached their fiduciary duties.

The complaint also alleges Advisor Group, Merger Sub and Artemis
aided and abetted the fiduciary breaches alleged in the complaint.


The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and the disgorgement by the defendants of all unique consideration
received in the merger.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LOUISIANA: Gets Favorable Ruling in Little Detainees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, entered judgment in
favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs in the case,
EDWARD LITTLE, ET AL., v. THOMAS FREDERICK, ET AL, Civil Action No.
6:17-0724 (W.D. La.)

The case is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiffs Edward
Little and Shelia Ann Murphy against Defendants Frederick,
Commissioner of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, and Judge
Kristian Earles, former Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial
District Court.

The matter has been certified as a class action.  The Plaintiffs
have been designated as joint lead Plaintiffs.  They brought the
action on behalf of themselves and members of the class of all
people who are or will be detained in the Lafayette Parish
Correctional Center because they are unable to pay a sum of money
required by post-arrest secured money bail setting procedures.

Mr. Little was arrested on June 3, 2017, on a charge of felony
theft and detained at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center
("LPCC").  On the following day, Commissioner Frederick determined
probable cause for his arrest and set his bail as a $3,000 secured
bond.  Mr. Little could not afford to pay that amount and remained
incarcerated until June 10, 2017.

Ms. Murphy was arrested on Feb. 3, 2018, on a charge of felony
possession of narcotics and two related misdemeanors.  She was
detained at the LPCC. Commissioner Frederick determined probable
cause for Murphy's arrest and set her bail as a $2,500 secured
bond.  She then appeared via closed-circuit television at a 72-hour
hearing before Commissioner Frederick, in which he affirmed the
bond amount.  Ms. Murphy could not afford that amount of bond and
remained incarcerated until Feb. 10, 2018.

Commissioner Frederick is the Commissioner for Louisiana's
Fifteenth Judicial District.  In that role, he makes the initial
bail determinations for all arrestees in Lafayette, Vermillion, and
Acadia Parishes.  Defendant Judge Kristian Earles, former Chief
Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, promulgated the
bail schedule previously used by the District.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses by the
application of policies that result in the jailing of persons
because of their inability to make a monetary payment.  They
further contend that the Defendants violated their fundamental
rights to pretrial liberty by placing and keeping them in jail
because they cannot afford to pay the monetary bail amount set,
without inquiry into and findings concerning ability to pay or
non-financial alternative conditions.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court issue the following relief:
(1) An order and judgment permanently enjoining the Defendants from
using money bail to detain any person without procedures that
ensure an inquiry into and findings concerning the person's ability
to pay any monetary amount set and without an inquiry into and
findings concerning non-financial alternative conditions of
release; and (2) A declaratory judgment that the Defendants
violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights by setting secured
financial conditions of release without inquiring into or making
findings as to whether arrestees can pay the amounts set, and
without considering non-financial alternative conditions of
release.

The Court took the matter in August 2019 under advisement and
instructed both parties to submit post-trial supplemental briefs.
After the transcript was complete, on Sept. 20, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed their post-trial brief.  On Dec. 3, 2019, after an
extension of time, the Defendants filed their post-trial brief.  On
Dec. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

The Court finds that the stipulated facts and Commissioner
Frederick's testimony at trial, which the Court finds credible,
establish that the Fifteenth Judicial District Court and
Commissioner Frederick have adopted practices that render the
Plaintiffs' initial claims moot.  At the time that the Plaintiffs
filed suit, a 2013 bail schedule governed the release of certain
misdemeanor offenses.  However, in February 2018, the judges of the
Fifteenth Judicial District issued an en banc order rescinding the
previous schedule.  Since that time, the Defendants have not used a
bail schedule, and there is no evidence to suggest that they would
return to its use after two years.  

Likewise, at the time Plaintiffs filed suit, Commissioner Frederick
did not obtain or consider the financial information provided by
the PIDA or at the First Appearance hearing or consider alternative
options.  While it is undisputed that changes took place after the
lawsuit was initiated, the evidence shows that the judges further
modified the first order, and the Defendants have continued to make
additional changes to address any remaining constitutional issues
since February 2018.  Therefore, the Court finds that, to the
extent that the Plaintiffs seeks a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief based on the bail schedule and the Defendants'
prior practices, their claim is moot.

The Court has concluded that the Plaintiffs' prior claims based on
the automatic imposition of bail under the prior bail schedule and
under Commissioner Frederick's prior practices are moot.  The
Plaintiffs' remaining claims do not raise substantive, but
procedural due process concerns.  Therefore, the Court will enter
judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs as
to their substantive due process claim.

As for the Plaintiffs procedural due process claims, the Court
finds that the current procedures now result in the automatic
release of most misdemeanor arrestees, which is more than the
Constitution requires.  For the remaining more serious misdemeanor
and for felonies, contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, the Court
finds that there is a greater government interest in ensuring their
future appearance and lawful behavior.  Even so, the Court finds
that the Defendants have provided adequate procedural protection to
these arrestees to ensure that their liberty interests are being
protected, and they are not being held solely because of their
indigency. Therefore,  no declaratory or injunctive relief is
warranted.  Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and
against the Plaintiffs on the procedural due process claims, the
Court rules.

Finally, as for the Plaintiffs asserted equal protection claims
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Court has considered whether the
Defendants' orders, policies, and practices are "narrowly tailored"
to address their compelling interest in assuring the "future
appearance and lawful behavior" of the more serious misdemeanor and
felony arrestees.  For the reasons identified, the Court finds that
they are so narrowly tailored.  Most misdemeanor arrestees go free,
regardless of wealth (or lack thereof) under current practices.

As to the remaining arrestees, there are two opportunities for
Commissioner Frederick to consider their financial condition.  If
they have provided the PIDA, Commissioner Frederick considers that
information during his call to the jail, along with his personal
knowledge of the economics of most criminal defendants in the
Fifteenth Judicial District.  That is not all, however, because
within 72 hours he provides the arrestees a second opportunity to
inform him they cannot afford bail at the First Appearance hearing.
If they inform him that they cannot afford bail, he turns to the
Modification Form to see if there are alternatives he can offer to
each particular arrestee.  This individualized consideration, along
with the other facts set forth, are sufficiently narrowly tailored
to address the Defendants' lawful concerns. Judgment is also
entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs on
their equal protection claim, the Court rules.

In sum, Judge Doughty entered judgment in favor of the Defendants
and against the Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/aJCV1P from Leagle.com.

Edward Little, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles L. Gerstein, Civil
Rights Corps, pro hac vice, Eric Halperin, Civil Rights Corps, pro
hac vice, James William Craig, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice
Center & Eric A. Foley -- eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org --
Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center.

Sheila Ann Murphy, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Charles L.
Gerstein, Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice, James William Craig,
Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center & Eric A. Foley,
Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center.

Thomas Frederick & Kristian Earles, Defendants, represented by
James Garrison Evans, LA Dept of Justice & Andre Charles Castaing,
LA Dept of Justice.


LUCKIN COFFEE: Misleads Securities Buyers, Gopu et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
VIJAYA GOPU and NIRMALA GOPU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC.,
CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU, JENNY ZHIYA QIAN, JIAN LIU, REINOUT HENDRIK
SCHAKEL, HUI LI, JINYI GUO, ERHAI LIU, SEAN SHAO, THOMAS P. MEIER,
NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORP. HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD., HAITONG
INT’L SECURITIES CO. LTD., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
and KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01747 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
Luckin Coffee Inc. between May 17, 2019 and April 6, 2020, allege
that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading
registration statements and prospectuses in connection with the
company's initial public offering in May 2019 and secondary
offering in January 2020. Defendants consistently stated they had
been able to develop adequate controls and procedures to manage
rapid growth while at the same time, being on a path to
profitability, which caused a huge increase in the price of the
Luckin Coffee's shares during the Class period. As a result of
Defendants' illegal and improper course of conduct and their fraud
being revealed, Luckin's share price fell over 80%, which caused
losses and damages to the Plaintiffs and Class members.

Luckin Coffee Inc. is a Chinese coffee company and coffeehouse
chain based in Xiamen, China.

Needham & Company, LLC is a New York-based independent investment
bank and asset management firm specializing in advisory services
and financings.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a New York City-based financial
services company.

China International Capital Corp. Hong Kong Securities Ltd. is a
Beijing, China-based financial services company.

Haitong International Securities Co. Ltd. is a stock brokerage firm
and investment bank based in Hong Kong.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a financial services company
located in New York, New York.

Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. is a Cleveland, Ohio-based company
that provides investment advisory services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim E. Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498

               - and -
          
          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498

LYFT INC: Seeks First Circuit Review of Ruling in Cunningham Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lyft, Inc., Logan Green and John Zimmer filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Cunningham, et al. v.
Lyft, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and
the Massachusetts Overtime Law.

Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a
mobile phone application to transport riders. Melody Cunningham, is
a Lyft driver, who claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor, thus, denied minimum wages for all hours worked and
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week. She was also required to pay business expenses including but
not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas,
insurance, phone and data expenses and other costs.

The appellate case is captioned as Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1373, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appearance form is due on April 20, 2020;
   -- Docketing Statement is due on April 20, 2020; and
   -- Transcript Report/Order form is due on April 20, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; and FRUNWI MANCHO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Anne R. Kramer, Esq.
          Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
          LITCHEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
          729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: 617-994-5800
          E-mail: akramer@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN and JOHN ZIMMER are
represented by:

          Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq.
          Elaine Goldenberg, Esq.
          MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          1155 F St. NW, 7th Flr.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: 202-220-1000
          E-mail: Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com
                  Goldenberg@mto.com

               - and -

          Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
          Rohit Singla, Esq.
          MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission St., 27th Flr
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: 415-512-4085
          E-mail: Justin.Raphael@mto.com
                  rohit.singla@mto.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq.
          MUNGER & TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 S Grand Ave., 50th Flr
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
          Telephone: 213-683-9100
          E-mail: jeffrey.wu@mto.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
          David J. Santeusanio, Esq.
          Andrew E. Silvia, Esq.
          James D. Smeallie, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          10 Saint James Ave., 11th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: 617-523-2700
          E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com
                  david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com
                  Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com
                  jd.smeallie@hklaw.com


MAINTENX INT'L: Binion Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Maintenance Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY BINION, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff, vs. MAINTENX INTERNATIONAL SERVICE MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV1354 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees all minimum and overtime wages, as
well as all meal and rest period premium wages that resulted to
inaccurate payroll records, failure to issue accurate and itemized
wage statements, and failure to pay all wages owed at the time of
the separation of employment with
Defendants.

Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt Electrician and/or
Maintenance worker beginning in approximately August 2017 through
approximately March 2019.

MaintenX International Service Management Group, Inc. is a total
facility maintenance company serving national multi-site retailers,
restaurants and Fortune 500 companies across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2433: Dupont Can't Modify Expert Affirmative Causation Opinions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation case, IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION. This document
relates to: Angela Swartz and Teddy Swartz v. E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00136, Civil Action No.
2:13-md-2433 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied DuPont's
request to, during the trial, modify its experts' affirmative
causation opinions.

The matter is before the Court on Defendant DuPont's Brief
Regarding its Specific Causation Experts, and the Plaintiffs'
Response to DuPont's Brief.  The trial in the case began on Jan.
21, 2020.  At the end of the first day of trial, after the jury was
selected and released for the day, the parties reviewed with the
Court several issues related to the opening statements that would
be given the following day.  During that time, DuPont raised a
topic related to its specific causation experts offered in the
Swartz case: Samuel M. Cohen, M.D., Ph.D. and Douglas M. Dahl,
M.D., who were both the subject of motions to exclude under Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.

DuPont offered Dr. Cohen and Dr. Dahl to opine on the specific
cause of Mrs. Swartz's kidney cancer and to critique her specific
causation expert's opinion.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motions to exclude these two experts' affirmative specific
causation opinions.

Although the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the
affirmative causation opinions of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Dahl, DuPont
indicated that its view of the Court's decision was that the Court
ruled out one of several bases for their opinions but the Court
didn't rule out their entire decisions.  The Plaintiffs disagreed.
After some discussion, the Court directed the parties to meet and
confer to attempt to reach agreement on the issue.

The following day, at the Jan. 22, 2020, 8:30 a.m. conference, the
Court addressed the specific causation issue, upon which the
parties had not come to agreement.  Discussing the issue with the
parties, the Court stated that the opinions and conclusions of the
experts' have been stricken, and any new or modified opinion
offered during trial would violate all of the Court's pretrial
scheduling orders and give the opposing side "no chance of
rebuttal, or more discovery.  Nevertheless, it was inclined to hear
DuPont's arguments in more depth but was unable to do so without
delaying the trial scheduled to begin the same day.

Therefore, the Court offered DuPont the opportunity to provide a
brief informing the Court of exactly what DuPont expects the
witness to say and why the Court's order didn't exclude it.  DuPont
requested permission to file the brief the following Monday, which
the Court granted.  The Plaintiffs were permitted to file a
response two days later.

The parties timely filed their briefs addressing the testimony
DuPont proposes to elicit from its specific causation experts and
why that testimony was not previously excluded in EMO 28.  By way
of background, affirmative causation opinions were offered in the
case.  In EMO 28, the Court excluded the affirmative specific
causation opinions as violative of the Leach Settlement Agreement.

DuPont now contends that its specific causation expert should be
allowed to give the opinion that Mrs. Swartz's kidney cancer was
caused by her decades of high blood pressure and decades of medical
obesity, and would have occurred without any exposure to C8 in
drinking water.  DuPont reiterates the arguments it made in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions that its experts
expressly ruled in C8 as capable of causing Mrs. Swartz's kidney
cancer, and never ruled C8 out.

The Plaintiffs respond that the Court should not permit DuPont's
experts to offer these opinions because (1) the opinions have
already been specifically excluded in EMO 28 and (2) part of the
brief offers "a newly modified opinion to which they would have to
investigate, respond, call new trial witnesses, and potentially
brief for Daubert motions, all while in the middle of the trial in
which this modified position would actually be used.

The Plaintiffs' arguments are well taken, Judge Sargus holds.
Initially, he addresses the Plaintiffs' assertion that the
testimony DuPont seeks to elicit is new -- that is, the opinion now
removes Mrs. Swartz's relative risk altogether.  It would be
patently unfair to permit DuPont's experts to modify their opinions
during trial and it would be impossible for the Court to reopen
discovery and briefing on the new opinion during trial.  On this
basis alone, the Judge excludes the new, untimely opinion testimony
DuPont seeks to elicit from Dr. Cohen or Dr. Dahl.

DuPont, however, continues to make the choice to ask its experts to
dissect and analyze the Science Panel's Reports in a way that
undermines general causation.  The Judge finds that while there was
a No Probable Link Finding issued for prostate cancer, the Science
Panel found an increased risk of prostate cancer for Leach Class
members who resided in "highest water district" or that were in the
"highest exposure category" when the individual level approach is
used in the analysis.  No expert may dissect the Probable Link
Report in an effort to undermine the Science Panel's Finding that
C-8, in the limitations of the study, is capable of causing kidney
or testicular cancer.  It is the Probable Link Finding that the
parties contractually agreed would apply to all Leach Class members
who can prove they have a Probable Link Disease.

Judge Sargus denied DuPont's request to, during the trial, modify
its experts' affirmative causation opinions.  The Judge also
clarified that EMO 28 did not merely rule out one of several bases
for the experts' opinions, but rather excluded their entire
affirmative causation opinions because the methodology utilized
violated the Leach Settlement Agreement.  DuPont does not have the
burden of proving specific causation, so the exclusion does nothing
to lessen Mrs. Swartz's burden.  She must still prove that C-8 was
a substantial contributing factor of her kidney cancer.

DuPont's expert, while not permitted to testify as to what he ruled
in or ruled out in his excluded differential diagnosis, or what he
believes to be the more likely cause of Mrs. Swartz's cancer, may
still offer critique on Mrs. Swartz's expert's opinion.  That is,
he may testify, as DuPont asks, that he does not believe Mrs.
Swartz's expert placed an appropriate amount of weight on certain
risk/causal factors such as obesity or high blood pressure because
his interpretations of the scientific literature shows that certain
BMI or a certain blood pressure increases the risk of kidney cancer
by two-fold.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/D5wsDx from Leagle.com.

Thomas Yakubik, Ronald Bachtel, Cheryl Durst, Robert Durst, Larry
Turley, Linda Turley, Sharon Arnott, Kathy Willis & Troy Willis,
Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Utley, Collins, Roche, Utley &
Garner, LLC, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio
44145, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, Michael A.
London, Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York,
NY
10038, pro hac vice, Ethan T. Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels
LLC, 309 2nd St., Marietta, OH 45750-2921 & Gregory Harold
Collins,
Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500,
Cleveland, Ohio 44145

Betty Bragg, Lotie Cline, Linda Davis, Crystal Forshey, Vicky
Lightfritz, Willard Lightfritz, Kathy Lowe, Kit McPeek-Stalnaker,
Thomas Eugene Molden, Jack Offenberger, Kay Sheridan, Herbert
Short, John Wright & Amber Wriston, Plaintiffs, represented by
Debra Anne Nelson dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com -- The Nelson Law
Firm, LLC, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, 875
Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Michael A.
London, Douglas & London, PC, pro hac vice, Nina M. Towle, Cory
Watson Attorneys, pro hac vice & Richard A. Wright, Cory Watson
Attorneys, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio
44145,
pro hac vice.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by
Damond R. Mace -- damond.mace@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Aaron Todd Brogdon -- aaron.brogdon@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley --
aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders (US) LLP, C. Craig
Woods -- craig.woods@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)LLP,
Clifford F. Kinney, Jr. -- ckinney@spilman.com -- Spilman Thomas &
Battle, PLLC, pro hac vice, D. Patrick Long --
patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,David J.
Millstone, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- SHOOK,
HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Van Wart --
kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice.


MEET GROUP: Paskowitz Sues over Misleading SEC Proxy Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SUSAN PASKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEET GROUP, INC., JEAN
CLIFTON, GEOFFREY COOK, CHRISTOPHER FRALIC, SPENCER RHODES, KEITH
RICHMAN, BEDI SINGH, and JASON WHITT, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00481 (D. Del., April 7, 2020) arises from Defendants'
alleged false and misleading proxy statement in violations of the
Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 Act.

Plaintiff owns Meet Group common stock.

According to the complaint, Meet Group's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
NuCom, eHarmony Holding, Inc., and Holly Merger Sub, Inc. on March
5, 2020 in which Meet Group's stockholders will receive $6.30 in
cash for each share of Meet Group common stock they own. However,
the Proxy Statement they filed on April 2, 2020 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Proposed
Transaction was false and misleading because there were omitted
material information.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to disclose material
information such as the Company's financial projections, the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor BofA
Securities, Inc., and whether the Company entered into any
non-disclosure agreements, which are important for stockholders in
deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Individual Defendants Jean Clifton, Geoffrey Cook, Christopher
Fralic, Spencer Rhodes, Keith Richman, Bedi Singh, and Jason Whitt
are the company's Board of Directors.

The Meet Group, Inc. provides interactive livestreaming solutions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10170
          Tel: (212)867-1156
          Fax: (212)504-8343
          Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


MEET GROUP: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Post Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEET GROUP, INC., JEAN CLIFTON, GEOFFREY
COOK, CHRISTOPHER FRALIC, SPENCER RHODES, KEITH RICHMAN, BEDI
SINGH, and JASON WHITT, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00479-UNA (D.
Del., April 7, 2020) alleges Defendants have violated Section 14(a)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff owns Meet Group common stock.

According to the complaint, Meet Group's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
NuCom, eHarmony Holding, Inc., and Holly Merger Sub, Inc. on March
5, 2020 in which Meet Group's stockholders will receive $6.30 in
cash for each share of Meet Group common stock they own. However,
the Proxy Statement they filed on April 2, 2020 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Proposed
Transaction was false and misleading because there were omitted
material information.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to disclose material
information such as the Company's financial projections, the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor BofA
Securities, Inc., and whether the Company entered into any
non-disclosure agreements, which are important for stockholders in
deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Individual Defendants Jean Clifton, Geoffrey Cook, Christopher
Fralic, Spencer Rhodes, Keith Richman, Bedi Singh, and Jason Whitt
are the company's Board of Directors.

The Meet Group, Inc. provides interactive livestreaming solutions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Robinson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons
Similarly Situated v. Meridian Financial Management Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-00725-DKC (Md. Cir., Prince George's Cty., March 18, 2020),
seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, costs and attorney's
arising from the Defendant's debt collection practices that violate
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff disputes that he owes any money to Diagnostic Imaging
LLC. For over 5 years, Diagnostic Imaging LLC did not attempt to
collect on these purported debts. Nor did any debt collector
attempt to collect the debts on the Defendant's behalf.

By letter dated July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff disputed the Meridian
collection accounts with Equifax. In his dispute letter, the
Plaintiff stated the debts may be older than 7 years old, and
therefore, too old to appear on his report. He further stated the
debts were uncollectible because they were older than 3 years old
and, therefore, not legally enforceable. In conclusion, he
requested the collection be removed as inaccurate or unverifiable,
says the complaint.

In 2018 Mr. Robinson obtained his Equifax credit report and
discovered two collection accounts being reported by Meridian.
According to the Equifax report, Meridian was collecting on two
medical debts that originated with Diagnostic Imaging LLC. One of
the Meridian collection accounts was opened on or before December
2012 and had an outstanding balance of $27. The other collection
account was opened on or before January 2013 and had an outstanding
balance of $153.

Meridian is a debt collector based in Maryland. Meridian
specializes in collecting medical debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Quinn B. Lobato, Esq.
          LOBATO LAW
          210 Grisdale Hill
          Riva, MD 21140
          Telephone: (240) 305-4770
          E-mail: quinn.lobato@gmail.com


MINNESOTA: Faces Evenstad Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schnell, et al. The
case is styled as Thomas Evenstad, Nathan Braun, Representing a
class of similarly situated prisoners classified as Violent
Offenders that are incarcerated within the Minnesota Department of
Corrections and are within six months of release, and representing
a sub-class of prisoners similarly situated v. Paul Schnell,
Commissioner of Corrections; Michelle Smith, Deputy Commissioner;
Nate Knutson, Deputy Commissioner; Karen Robinson, DOC Policy &
Legal Services representative; Vicki Janssen, MCF-RC Warden; Jesse
Pugh, Associate Warden; Minnesota Department of Corrections; State
of Minnesota, Case No. 0:20-cv-00885-JRT-KMM (D. Minn., April 6,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as prisoner civil rights.

Paul Schnell is the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Corrections.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


MONROE COUNTY, FL: Lola Sues Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramsay, et al. The
case is styled as David James Lola, Sean K. Bindrananth, Shane W.
Wilson, individuals, each on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. Rick Ramsay, Sheriff; Tim Age, Commander of Monroe
County Detention Center; Monroe County Sheriff's Office; Monroe
County, a Florida County; State of Florida, Case No.
4:20-cv-10032-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as prisoner civil rights.

Sheriff Rick Ramsay is the most decorated deputy in the history of
the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, receiving ninety-three
commendations of merit.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


NATIONAL CREDIT: Summary Judgment Bid in Portnoy Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALYSSA PORTNOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL CREDIT
SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-834 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, (i) granted Defendant
David Donnett's Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) granted Defendant
Williamsburg of Cincinnati's Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiffs' Complaint and its Counterclaim; and (iii) granted in
part Defendant National Credit System Inc.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The matter centers on the proper interpretation of an apartment
lease.  On Aug. 19, 2016, Plaintiffs Alyssa and Darlene Portnoy
entered into a one-year lease with Williamsburg of Cincinnati.  The
Plaintiffs signed a "Utility and Services Addendum" to the Lease.
On May 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 15 of the Lease, Williamsburg
gave the Plaintiffs notice that the month-to-month rent for her
unit would be $898 per month.

On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs provided Williamsburg the
"Resident's Notice of Intent to Move Out."  Their listed reasons
for moving was attending Northern Kentucky University.

On Aug. 24, 2017, Williamsburg sent the Plaintiffs a notice
regarding a balance in the amount of $937.52 and sought payment of
that balance.  It attached a copy of the Plaintiffs' "Final Account
Statement."  According to Williamsburg, and as shown on the "Final
Account Statement," titled "Move Out Statement," the Plaintiffs
owed Williamsburg $1,071.81 for insufficient notice (37 days of 60
days noticed left).  Charge remaining days at a month-to-month rate
of $898, but Williamsburg applied the Plaintiffs' $200 security
deposit towards the amount. Williamsburg subsequently retained NCS
to collect the debt.  David Donnett is Williamsburg's attorney.

The Plaintiffs admit that they did not give 60 days' notice of
intent to vacate the leased premises.   Their Complaint alleges
that, in seeking to recover the alleged balance, Williamsburg and
NCS violated the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
and Ohio Rev. Code Section 5321.16 ("Security deposits; interest;
forfeiture; procedures").  The Plaintiffs also purport to bring the
case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Williamsburg filed a Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs in the
amount of $937.52.  The Plaintiffs filed a Counterclaim against
Defendant Donnett.

Under the Plaintiffs' interpretation of Lease, Defendants have no
legal right to recover the balance.  The Defendants assert that the
Lease terms expressly provide for collection of the balance.

Based on a review of the Lease and Ohio law, Judge Barrett agrees
with the Defendants.  The Lease explicitly states how (written) and
when (60 days prior to the Lease's termination date) the Plaintiffs
are to provide notice to Defendant Williamsburg of their intent to
terminate the lease or move out of the premises.  The Plaintiffs
concede that they did not give 60 days written notice of intent to
vacate the leased premises.   In short, the Plaintiffs broke their
lease and are liable in the amount of $937.52.

To be successful on their claims under the Ohio Corrupt Practices
Act, the Federal RICO statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Plaintiffs must
establish that they do not owe a debt under the Lease and they fail
to do so.  With respect to their claim under Ohio Rev. Code Section
5321.16, Defendant Williamsburg properly applied the Plaintiffs'
security deposit to the Plaintiffs' past due rent and, before doing
so, sent the Plaintiffs timely written notice regarding an itemized
balance in the amount of $937.52.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett granted Defendant Donnett's
Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Judge granted Defendant
Williamsburg's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint
and its Counterclaim.  Judgment is entered in Williamsburg's favor
on its Counterclaim, and Williamsburg is entitled to $937.52 plus
18% annum interest accruing from Aug. 20, 2017 from the Plaintiffs.
The Judge also granted in part Defendant NCS' Motion for Summary
Judgment.  No fees or costs are awarded.  The matter is closed and
terminated from the active docket of the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Opinion
& Order is available at https://is.gd/FC753e from Leagle.com.

Alyssa Portnoy & Darlene Portnoy, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael D. Portnoy -- hawkport@aol.com.

National Credit Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacie E.
Barhorst -- sbarhorst@kpglaw.com -- Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, PC
& Katrina Marie DeMarte, DeMarte Law, pro hac vice.

Williamsburg of Cincinnati, Defendant, represented by Stacie E.
Barhorst, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, PC, Boyd W. Gentry --
bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry & Katrina
Marie DeMarte, DeMarte Law, pro hac vice.

Alyssa Portnoy & Darlene Portnoy, ThirdParty Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael D. Portnoy.

Williamsburg of Cincinnati, Counter Claimant, represented by Stacie
E. Barhorst, Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, PC.


NEON THERAPEUTICS: SEC Proxy Statement Lacks Info, Franchi Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEON THERAPEUTICS, INC., ROBERT BAZEMORE,
CARY PFEFFER, ROBERT KAMEN, ERIC LANDER, HUGH O'DOWD, STEPHEN
SHERWIN, ROBERT TEPPER, MERYL ZAUSNER, BIONTECH SE, and ENDOR
LIGHTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-UNA (D. Del.,
April 7, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violations of Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Act.

Plaintiff owns Neon common stock.

According to the complaint, Neon's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BioNTech
on January 15, 2020 in which Neon's stockholders will receive 0.063
American Depository Shares (ADS) and are entitled to vote on the
Proposed Transaction on May 4, 2020. However, the proxy statement
filed by Defendants with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, 2020 was false and misleading because there
were material information omitted with respect to the Proposed
Transaction.

Allegedly, Defendants failed to disclose the projected financial
information of the Company and BioNTech, the analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisor Duff & Phelpss LLC, and the
engagements of DP and the Company's additional financial advisor
Ondra Partners, which are important information for the
stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Individual Defendants Robert Bazemore, Cary Pfeffer, Robert Kamen,
Eric Lander, Hugh O'Dowd, Stephen Sherwin, Robert Tepper, and Meryl
Zausner are the Board of Directors of the Company.

Neon Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company that develops
novel neoantigen-targeted T cell therapies, dedicated to
transforming the treatment of cancer by directing the immune system
towards neoantigens. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302)295-5310
          Fax: (302)654-7530
          Emails: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

                - and –

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


NESTLE USA: NESQUIK Labeling "Deceptive," Santini Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SANTINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02433 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law,
the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and for fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated individuals, alleges that the Defendant engaged
in false and deceptive packaging of its products, particularly the
labeling of its NESQUIK chocolate-flavored milk product, which
states that it does not contain artificial or synthetic flavors or
colors. The Plaintiff claims that the product's front labeling is
false and misleading because one of its ingredients, cocoa, has
been processed and modified, as mentioned at the back of the
packaging that the company used cocoa processed with alkali. Mr.
Santini would not have bought the product at a premium price had he
known the labeling was false, deceptive, and/or misleading.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a food and beverage company based in Arlington,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES APC
          2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

OAKDALE, PA: Livas Seeks Writ of Habeas Corpus for Detainees
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Livas, Richard Joseph Buswell, Johnny Smith, Carlos Lorenzo
Martin, Dewayne Corbett, Gaines Andrews, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Petitioners v. RODNEY MYERS, warden
of Oakdale Federal Correctional Institutions; and MICHAEL CARVAJAL,
Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, in their official capacities,
Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-00422-TAD-KK (W.D. Pa., April 6,
2020), is brought on behalf of detainees filing a petition for writ
of habeas corpus as a result of risks associated with the
coronavirus.

There is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. The best course,
according to public health experts, is to slow and prevent
transmission, primarily through a practice known as "social
distancing." Social distancing requires all people to stay at least
six feet away from all other people to control the spread of the
virus. These imperatives apply with special force to prisons, where
the government controls almost entirely a person's ability to avoid
others and to maintain adequate sanitation. Yet prisons are
fundamentally incapable of implementing these recommendations, and
incarcerated people are already dying nationwide as a result, the
Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs assert that prisons are not sealed off from the
world outside them. By their nature, people cycle in and out
constantly--from correctional and medical staff, to families and
attorneys, to those serving short sentences or finishing longer
ones. Failing to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19
endangers not only those within the institution, but the entire
community. Hence, the Plaintiffs contend, immediate and categorical
release of prisoners, starting with the medically vulnerable, is
the primary mitigation effort that Oakdale can undertake to comport
with public health guidance and to prevent a catastrophic outbreak
at the facility.

Accordingly, the Petitioners--a class and subclass of persons
incarcerated at Oakdale now and in the future--bring this action
and request immediate release of all Petitioners and Class Members,
coupled with appropriate support and conditions upon release, as
informed by public health expertise. If this Court does not grant
immediate release on the basis of this Petition-Complaint, the
Petitioners request a hearing as soon as possible. Given the
exponential spread of COVID-19, there is no time to spare.

The Petitioners are detained at Oakdale.

Respondent Rodney Myers is the warden of Oakdale and currently has
immediate custody over Petitioners.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Katie Schwartzmann, Esq.
          Bruce Hamilton, Esq.
          ACLU-F OF LOUISIANA
          P.O. Box 56157
          New Orleans, LA 70156
          Phone: (504) 522-0628
          Email: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org
                 bhamilton@laaclu.org

               - and -

          David Luger, Esq.
          Hannah O. Koesterer, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 W. Monroe St.
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Email: david.luger@katten.com
                 hannah.koesterer@katten.com

               - and -

          Ryan J. Meyer, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2121 Pearl St., Ste. 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Email: ryan.meyer@katten.com

               - and -

          Somil Trivedi, Esq.
          Jennifer Wedekind, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          915 15th St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -

          Andrea Woods, Esq.
          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          Meredith Taylor Brown, Esq.
          Gabriel Arkles, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad St.
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 549-2500
          Email: awoods@aclu.org


OXFORD HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Johnathan Z. ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jill N. Parrish of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in JOHNATHAN Z., and DANIEL Z., Plaintiffs, v. OXFORD
HEALTH PLANS, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-383-JNP-PMW (D. Utah).

The Plaintiffs allege healthcare insurance coverage violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, an
amendment to ERISA.  Plaintiff Johnathan Z. maintained a healthcare
insurance policy through a self-funded employee welfare benefits
plan entitled the New York City Specialized Dentistry Benefits
Plan.  Oxford is the insurer and claims administrator for the Plan.
The Plan covered Johnathan Z. as the Plan participant and Daniel
Z. as his minor son and eligible beneficiary.

Daniel Z. has long struggled with mental health and substance use
disorders.  He began abusing illegal drugs when he was 12 years
old.  When he was 14 years old, he began using painkillers and
dealing drugs at school, which resulted in his expulsion.  Daniel
Z. has also been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder ("ADHD"), Anxiety Disorder, and Depression.  He has twice
been admitted to the hospital to treat his substance abuse and
mental health issues, including after an incident in November 2012
when he became very angry and threatened to kill himself with a
kitchen knife.  He also was arrested in November 2014 for
possessing Methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("Molly"), an illegal
controlled substance.  The Plaintiffs sought outpatient psychiatric
care for Daniel Z.'s mental health and substance use disorders, but
none proved effective at treating his condition.

On the advice of Daniel Z.'s mental health care providers, the
Plaintiffs have enrolled him in a variety of residential mental
health and substance abuse treatment programs. First, Daniel Z.
participated in a wilderness behavioral therapy program at Open Sky
Wilderness Therapy from Jan. 8, 2015, to April 7, 2015.  Open Sky
operates in Utah and Colorado, and is a licensed and accredited
outdoor behavioral health program that offers mental health
services to adolescents between the ages of 13-18.  The Plaintiffs
allege that Open Sky met the licensing requirements for residential
treatment required by the Plan."  

Next, the Plaintiffs admitted Daniel Z. to Crossroads Academy,
which is a licensed residential treatment center in Utah that
specializes in treating adolescent boys with a dual diagnosis of
substance use and mental health disorders.  He remained in
treatment at Crossroads from April 8, 2015, to Dec. 23, 2015.

Finally, the Plaintiffs sought care for Daniel Z. at Aim House from
Jan. 11, 2017, through July 21, 2017.  They describe Aim House as a
young adult treatment facility in Colorado that provides a
structured environment designed to help ease the transition from
residential treatment and wilderness programs to independent
living.

The Plaintiffs filed insurance claims with Oxford for coverage of
Daniel Z.'s treatment at Open Sky, Crossroads, and Aim House.
Oxford denied benefits for all of Daniel Z.'s residential care at
Open Sky and Aim House, and covered one week of his treatment at
Crossroads.  The Plaintiffs exhausted internal and external appeals
of Oxford's coverage denials, all of which were rejected.  They
allege that Oxford's denial of benefits for Daniel Z.'s treatment
at Open Sky, Crossroads, and Aim House caused them to incur over
$128,000 in medical expenses.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's claims adjudication
processes and decision to deny benefits for Daniel Z.'s treatment
at Open Sky, Crossroads, and Aim House violated ERISA in two ways.
In their First Cause of Action, they allege that the Defendant
wrongfully denied benefits for all of Daniel Z.'s treatment at Open
Sky and Aim House, and all but one week of his care at Crossroads.
Under this claim, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant
improperly applied the terms of the Plan, violated its fiduciary
duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1) to "act solely in Daniel
Z.'s interest," did not meet its obligation under 29 U.S.C. Section
1133(2) to provide a "full and fair review" of the Plaintiffs'
claims, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing
to provide a consistent justification for why it had denied Daniel
Z.'s medically necessary treatment.  Stated differently, the
Plaintiffs complain that Oxford failed to meaningfully or
coherently engage during the appeals process, did not act in Daniel
Z.'s interest, and failed to cover medically necessary treatment
based on the terms of the Plan.  The Plaintiffs seek to recover
benefits due under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B).

In their Second Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant violated the Parity Act, a component of ERISA.  They
allege that the Defendant violated the Parity Act by imposing more
restrictive or additional treatment limitations on mental
health/substance use disorder benefits than the limitations it
applies to analogous medical/surgical benefits.  To rectify the
alleged Parity Act violations, the Plaintiffs seek equitable relief
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) in the form of judicial
declaration, injunction, reformation, disgorgement, accounting,
surcharge, restitution, and equitable estoppel.

The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in the dispute on May
11, 2018, alleging only the ERISA wrongful denial of benefits claim
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B).  Their amended their
complaint on July 12, 2018, to add their Second Cause of Action
concerning violations of the Parity Act as enforced through 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3).  The Defendant filed its first Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on Oct. 24, 2018.  The
first Motion to Dismiss became fully briefed on Jan. 8, 2019.  On
April 10, 2019, the Court issued an Order permitting the Plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Complaint on May 17, 2019.  The Defendant filed the
instant Motion on June 7, 2019, and it became fully briefed on Aug.
7, 2019.

The Defendant advances three principal arguments in seeking to
dismiss all or part of the Plaintiffs' SAC.  First, it contends
that Johnathan Z. lacks statutory and constitutional standing to
bring his individual claims.  Second, it urges the court to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' SAC with prejudice (or in the alternative, to enter
a stay) because it  asserts that Daniel Z. is a member of a pending
class action that it believes is premised on the same grounds as
the lawsuit.  Third, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs'
Second Cause of Action alleging violations of the Parity Act is
inadequately pled and should be dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Parrish rejects all of the Defendant's arguments.  First, the
Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their
as-applied Parity Act challenge concerning Crossroads, their
as-applied and facial Parity Act challenges concerning Open Sky,
and their facial Parity Act challenge concerning Aim House.

Second, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
two facial disparities to demonstrate that the Plan terms violate
the Parity Act: (1) Oxford's categorical prohibition of benefits
for wilderness therapy and transitional living center care may
indicate that the Plan is using its "experimental" or "custodial"
exclusion policies to impose separate treatment limitations only on
mental health/substance abuse benefits; and (2) Oxford's
categorical exclusion of wilderness therapy and care at a
transitional living center may indicate that the Plan's
restrictions on "geographic location, facility type, or provider
specialty" for medically necessary mental health/substance abuse
treatment are "more restrictive treatment limitations" than the
Plan uses for medically-necessary care in the analogous
medical/surgical context.

Third, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged two ways in which
Oxford used more restrictive "processes, strategies, evidentiary
standards, or other factors" in applying its medical management
standards limiting or excluding benefits based on medical necessity
or medical appropriateness, or based on whether the treatment is
experimental or investigative treatment limitations to mental
health/substance abuse care than the processes, strategies,
evidentiary standards, or other factors that Oxford used in
applying the limitation[s] with respect to medical/surgical
benefits.  First, Oxford plausibly applied acute-level criteria to
deny benefits for subacute mental health/substance abuse treatment
at Crossroads and Open Sky but would have applied subacute criteria
to analogous subacute medical/surgical treatment.  Second, Oxford
plausibly applied its "experimental/investigational" exclusion
policy more stringently to mental health services such as
wilderness therapy than it would have applied the exclusion policy
to analogous medical/surgical services.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged two as-applied Parity Act violations related
to the Defendant's denial of benefits for Daniel Z.'s care at
Crossroads and Open Sky.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Parrish denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020
Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/Ogg1vp
from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Z. & Daniel Z., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian S. King,
BRIAN S KING PC & Nediha Hadzikadunic, BRIAN S KING PC.

Oxford Health Plans, Defendant, represented by Clint R. Hansen --
chansen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT, Scott M. Petersen --
spetersen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT & Michael H.
Bernstein -- mbernstein@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLC, pro hac
vice.


PATRIOT INSPECTION: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Stanley Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM STANLEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PATRIOT INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-00283-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., April 9, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Welding Inspector, Coating
Inspector, and Film Auditor in Canton, Pennsylvania from
approximately May 2018 until October 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours a week throughout his employment and was paid by Defendant a
flat daily rate for each day worked regardless of the total hours
worked in a work week. Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated inspectors overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime, an equal amount of liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Patriot Inspection Services, Inc. offers a wide range of integrated
pipeline and station inspection services in the oil and gas
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


PEP BOYS-MANNY: Pa. Eastern District Narrows Claims in Thorne Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICKIE THORNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK
INC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-393 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis
Joyner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of
standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Thorne commenced the putative class action against
Defendant Pep Boys pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8 for its
alleged failure to provide tire registration information about
tires that the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated,
purchased from the Defendant.  Specifically, the Plaintiff argues
that because 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8 requires the Defendant, as an
independent tire distributor or dealer, to provide to tire
purchasers a tire registration form or invoice showing that it gave
certain information to the tire manufacturer, its failure to do
either renders her unable to independently determine whether her
tires have been recalled due to defects and the manufacturer unable
to notify her should any defects be discovered in the tire models
that she purchased.

The Plaintiff claims that the regulatory violation itself; economic
loss incurred from buying unregistered tires; the "imminent risk"
posed by driving on tires that might be defective; having "no way
of knowing if the tires were properly registered with the tire
manufacturer; and being unreachable by the tiremaker" all
constitute concrete harms.  Notably, the Plaintiff does not contend
that her tires actually suffer from a product defect.

The regulation at issue, 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8, was promulgated
under 49 U.S.C. Section 30117.  In 49 U.S.C. Section 30117, the
Congress provided that the Secretary of Transportation will require
each distributor and dealer whose business is not owned or
controlled by a manufacturer of tires to give a registration form
(containing the tire identification number) to the first purchaser
of a tire.  In turn, 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8(a)(1) provides that
when qualifying tire distributors or dealers sell or lease new
tires to tire purchasers, these sellers must either: (1) give to
the buyer a tire registration form stating the tire identification
number and the seller's contact information; or (2) record
electronically or on a paper tire registration form the buyer's
address and name, the tire identification number, and the seller's
contact information, and provide the form to the manufacturer at no
cost to the buyer.  If the seller chooses to electronically submit
the required information to the manufacturer pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
Section 574.8(a)(1)(iii), then the seller must indicate so on the
buyer's invoice and give that invoice to the buyer.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's initial Complaint on
grounds that she lacked standing under Article III of the
Constitution.  In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff brings eight
Counts.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds
that the Plaintiff again fails to satisfy Article III's
requirements and, alternatively, that the Plaintiff's Counts fail
for the reasons enunciated in the Defendant's Brief in Support of
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

Judge Joyner finds that the Plaintiff failed to show harm or the
requisite degree of risk because she did not plead that the tires
she bought from Pep Boys were in fact, if ever, recalled.  Further,
in the initial Complaint, the Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead
that she suffered financial harm because Section 574.8 of the
Safety Act specifies that independent tire distributors and dealers
must comply with the regulation at no charge to the tire purchaser.
The Plaintiff has not remedied these defects in the Amended
Complaint at issue now, and she has not included any additional
material allegations to show the requisite degree of risk or facts
supporting a different concrete harm.  Instead, the added and
amended allegations are merely retellings of legal conclusions and
immaterial facts, such as discussion of the dangers of tire
defects.

After evaluating the Plaintiff's allegations in numerous ways,
Judge Joyner concludes that the Plaintiff's alleged harm is
distinct from precedent where Courts in the jurisdiction have found
concreteness.  The Judge holds that the Plaintiff has failed to
plead a concrete injury-in-fact under Article III for any of her
claims for any relief.  Thus, the Judge need not discuss the
traceability and redressibility requirements of constitutional
standing, nor need he analyze the Counts or the request for class
certification.

Judge Joyner granted the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to
Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to all claims
and requested relief without leave to amend.  The Judge denied as
moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020
Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/DpdUXo from Leagle.com.

VICKIE THORNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDRA WARREN, Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca, LLP, BRENDAN S. THOMPSON, CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP,
CHRIS KESSLER, THE KESSLER LAW FIRM PLLC, DINA E. MICHELETTI, FAZIO
MICHELETTI LLP, J. OLIN MCDOUGALL, II, MCDOUGALL LAW FIRM LLC,
ROBERT K. SHELQUIST -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
NAUEN, P.L.L.P., CHRISTOPHER C. KESSLER -- ckessler@ucla.edu -- THE
KESSLER LAW FIRM PLLC, ERIC N. LINSK -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com --
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP & YIFEI LI -- evelyn@cuneolaw.com --
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP.

PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK INC, Defendant, represented by CHARLES
SCOTT TOOMEY -- scott.toomey@littletonpark.com -- LITTLETON PARK
JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP & HERBERT BEIGEL, HERBERT BEIGEL &
ASSOCIATES LLC.


PHEAA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Silver TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEIL SILVER, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00652-PJH
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (i) denied the Silver's
motion for class certification, and (ii) denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to decertify the Plaintiff's proposed.

Defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA)
is an organization approved by the United States Department of
Education to service federal student loans.  It uses the "Avaya
Proactive Contact 4.2.1" dialing system to place automated or
prerecorded calls to borrowers.  During the class period, the
Defendant made 15,706,962 calls to 2,999,570 unique mobile phone
numbers.

Plaintiff Neil Silver maintains several student loans borrowed from
the Education Department.  In 2011, while he awaited assignment to
a loan servicer, the Department informed him that such servicer
would contact him by phone or mail.  The Plaintiff agreed that such
servicer could call him.  On Oct. 13, 2012, the Department
transferred the Plaintiff's loans to the Defendant for service.

At oral argument, the Court confirmed, and the Plaintiff did not
dispute, that the sole call made by the Defendant to his cellphone
(ending in 5583) using the automated dialing system occurred on
Jan. 13, 2014.  The key facts to resolve the Plaintiff's motion
concern the parties' communications between October 2012 and the
Defendant's undisputed Jan. 13, 2014 call.  

The Plaintiff sent the Defendant numerous emails, requesting that
the Defendant verifies both his loan information (as requested in
the supplement) as well as its status as the assigned servicer.
Separate from his written communications, the Plaintiff also called
the Defendant several times.  He used his cellphone when making
each call.

On Feb. 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against
the Defendant in Court.  On April 7, 2015, he filed his First
Amended Complaint.  In it, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
violated Title 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) when it used an automatic
dialing or prerecorded system to call his cellphone without his
consent in January 2014.  

The Plaintiff alleges two claims arising out of such violation, the
first sounding in negligence, and the second based upon the
Defendant's knowing and intentional violation (second cause of
action).  The Plaintiff seeks $500 in statutory damages for each
negligent violation, and "up to" $1,500 in treble statutory damages
for each knowing/willful violation.

In his First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff sought to certify a
class comprising the following members:  All persons within the
United States who received any calls from Defendant, or its
agent(s) and/or employee(s), to said person's cellular telephone,
through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or
prerecorded or artificial voice, within the four years prior to the
filling of the Complaint.

The proposed class is the target of the Defendant's preemptive
motion to decertify.  On March 31, 2016, prior to any class
certification motion, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment on grounds of a then-recent 2015 amendment to
Title 47 U.S.C. Section  227(b)(1)(a)(iii) that added an exception
to Section 227(b)(1)'s general prohibition for calls made for the
purpose of collecting on a debt backed by the federal government.

On Dec. 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's
order and remanded the action.  The Ninth Circuit held that,
because the Plaintiff's claims accrued prior to the 2015
amendments, that amendment's exception did not retroactively apply
to the Plaintiff's claims.  Following remand, the parties engaged
in class discovery.

On Sept. 23, 2019, the parties respectively filed a motion for
class certification and motion to decertify arising out of
Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  The Plaintiff's motion seeks to certify a class that
is materially identical to the putative class challenged by the
Defendant and described in the First Amended Complaint, except the
Plaintiff's proposed class is now limited to persons who were
subject to the Defendant's challenged conduct after having
requested the Ddefendant to refrain from further telephonic
communications.  The Plaintiff seeks to certify his proposed class
under both Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2).

Related to the Plaintiff's proposed class, he offers a two-step
"class notice plan" to manage and identify class membership.
First, he will use available contact information of potential class
members that the Defendant already has in its possession and, to
the extent necessary, hire a claims administrator to locate
potential class members.  Second, the Plaintiff will send such
potential class members a form asking the following: (i) Did you
inform defendant orally or in writing that you did not wish to
receive telephonic communications on your cellular telephone? and
(ii) Did you receive a telephonic communication from defendant on
your cellular telephone after asking defendant to stop calling you?
Or, in the alternative; (iii) Whether the recipient received a call
from defendant after he or she asked defendant to stop calling
them.

Under this plan, the potential class members may verify their
answers by providing additional documents or submitting their
responses under penalty of perjury.  Because the Plaintiff seeks to
certify a class that is different than the one that is the subject
of Defendant's motion, Judge Hamilton focuses his class
certification analysis on the Plaintiff's proposed class only.
However, because the parties mix their arguments concerning the
Plaintiff's proposed class into the briefing on the Defendant's
motion and also rely upon evidence submitted in support of both
motions, the Judge considers arguments and evidence from the
Defendant's motion that are relevant to the Plaintiff's motion.

Among other things, Judge Hamilton finds that (i) to the extent the
Defendant attempts to challenge the Plaintiff's proposed class on
grounds of administrative infeasibility, such attempt fails; (ii)
the Plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)'s commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation requirements, but failed to proffer
sufficient evidence showing that his proposed class satisfies the
numerosity requirement; and (iii) the proposed class is improper
because individual issues of proof of consent would separately
predominate their common counterpart.  Given the Plaintiff's
failure to show that common questions predominate, the Court denies
their motion to certify the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3)
without reaching whether the Plaintiff satisfied his superiority
showing.

Because the Defendant has set forth multiple methods for
demonstrating the Plaintiff's consent that are supported by
evidence, it satisfied its threshold burden of proof to put consent
at issue for purpose of Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.  

The Court also concludes that the proposed class is improper
because individual issues of proof of consent would separately
predominate their common counterpart. Given that, the Court further
concludes that the proposed class is improper because individual
issues of proof of revocation would also predominate common
questions presented by the putative class.

Lastly, while the Plaintiff cites the voluntary cessation exception
to the mootness doctrine, he fails to show how the Defendant's
changed policy falls within that exception.  Because the injunctive
relief requested is itself moot with respect to the Defendant's
existing use of the challenged systems, the Court concludes that
the certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is separately improper on
this ground.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hamilton (i) denied the Silver's
motion for class certification, and (ii) denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to decertify the Plaintiff's proposed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Eh3lf6 from Leagle.com.

Neil Silver, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde &
Swigart, Matthew Michael Loker, Kazerouri Law Group, APC, Pamela
Erin Prescott -- pamela@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC &
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group,
APC.

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, doing business as
FedLoan Servicing, Defendant, represented by Donald E. Bradley --
d.bradley@musickpeeler.com -- Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in IN RE PHILIP MORRIS
INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18-CV-08049 (RA)
(S.D. N.Y.).

On Sept. 5, 2018, Lead Plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AG
and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund commenced the class action
against Defendants Philip Morris, Andre Calantzopoulos, Martin G.
King, Patrick Picavet, Jacek Olczak, Manuel C. Peitsch, and Frank
Ludicke, alleging that, from July 26, 2016 through April 18, 2018,
they committed securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") about
clinical trials Philip Morris conducted in connection with its
Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application for a smoke-free
electronic device entitled iQOS, as well as about the performance
of iQOS in Japan.

On Feb. 25, 2019, the Court appointed Union Asset Management
Holding AG and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs, consolidated three related actions, and appointed the
Co-Lead Counsel.

On May 10, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint naming Defendants Picavet, Peitsch, and
Ludicke in addition to the initial Defendants.  On July 12, 2019,
the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On Sept. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  The Court held oral
argument in November 2019.

The Plaintiffs have identified roughly 70 statements by the
Defendants they claim are false and misleading.  According to the
Amended Complaint, the Defendants' allegedly false and misleading
statements can be grouped into two categories: (1) statements about
the clinical studies conducted in connection with Philip Morris's
MRTPA to the FDA for iQOS; and (2) statements about the performance
of iQOS in Japan.

The Plaintiffs bring two claims under the Exchange Act.  First,
they allege that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder because they made false and misleading
statements about clinical trials Philip Morris conducted in
connection with its Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application to
the FDA, as well as false and misleading statements about the
performance of its reduced risk products in Japan.  Second, they
allege that the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because they controlled the
Section 10(b) violators.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
alleged that any of the statements in the Amended Complaint were
false or misleading.  Judge Abrams agrees.  Some of the statements
in the Amended Complaint were in fact true statements at the time
they were made.  Others are inactionable because they amount to
puffery, subjective statements of opinion, or forward-looking
statements.

The Defendants also argue that the Amended Complaint must be
dismissed for the independent reason that the Plaintiffs have
failed to sufficiently plead that any Defendant acted with the
requisite scienter.  The Judge again agrees. Scienter is the mental
state embracing an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud by the
maker of a statement.  The relevant inquiry is whether all of the
facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference
of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in
isolation, meets that standard.

The Court finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to
establish a strong inference of scienter based on the stock sales;
(ii) the Plaintiffs fail to adequately support their claim that the
Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that their statements
regarding the results of their clinical studies and compliance with
GCP were false or misleading; and (iii) the Plaintiffs also fail to
establish strong circumstantial evidence that the Defendants knew
that their statements regarding growth in Japan were false or
misleading when made, or recklessly disregarded that possibility.

Control person liability under Section 20(a) requires an underlying
primary violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.
Since the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a violation of
Section 10(b), their claim for Section 20(a) control person
liability by the Individual Defendants also fails.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  With
the exception of the Plaintiffs' claims with respect to the four
undisclosed studies, the claims are dismissed with prejudice.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/6kArat from Leagle.com.

City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert Daniel Gerson --
rgerson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel
Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Movant, represented
by Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow, LLP & Francis Paul
McConville, Labaton & Sucharow LLP.

Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by David Avi
Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Philip Morris International Inc, Andre Calantzopoulos, Martin G.
King, Jacek Olczak, Patrick Picavet, Manuel C Peitsch & Frank
Ludicke, Defendants, represented by James Ellis Brandt, Latham &
Watkins LLP, Kenneth Parsigian, Latham & Watkins LLP, Kevin Michael
McDonough -- kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Andrew
Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP &
Jooyoung Yeu, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Wayne Gilchrist, Interested Party, represented by Naumon A. Amjed
-- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP.

Union Asset Management Holding AG, Intervenor, represented by Emma
Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP, Heather Harrison Volik, Pomerantz, Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Michael Grunfeld, Pomerantz LLP
& Villi A. Shteyn, Pomerantz LLP.


PLASTER & WALD CONSULTING: McBrayer Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chad McBrayer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Plaster & Wald Consulting Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-01025 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaster & Wald is an oilfield services company with operations
throughout the United States. McBrayer worked for Plaster & Wald as
a Rig Clerk throughout Texas and Louisiana from April 2012 to
December 2017. Plaster & Wald paid McBrayer on a day-rate basis
without paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40
hours each week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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



PNC BANK: Bid to Certify MLO Class in Kazi Suit Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TANSEER KAZI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magitsrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Plaintiffs Kazi and Linda Scheid commenced the putative class
action asserting wage and hour violations by Defendant PNC.  PNC
Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") received regular pay on a biweekly
basis at all times relevant to this action.  In addition to their
regular pay, MLOs could also qualify for monthly "Plan Incentive
Pay," which consisted, in part, of commissions earned on loan
originations, but was also based on a number of other factors that
together with the commissions resulted in "incentive credits" and
thus incentive pay.  The formula was generally governed by a plan
document, one version of which was instituted in 2014 and another
in 2017, as well as an "Addendum A" that was updated at least
annually.  While the factors taken into account for incentive pay
changed from time to time, the consistent practice was that all
incentive credits were added together each month and, if the
credits exceeded the monthly threshold, an MLO received Plan
Incentive Pay.

One factor that was consistent over the putative class period was
that regular pay was effectively deducted from the other components
of an MLO's Plan Incentive Pay.  Although PNC formally paid its
MLOs both their regular pay and any applicable Plan Incentive Pay,
the fact that the value of regular and overtime pay was effectively
deducted from otherwise-applicable Plan Incentive Pay meant that
the total value actually received by an MLO was equivalent to the
greater of: (1) the MLO's regular and overtime pay; or (2) the
MLO's Plan Incentive Pay (before the deduction of regular and
overtime pay was taken into account).

In some cases, when the Plan Incentive Pay formula resulted in a
negative number -- including as a result of deducting the value of
regular pay -- that deficit was carried over to the calculation of
Plain Incentive Pay for the next month.  Nevertheless, MLOs were
never paid less than their regular pay for a given pay period, and
failure to meet incentive goals would never result in them owing
money to PNC at the end of their employment.

Of the 207 MLOs at issue, PNC's senior compliance specialist
Michael Smiles states that 41 never received Plan Incentive Pay.
Some MLOs also received annual incentive pay bonuses; "onboarding
incentive pay," which was essentially a signing bonus upon taking a
job with PNC, but often paid over time and contingent on the MLO
staying with the company for a certain number of months; and/or
other forms of compensation not specifically at issue in
Plaintiffs' theory of their claims.

PNC's written policies encouraged employees to take a ten-minute
on-the-clock rest break during every four-hour period of work or
"major fraction thereof," such that when MLOs received their
regular pay based on their hours worked, they would be paid for
those rest periods.  The Plaintiffs contend, however, that PNC
"recaptured" any pay for rest periods -- as well as other
nonproductive time like training sessions, staff meetings, and
driving -- by deducting regular pay from Plan Incentive Pay, and
thus effectively paying only Plan Incentive Pay in months where
MLOs qualified for it.  Based on the premise that Plan Incentive
Pay is only attributable to the work done actually selling loans,
the Plaintiffs contend that MLOs who received Plan Incentive Pay
were not paid for their rest periods or other nonproductive time.

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) failure to provide
paid rest periods or pay premium wages in lieu thereof as required
by California Labor Code Section 226.7 and certain wage orders,
including waiting time penalties for class members whose employment
ended during the class period; (2) failure to pay for
non-productive time as required by the California Labor Code and
applicable wage orders, again including waiting time penalties for
non-current employees; (3) violation of California laws requiring
accurate wage statements; (4) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law as a result of the violations addressed in the
previous claims; and (5) a non-class, representative claim under
California's Private Attorneys General Act.

The Plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that they are limited
to recovering damages for their first and second claims to the
period beginning three years before filing the action, and that any
recovery of statutory damages on the wage statement claim is
limited to the period beginning one year before filing the action.
The Plaintiffs' claims rely heavily, although not exclusively, on
section 226.2 of the Labor Code, which provides that employees who
are compensated on a piece-rate basis for any work performed during
a pay period must be compensated for rest and recovery periods and
other non-productive time separate from any piece-rate
compensation.

At the time that the Plaintiffs filed their operative complaint,
they sought to represent a class defined as all persons whom PNC
employed in the State of California as a Mortgage Loan Officer at
any time since four years before June 28, 2018, the filing of the
legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of the
lawsuit.  Based on a modification to PNC's policy in July of 2019,
however, the Plaintiffs might no longer seek certification beyond
the final paydate of the pre-July 2019 Compensation Plan, which
would include July and possibly August of 2019 due to delays in the
payment of Plan Incentive Pay.

Magistrate Judge Spero finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, typicality and adequacy
requirements of Rule 23(a).  The Judge agrees that Scheid's
interest in both pre- and post-Bland claims supports, rather than
detracts from, her typicality as a class representative.  Also,
despite the concerns raised with respect to Kazi, the counsel is
adequate.  The Plaintiffs' attorneys are appointed as the class
counsel.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs have shown predominance with respect to their claims
based on or derivative of PNC's alleged failure to separately pay
for statutory rest periods.  For much the same reasons, the Judge
also concludes that class treatment is superior to individual
actions to resolve these claims.

As far as the Magistrate Judge can discern from the record
presented on the motion, pursuing claims based on nonproductive
working time would require virtually a full trial for each MLO as
to when and how they worked, what records they or PNC might have
retained, whether the MLO remembers how long they spent in meetings
and training sessions, and whether they recall working on selling
loans during that time.  It is conceivable that representative or
statistical evidence might provide an alternative method of proof,
but the Plaintiffs have not yet shown that to be true in the case.
Under these circumstances, the Magistrate Judge concludes that
individualized issues predominate as to claims based on
nonproductive time other than rest periods, and denies
certification as to those claims, without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs later moving to expand the class definition if they can
show some classwide method of proof.

For the reasons discussed, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Plaintiff
Scheid may represent a class of PNC mortgage loan officers for
claims based on alleged failure to pay for rest breaks, and claims
derivative of such a theory, defined as all individuals who were
employed by PNC as mortgage loan officers at any time from June 28,
2014 through the resolution of the action.

The Plaintiffs indicated they may wish to modify the class time
period to account for a policy change that PNC instituted in July
2019, but that they do not yet have sufficient information to
determine whether that change affects their claims.  The parties
are instructed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for any
motions or stipulations to modify the class definition, either to
set an earlier end date or to seek to include claims based on
nonproductive time other than rest breaks.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/1XUKF4 from Leagle.com.

Tanseer Kazi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Mitchel Sitkin --
jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com -- Law Offices of James M. Sitkin, Joshua
Boyette, Swartz Swidler, LLC, pro hac vice, Justin Swidler, Swartz
Swidler, LLC, pro hac vice, Marc Alan Silverman --
msilverman@fwblaw.net -- Frank Weinberg Black, P.L. & Robert David
Soloff -- robert@solofflaw.com -- Robert D. Soloff, P.A.

Linda Scheid, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Swidler, Swartz
Swidler, LLC, Marc Alan Silverman, Frank Weinberg Black, P.L.,
James Mitchel Sitkin, Law Offices of James M. Sitkin & Robert David
Soloff, Robert D. Soloff, P.A.

PNC, Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Paul W. Sweeney, Jr. --
paul.sweeney@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Patrick Michael Madden
-- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- KL Gates LLP & Saman M. Rejali --
saman.rejali@klgates.com -- K and L Gates.


PSI LLC: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Wiggins Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA WIGGINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PSI, LLC, RANDY DUNLOP, and Doe Corp. 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00150-JRG-HBG (E.D. Tenn., April 9,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver over the
last three years.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
delivery drivers who were employed by Defendants are required to
incur and/or pay job-related expenses including but not limited to
automobile costs and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile
maintenance and parts, insurance, cell phone costs, GPS charges,
and other equipment necessary for delivery drivers to complete
their job duties. Allegedly, Defendants failed to keep track of
their actual expenses and to reimburse them for their actual
expenses until recently.

Although Defendants employed reimbursement policy as per the
Internal Revenue Service, the reimburse formula has resulted in an
unreasonable underestimation of delivery drivers' automobile
expenses throughout the recovery period, thereby violating the
minimum wage laws.

Randy Dunlop is the owner and operator of PSI, LLC.

PSI, LLC operates approximately 8 to 10 pizza stores in Eastern
Tennessee and sells pizza and other food items to customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Burkhalter II, Esq.
          D. Alexander Burkhalter III, Esq.
          Zachary J. Burkhalter, Esq.
          THE BURKHALTER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 2777
          Knoxville, TN 37901
          Tel: (865)524-4974
          Fax: (865)524-0172
          Website: www.burkhalterlaw.com

                - and –

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Tel: (513)715-8711
          Fax: (614)340-4620
          Emails: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Church Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid Shutdown
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY CHURCH, and all others who are similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PURDUE
UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00025 (N.D. Ind., April 9,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for
its alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff was enrolled in the University for the Spring 2020
semester and paid the cost of tuition for on-campus housing, meals
and fees for the entire Spring 2020 semester.

According to the complaint, Students were sent home from the
University, including Plaintiff, due to the outbreak of Novel
Coronavirus Disease of 2019 pandemic. However, Defendants refuse to
provide restitution for tuition, housing, meals, fees, and other
applicable costs.  Plaintiff contends Defendants illegally and
improperly retained monies paid by Plaintiff and the other Class
members while prohibiting or otherwise preventing them from
obtaining the benefits for which they paid.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory and equitable
relief, and any other available remedies.

The Board of Trustees of the Purdue University is a body corporate
authorized to sue and be sued on behalf of the Purdue University
with respect to its responsibilities governing the University.

Purdue University is a public university located in Indiana with
campuses across the state, including in West Lafayette, Indiana and
Fort Wayne, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Tel: 317-636-6481
          Emails: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

                - and –

          Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, Esq.
          Sanford Dumain, Esq.
          Adam H. Cohen, Esq.
          Blake Yagman, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Tel: (212)594-5300
          Emails: jczeisler@milberg.com
                  sdumain@milberg.com
                  acohen@milberg.com
                  byagman@milberg.com

                - and –

          James Evangelista, Esq.
          David Worley, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road
          Building A, Suite 245
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Tel: (404)205-8400
          Email: jim@ewllc.com


RATNER STEEL: Harris Seeks OT Pay to Crane Line Operators
----------------------------------------------------------
NELSON HARRIS, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. RATNER STEEL SUPPLY CO., and MARK RATNER, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00112-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 8, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for its failure to pay Plaintiff and
the others proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an overhead crane line operator,
and his duties included loading lines and moving coils. Plaintiff
was employed as a temporary hourly employee from August of 2017 to
August of 2018, and as a permanent hourly employee from August of
2018 to March of 2020.

Ratner Steel Supply Co. operates a steel supply business in
Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RICHMOND, VA: Class in Yerbey FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYRUS YERBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-393 (E.D. Va.), Judge
Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Collective
Notice.

Plaintiffs Yerby and Adrienne Webster, and the putative class
members, are employed by the City of Richmond in public facing
roles within the Department of Finance that require them to respond
to, communicate with and/or serve the public at call centers, "One
Stop" offices, and/or cashier stations. The gravamen of the case is
that the City requires the Plaintiffs, and the putative class
members, to work more than 40 hours per week without receiving
overtime compensation.  

In particular, it is alleged that Department of Finance employees
were: (1) required to work before 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. to
complete their daily job responsibilities; and (2) were regularly
required to work during their lunch breaks.  The Plaintiffs allege
that, in so doing, the City violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime compensation; and they seek
monetary damages for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and injunctive relief.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification and Collective Notice.  On behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs brought
the action to recover unpaid overtime under the FLSA.  In their
Motion for Conditional Certification, the Plaintiffs request that
the Court conditionally certify a collective class action and
transmit notice to putative class members.  In their supplemental
briefing, the Plaintiffs ask for the application of equitable
tolling to extend the statute of limitations.

As narrowed following limited discovery, the requested conditional
certification is for employees employed in seven units within the
Department of Finance, more particularly: All current and former
City of Richmond Department of Finance employees employed any time
on or after May 24, 2016 who are/were: (i) Paid an hourly wage; and
(ii) Employed in one or more of the following units: Cash
Operations Unit (Cashiers); Delinquent Collections Unit; Audit
Unit; Business Unit (currently called Customer Service Unit); Tax
Enforcement Unit, Personal Property Unit, or Real Estate Unit; and
(iii) Required to be present and working before or after the City's
public office hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and/or during their
daily deducted lunch breaks; and (iv) Prohibited from recording
more than eight (8) hours of work per day and/or more than 40 hours
of work per work week, regardless of the number of hours actually
worked in that particular day or week; and (v) Denied overtime pay
for time worked over 40 hours in any given work week.

In other words, the Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all full
time, non-exempt employees in the Delinquent Collections Unit, Cash
Operations Unit, Business Unit, Tax Enforcement Unit, Personal
Property Unit, Real Estate Unit, and Audit Unit.  The City takes
the view that conditional certification should only extend to
employees in the Cash Operation Unit, Delinquent Collections Unit
and the Business Unit.

Judge Payne finds that there is sufficient evidence to allow the
conclusion at this stage of the proceedings that the employees in
those units were subject to the same policy that affected their pay
without regard to the specific unit in which those employees
worked.  Accordingly, the employees can be considered similarly
situated under the FLSA.  An individual inquiry into each position
within the Finance Department is unnecessary at this stage to
determine whether, based on the position's classification and job
duties, the employee is owed overtime pay under the FLSA.  To the
extent that further discovery reveals that any additional opt-in
Plaintiffs are too dissimilar, or that they are otherwise not
similarly situated, the City may move to decertify the class
following the close of discovery.

The Plaintiffs request equitable tolling of the FLSA's statute of
limitations from the date of their filing of the Complaint to the
end of the 60-day notice period because of the litigation posture
of the case.  In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to make a
sufficient showing of extraordinary circumstances, misconduct by
the Defendant, or defective filings, the Judge finds that equitable
tolling is not warranted and, thus, the Plaintiffs' motion for
equitable tolling is denied as to all the potential Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs submitted a proposed notice and consent form to be
sent to the opt-in class as part of their Motion to Conditionally
Certify.  The City opposes a 60-day window for putative class
members to return their signed consent forms to the Court,
suggesting that 45 days is sufficient.  The Court finds that 60
days for the putative Plaintiffs to return their signed consent
forms for filing with the Court is appropriate for purposes of
class certification.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Payne granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and
Collective Notice.  

In sum, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify the
proposed class is granted; the motion for equitable tolling is
denied; the Plaintiffs' request to provide notice to putative class
members is granted, and the Notice will be sent to the potential
class members, who will return their signed consent forms to the
Court within 60 days of mailing (if the employee decides to opt
in).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/EBXVLt from
Leagle.com.

Tyrus Yerby & Adrienne Webster, Plaintiffs, represented by Nichole
Buck Vanderslice -- nvanderslice@nbvlaw.com -- Law Office of Nicole
Buck Vanderslice, PLLC & Craig Juraj Curwood --
ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com -- Curwood Law Firm PLC.

City of Richmond, Virginia, Defendant, represented by Wirt P.
Marks, IV, Office of the City Attorney & Richard Earl Hill, Jr.,
Office of the City Attorney.


ROBINHOOD GROUP: Users Hits Trading App Downtime, Claims Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Johann and Leila Kuri, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial, LLC,
Robinhood Securities, LLC and Robinhood Markets, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-01909 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2020), seeks damages,
restitution and injunctive relief for breach of contract,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of California
consumer protection laws and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

Robinhood is an online brokerage firm that allows users to place
securities trades through its website. Robinhood's trading systems
completely crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020 and experienced a total
outage of its operating systems preventing any securities trades
through its website, app or call center.

Johann and Kuri are Robinhood users who subscribe to its premium
service that provides research reports and market information. They
subscribed to specific options that utilized exchange traded funds
as part of their debit spread that had expired March 3, 2020. Both
suffered losses of approximately $15,000 because of the down time.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 762-1910
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: ekim@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

             - and -

      Erin Green Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com


RT PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Delivery Drivers, Hurt Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA HURT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. RT PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO’S PIZZA and
RICKY TEEL, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00057-WLS (M.D. Ga., March
30, 2020) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants at its Domino's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from October 2010 to February
2020 as a delivery driver.

RT Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Domino's Pizza, is a company that owns and
operates numerous Domino's franchise stores including stores within
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
            Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
            20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
            Orlando, FL 32801
            Telephone: (407) 418-2069
            Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
            E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                        – and –

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

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Settlement in Kahn Suit Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAROLD KAHN and DEBORAH KAHN, on behalf of plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-7540-NSR-PED (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Motion for Final Approval
of the Settlement Agreement.

The Parties to the class action entered into a Settlement Agreement
dated as of March 6, 2019; including the Addendum dated Sept. 3,
2019.

Having considered the papers filed and proceedings held in
connection with the Settlement, having considered all of the other
files, records, and proceedings in the Action, and being otherwise
fully advised, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Addendum as modified in
Court on Jan. 17, 2020 as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court affirmed the appointment of (i) Harold Kahn and Deborah
Kahn as the Settlement Class Representatives, and (ii) Edelman,
Combs, Latturner and Goodwin, LLC, & Law Office of Lawrence Katz as
the Settlement Class Counsel.

Judgment is entered dismissing the Action with prejudice, on the
merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against any
Party.

The Settlement Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees and
litigation costs in the amount of $91,324.67, such amounts to be
paid from the Total Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, including the Addendum.  The
Settlement Class Representatives are awarded service awards of
$4,000 each, such amounts to be paid from the Total Settlement
Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
including the Addendum.  The remaining $148,177.97 of the Total
Settlement Amount (after deduction of the Costs of Class Notice and
Administrations Costs; the Class Representatives statutory damages
and Class Representative Awards, and Class Counsel's attorney's
fees) will be distributed to the class members who submitted valid
claims forms.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Final
Order & Judgment is available at https://is.gd/D5R2Zm from
Leagle.com.

Harold Kahn, on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated & Deborah Kahn, on behalf of plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence Katz --
LKATZ@LAWKATZ.COM -- Law Offices of Lawrence Katz & Tiffany Nicole
Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alyssa
Anne Sussman -- asussman@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP,
David L. Permut -- dpermut@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP &
Thomas M. Hefferon, Jr. -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP.


SEQUOIA FINANCIAL: Kupfer Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequoia Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Dovid B. Kupfer, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Sequoia Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01742
(E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020).

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

Sequoia Financial Services, LLC is a financial consultant in Agoura
Hills, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




SILVER LAKE GROUP: Hill Alleges Insider Trading in Intelsat  
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SILVER LAKE GROUP, L.L.C., BC PARTNERS LLP,
RAYMOND SVIDER, and JUSTIN BATEMAN, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02341 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) is an action brought on
behalf of all those investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Intelsat shares contemporaneously with Defendants' unlawful trades
from November 5, 2019 through and including November 18, 2019,
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint arises from the unlawful use of material non-public
information by BC Partners LLP and Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. who
collectively gained over $185 million in profits and losses avoided
by selling shares of Intelsat S.A., a Luxembourg-based satellite
operator that provides television and radio communications, to
Plaintiff and other unsuspecting and unwitting public
shareholders.

The market's reaction to the news was quick and harsh. Intelsat's
stock fell over 40% on extremely heavy trading, closing down from
$13.41 per share on November 15, 2019, to $8.03 per share on
November 18, the next trading day.

The Defendants BC Partners and Silver Lake knew, or were reckless
in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading based on the
confidential market-moving information, but traded anyway,
disposing to Plaintiff and other members of the Class their
Intelsat stock before the news was announced and the Company's
shares plummeted.

Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. operates as an investment management
firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services
to individuals, institutions, trusts, private funds, charitable
organizations, and investment companies. Silver Lake Group serves
customers worldwide.

BC Partners LLP is a private equity firm specialising in buyouts
and acquisitions financing in Europe and the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
            SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
            600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 233-4565
            Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
            Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

                         – and –

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

                         – and –

            Brian Schall, Esq.
            THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
            1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 301-3335
            Facsimile: (877) 590-0482
            Email: brian@schallfirm.com

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Sinclair's
motion to dismiss the case, IN RE SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil No. CCB-18-2445 (D. Md.).

The case is a class action securities case brought by Lead
Plaintiffs City of Atlanta Police Pension Fund and the City of
Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund ("Atlanta P&F") against Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Christopher S. Ripley, Lucy A. Rutishauser, Steven
M. Marks, and David D. Smith.  On behalf of itself and all persons
or entities that acquired Sinclair common stock between Feb. 22,
2017, and July 26, 2018, Atlanta P&F alleges numerous violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from a failed merger
between Sinclair and Tribune Media.

Sinclair, a publicly traded company, is a telecommunications
conglomerate and the largest owner of local television stations in
the country.  On May 8, 2017, Sinclair announced its plan to
acquire Tribune, another large media company, for $3.9 billion.
Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice ("DOJ")
approval of the proposed merger, however, was necessary before the
transaction could become final, due to FCC and DOJ limits on the
amount of control one entity may have over the broadcast television
market.

Accordingly, in Sinclair's merger agreement with Tribune, filed
publicly with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on May
9, 2017, Sinclair agreed to divest its ownership in television
stations as necessary to obtain regulatory approval of the Merger.
Throughout the remainder of 2017 and into early 2018, Sinclair
continued its attempts to convince the DOJ that divestitures in the
ten specified DMAs were unnecessary.

On Feb. 21, 2018, Sinclair announced a plan to divest stations in
order to comply with the National Cap Rule.  According to Tribune,
the FCC reacted negatively to the February 2018 Divestiture Plan,
taking specific issue with Sinclair's relationships with the buyers
and the terms of the LMAs.  The FCC decided not to put the February
2018 Divestiture Plan out for public comment, and Tribune stated
the FCC emphatically rejected the plan.

On April 24, 2018, Sinclair announced another plan to divest
stations in order to obtain regulatory approval of the Merger.  The
proposed divestitures drew scrutiny from media outlets and from
outside commenters who petitioned the FCC to deny approval of the
Merger.

On Aug. 9, 2018, Tribune withdrew from the Merger and filed a $1
billion breach of contract action against Sinclair in the Delaware
Chancery Court.  Several months later, on Nov. 13, 2018, the DOJ
filed a complaint against Sinclair, alleging that the company
engaged in illegal anticompetitive activities.

Atlanta P&F initiated the lawsuit on Aug. 9, 2018, and filed the
Amended Complaint on March 1, 2019.  It alleges violations of the
Exchange Act by corporate defendant Sinclair, as well as by senior
Sinclair executives Ripley, Rutishauser, Smith, and Marks .
Sinclair filed its motion to dismiss on May 3, 2019, arguing that
Atlanta P&F has failed to state any claims under the Exchange Act.

Judge Blake granted in part and denied in part Sinclair's motion to
dismiss.  All claims will be dismissed except for: (1) the Section
10(b) claim against corporate Defendant Sinclair arising from its
July 2, 2018, statement that Cunningham is operated completely
separately from Sinclair; (2) the Section 10(b) claim against
corporate defendant Sinclair arising from its July 5, 2018,
statement that it does not control or hold any attributable
interest in Cunningham; and (3) the Section 20(a) claims against
the Individual Defendants arising from those two statements.

Among other things, the Court finds that, with respect to
Sinclair's statement that "Cunningham is operated completely
separately from Sinclair," Atlanta P&F has adequately stated a
claim that corporate defendant Sinclair violated the securities
laws.  Sinclair warned investors that the Merger might not be
approved.  But, taking the allegations in the Amended Complaint as
true, Sinclair concealed the risk that its de facto control of
Cunningham could result in FCC rejection of Merger.  Accordingly,
the Court finds that Atlanta P&F has adequately alleged that at
least "one substantial cause" of Sinclair's stock price deflation
was the revelation that it materially misrepresented the nature of
its relationship with Cunningham.

As the Court analyzed, Atlanta P&F has adequately stated a Section
10(b) claim stemming from Sinclair's materially misleading claim
that Cunningham was "operated completely separately from Sinclair."
The Court finds that the same conclusion is warranted.  Even
though the statement regarding Sinclair's control of Cunningham
appeared in an FCC filing, a reasonable investor would have assumed
that Sinclair's descriptions of its own business operations were
statements of fact rather than opinion.  The Court also finds that
Atlanta P&F has adequately stated a claim as to corporate defendant
Sinclair, but not as to the Individual Defendants.  Accordingly,
all claims against the Individual Defendants arising from
statements made in the July 5, 2018, FCC filing will be dismissed.
All claims against corporate defendant Sinclair will be dismissed,
except for the claim arising from Sinclair's statement that
"Sinclair does not control or hold any attributable interest in
Cunningham."

The Court agrees that, where Atlanta P&F has failed to state a
claim under Section 10(b), the Section 20(a) claims against the
Individual Defendants should also be dismissed.  The Court,
however, has determined that two of the statements identified in
the Amended Complaint give rise to a claim under Section 10(b), and
Sinclair offers no additional arguments that the Section 20(a)
claims should be dismissed.  Accordingly, the Court will not
dismiss the claims against the Individual Defendants arising from
Sinclair's statements that "Cunningham is operated completely
separately from Sinclair," and that it "does not control or hold
any attributable interest in Cunningham."

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/LxkKf4 from Leagle.com.

Edward Komito, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com
-- Goldman and Minton PC.

City of Atlanta Police Pension Fund, (Atlanta P&F) Lead Plaintiff &
City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund, (Atlanta P&F) Lead
Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon Marsh , Saxena White
PA, pro hac vice, Dianne M. Anderson, Saxena White PA, pro hac
vice, Joseph E. White, III -- jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena
White PA, pro hac vice, Kyla Grant, Saxena White PA, pro hac vice,
Lester R. Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White PA, pro
hac vice, Maya S. Saxena -- msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White
PA, pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Saxena White PA, pro hac vice &
Thomas Joseph Minton, Goldman and Minton PC.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Christopher S. Ripley & Lucy A.
Rutishauser, Defendants, represented by Scott H. Marder, Thomas &
Libowitz, P.A., Henry Ader Andrews, Thomas & Libowitz, P.A.,
Michael P. Sternheim -- michael.sternheim@friedfrank.com -- Fried
Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel P.
Groner -- samuel.groner@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris
Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice & Scott B. Luftglass --
scott.luftglass@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver and
Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice.

Steven M. Marks, Defendant, pro se.

David D. Smith, Defendant, pro se.

Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by
Susan R. Podolsky, Law Office of Susan R Podolsky.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Williams Seeks Civil Penalties for Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WILLIAMS, an individual on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a North Carolina
Corporation; FAA CONCORD INC. a California Corporation; FIRST
AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-583846 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
March 18, 2020), seeks recovery of civil penalties for unpaid wages
resulting from the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorney
General Act, California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that while paid primarily on a
commission-only basis, he and other aggrieved employees were not
separately compensated for time spent working on non-sales related
tasks, which were and could not be compensated on a commission
basis, including for example time spent waiting on customers,
attending meetings, trainings, completing paperwork, calling
customers, and time spent taking breaks. As a result, they who were
paid primarily on a commission-basis were not paid for all hours
worked, including payment of all minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt vehicle
salesperson in their Concord Honda Sonic car dealership from
January 2019 until his termination in August 2019.

The Defendants own/operate/manage car dealerships in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
          FALAKASSA LAW, PC
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (818) 456-6168
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0868
          E-mail: Josh@falakassalaw.com

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975-1493
          Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
          E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com


STEVE & SONS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Aguilar Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEVE & SONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-99442 (W.D. Tex., April 7, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Shipping
Supervisor from July 2013 until March 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week while
working for Defendant and periodically received nondiscretionary
bonuses based on attendance. However, their overtime compensation
was not properly paid because Defendant did not include all forms
of compensation in the regular rate when calculating their overtime
pay, including off-the-clock work.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including attorneys'
fees.

Steve & Sons, Inc. manufactures and sells doors to lumberyards,
retailers and builders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TARGET CORP: Settlement Agreement in Atherton Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAVIS ATHERTON, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-1093 (M.D. Pa.), Judge
Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Midddle
District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the
parties' joint motion to approve their settlement agreement.

The parties seek to resolve Atherton's claims against Target Corp
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA").  Target employed
Atherton as a warehouse associate from August 2016 until
approximately Nov. 5, 2019.  Target considered Atherton to be
"non-exempt" and subject to overtime compensation requirements
under the FLSA and PMWA.

According to the complaint, Target improperly calculated Atherton's
regular rate -- the rate upon which his overtime pay was based --
by failing to use a "weighted average" that included shift
differentials, bonuses, and other additional remuneration. Atherton
also alleges that Target failed to include in his wages the time it
took for him to walk from the time clocks, which are centrally
located within Target's distribution centers, to security-screening
locations near the distribution centers' exits.

Atherton commenced the action by filing a putative class- and
collective-action complaint on June 26, 2019.  He asserts
violations of the FLSA (Count I) and the PMWA (Count II).
Following settlement negotiations, the parties filed the instant
joint motion for approval of their proposed settlement agreement,
along with a sealed copy of the agreement for the Court's review.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Target agrees to pay
$(Redacted) to resolve Atherton's claims.  Atherton will receive
$(Redacted) of the total settlement amount, and his counsel will
receive $(Redacted) in attorney's fees, consistent with Atherton's
representation agreement.  In exchange for this payment, the
proposed settlement obligates Atherton to withdraw his charge of
discrimination filed with state and federal agencies and to dismiss
the claims asserted in his case.  

The proposed settlement agreement includes a specific release of
any claims that Atherton could have asserted in his charge of
discrimination or in the litigation.  It further includes a
sweeping general release of virtually any other claim Atherton may
have against Target, a covenant not to sue Target for any released
claim, and a provision establishing Atherton's liability for
Target's attorneys' fees and costs for any lawsuit filed in breach
of the covenant.

The agreement includes both a confidentiality clause and a
non-disparagement clause.  The confidentiality clause bars Atherton
from disclosing the facts underlying the lawsuit, the terms or
amount of the settlement, and any information about negotiations
leading to the agreement to anyone except his spouse, attorneys,
tax advisor(s), or as required by law.  The clause requires
Atherton to respond to any inquiries about the case by simply
stating that the matter has been resolved without no other comment.
The non-disparagement clause prohibits Atherton from making
statements or taking other actions that disparage or reflect
negatively on Target.

Judge Conner finds that the record provides the Court a limited
basis from which to test whether the parties' proposed settlement
agreement resolves a bona fide dispute.  The Court's only
understanding of the parties' respective positions comes from
Atherton's complaint and from settlement documents indicating that
Target "denies all of Atherton's allegations and claims."
Nonetheless, he can glean from the record that Target disputes the
factual allegations supporting Atherton's complaint and that
Atherton's counsel believes that proceeding to trial in view of
Target's "various defenses to its liability" would present a degree
of risk.  The Court finds that the proposed settlement resolves a
bona fide dispute between the parties.

Next, the Court concludes that the parties' proposed settlement
constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of Atherton's claims.
Atherton's counsel acknowledges in a declaration that Atherton
faces certain risks if he proceeds with his FLSA claims.  The
parties ostensibly explored and gained an adequate appreciation for
the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions during
negotiations.  And the parties agree that the proposed settlement
provides Atherton with sufficiently reasonable compensation.
Weighing all of the applicable factors, the Court finds that the
proposed settlement presents a fair and reasonable resolution of
Atherton's claims.

The representation agreement contemplates (and Atherton's counsel
requests) a fee of $(Redacted), or (Redacted)% of the total
settlement amount.  The ounsel indicates that he spent (Redacted)
hours on the case, and that his usual rate is $(Redacted),
resulting in a total fee lodestar of approximately $(Redacted).
The requested fee -- while high when compared to the number of
hours worked on the case -- is reasonable given Atherton's
agreement thereto, the size of the settlement, the experience of
Atherton's counsel, the risks of litigation, and awards approved in
comparable single-Plaintiff FLSA settlements.  

Having carefully considered the terms of the proposed settlement,
the Court finds that the overly broad confidentiality and release
clauses are antithetical to the FLSA's objectives.  By limiting
public access to the settlement agreement and prohibiting Atherton
from discussing its terms with his former coworkers, the
confidentiality clause frustrates the FLSA's objective of
widespread employer compliance and thwarts the private-public
character of FLSA employee rights.  The Court finds that the
confidentiality clause frustrates implementation of the FLSA, and
it cannot approve it in its current form.

The general release is also all-encompassing.  It purports to bar
Atherton from raising any claim whatsoever that he may have against
Target, even if that claim is presently unknown to him and wholly
unrelated to the lawsuit.  The parties have supplied no information
from which the Court can assess the value of the released claims,
and they do not otherwise justify the scope of the waiver.  The
Court and others routinely reject such sweeping general releases.
The Court concludes that the breadth of the clause impermissibly
frustrates implementation of the FLSA.  As a consequence, the Court
declines to approve the general release clause in its current
form.

Under circumstances like in the case, the Court would ordinarily
grant the parties' joint motion in part and instruct them to file a
revised settlement agreement removing the problematic clauses.  But
the parties in the case have indicated that the presently worded
confidentiality provision was material to Target's willingness to
settle, and the settlement itself is conditioned on Court approval
of its existing terms.

Judge Conner accordingly granted the parties a brief period in
which to either revise their proposed settlement agreement to
remedy the concerns identified or file a request for a case
management conference to schedule further proceedings.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020 Redacted
Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/UywxYn from Leagle.com.

Travis Atherton, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin L. Swidler --
jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC, Matthew D. Miller
-- mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- & Richard S. Swartz --
eswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charlene A. Barker
Gedeus -- charlene.gedeus@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
PC & Joseph J. Centeno -- joseph.centeno@bipc.com -- Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC.


TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Discriminates Against Female Staff, Rocha Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CLAUDIA PLAZAS ROCHA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP LLC,
Defendant, Filing No. 106039434 (Fla. 11th Cir., April 8, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's violations of the Equal Pay Act of
1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Florida
Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes, Chapter 760.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated employees, alleges that the Defendant engaged in
gender-based discrimination against her and all others female
workers including lower pay rate, unequal opportunities, and
harassment. She claims that the Defendant terminated her employment
after she reported to Human Resources the disparate treatment and
harassment she experienced from her supervisor.  

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a digital producer.

Telemundo Network Group LLC is an operator of a Spanish-language
television network based in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bujan, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130          
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattomeys.com
                  ns@rgpattomeys.com
                  dbujan@rgpattomeys.com

TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Data Breach Suit From Boykin, Robbins
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BOYKIN AND SALLY ROBBINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC
ALLIANCE, P.A. Defendant, Case No. 20C791 (Tenn. Cir., 20th
Judicial, Davidson Cty.) is an action by Plaintiffs, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, alleging claims for negligence,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
confidence, and constructive fraud and seek to compel Defendant to
adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard patient
personally identifiable information ("PII") that remains in its
custody in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from
reoccurring.

On February 14, 2020, Tennessee Orthopaedic announced that two of
its employees had been subjected to phishing attacks resulting in
the compromise of their emails and the subsequent exfiltration of
the personally identifiable information PII and protected health
information ("PHI") of 81,146 patients.  The exposed PII included:
patient names, dates of birth, contact information (addresses,
phone numbers and email addresses), Social Security numbers, health
insurance information, treatment or diagnostic information
(including codes), and/or treatment cost information.

This Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patient PII.

As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, patient PII is now in the hands of thieves.
Plaintiffs and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue
to spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to
protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data
Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft
and fraud.

Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance, P.A. is an orthopaedic surgery
group serving Middle Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
            The Adkins Firm, P.C.
            1025 Westhaven Blvd, Suite 220
            Franklin, TN 37064
            Telephone: (615) 370-9659
            Facsimile: (205) 208-9632
            Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com

                          – and –

            Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
            Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
            Christopher B. Barbour, Esq.
            RHINE LAW FIRM, PC 1612
            Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
            Wilmington, NC 28403
            Telephone: (910) 772-9960
            Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
            Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                   mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
                   cbb@rhinelawfirm.com

THEMAVEN INC: Jones Claims Website not Deaf-accessible
------------------------------------------------------
Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Themaven, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01440 (E.D. N.Y., March 18, 2020), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

TheMaven, Inc. operates TheStreet.com, an online media and sales
website covering financial news and financial literacy. Jones is
legally deaf and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed
by the hearing-impaired. Jones attempted to watch current events
videos but it did not contain closed captioning. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel. (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


TOWN SPORTS: Members Still Charged Despite Closure, Radford Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NANCY RADFORD AND KAYCEE FARLAND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. TOWN SPORTS
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. and TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
d/b/a NEW YORK SPORTS CLUBS, BOSTON SPORTS CLUBS, WASHINGTON SPORTS
CLUBS, PHILADELPHIA SPORTS CLUBS, LUCILLE ROBERTS, PALM BEACH
SPORTS CLUBS, AROUND THE CLOCK FITNESS, AND TOTAL WOMAN GYM AND
SPA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02938 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violation of fitness club membership
contract, common law, and consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated members of TSI fitness clubs, allege that the
Defendants continued to charge them for their monthly fitness club
fees despite the fact that they cannot use the services due to the
clubs' closure following the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs and
Class members' inquiries and questions about their monthly fees
were left unanswered and they were still charged despite efforts to
cancel their membership. Moreover, the members who opted for freeze
membership were charged with freeze fees without prior
notification. The Plaintiffs seek the maximum amount of damages
available by law for the Defendants' unfair business practices.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding
company that operates and owns fitness clubs, with its principal
place of business in New York.

Town Sports International, LLC is a health and fitness clubs
operator, with its principal place of business in Elmsford, New
York. It is operating under a variety of brand names, including New
York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Washington Sports Clubs,
Philadelphia Sports Clubs, Lucille Roberts, Total Woman Gym and
Spa, Palm Beach Sports Clubs, and Around the Clock Fitness. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A Coulson, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
                  mrobb@ldclassaction.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Ferraguto Suit Over False Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP FERRAGUTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02363-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020) is
a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself
and a class of purchasers and lessees of the Toyota Rav4 Hybrid,
model years 2019-2020, class vehicles that were falsely and
misleadingly advertised on Defendant's website and its brochures as
having a combined MPG of 40 and a 14.5-gallon fuel tank,
translating into approximately 580 miles of travel on a tank of
gas.

The Defendant has been aware of the defect for a long time. Despite
the fact of Defendant's awareness of the defect, Toyota Motor Sales
has failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers.

Plaintiff seeks redress from Defendant on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and alleges causes of action for
fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act,
and for unjust enrichment.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retails and sells new and used
automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers,
hybrids, hybrid cars, and accessories. Toyota Motor operates
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
            Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
            LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
            388 Market Street, Suite 1300
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 373-1671
            Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
            Email: rrivas@zlk.com
                   rmah@zlk.com

TRUEACCORD CORP: Burch Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The
case is styled as Sabrina Burch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trueaccord Corp. and LVNV
Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00356 (M.D. Fla., April
8, 2020).

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

TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ULTIMATE CARWASH: Underpays Car Washers & Detailers, Mitchell Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY Y. MITCHELL, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. ULTIMATE CARWASH, INC., RICHARD E. PALACIOS, and
CHRISTINE A. PALACIOS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-60728-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as non-exempted, full-time and
hourly-paid car washer and car detailer attendant from
approximately December 13, 2018 through October 18, 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked between 56-60 hours
weekly and did not take bonafide lunch periods while employed by
Defendants.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated car washer and car detailer at least
minimum wages for every hour worked and overtime compensation at
the rate of one-half of their regular rate of pay for all of the
overtime hours they worked.

Richard E. Palacios and Christine A. Palacios are owners/officers
and managers of Ultimate Carwash.

Ultimate Carwash, Inc. provides car wash and car detailing services
in Broward County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in David P. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID P., and L.P., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER,
and the MORGAN STANLEY MEDICAL PLAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00225-JNP-PMW (D. Utah), Judge Jill N. Parrish of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

Plaintiff David P., an employee of Morgan Stanley, maintained a
healthcare insurance policy through a self-funded employee welfare
benefits plan entitled the Morgan Stanley Medical Plan.  United
operated as the third-party claims administrator for the Plan.
MSCHRO was the designated plan administrator for the Plan.  The
Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, United acted as an
agent for the Plan and MSCHRO. The Plan covered David P. as the
Plan participant and L.P. as his minor daughter and eligible
beneficiary.

From an early age, L.P. has been treated for a range of mental
health and substance abuse conditions.  In the fourth grade, L.P.
was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder ("ADD").  L.P.'s
symptoms worsened in high school when her drug use intensified and
she began experiencing severe anxiety.  L.P.'s school nurse
recommended that she undergo psychological care and potential
hospitalization if her symptoms did not improve.  

L.P. began seeing Dr. Robert Weaver, a clinical neuropsychologist,
who recommended that L.P. receive hospitalization because her "drug
use and self-harming behaviors posed a threat to her safety and the
safety of others.  After a particularly severe instance of
self-harming by cutting, Dr. Weaver warned that L.P. was at risk of
suicide if she did not receive immediate treatment.

The Plaintiffs admitted L.P. to a mental health/substance abuse
residential treatment program at Summit Achievement in Maine on
Nov. 28, 2016.  Before completing the program at Summit, the
Plaintiffs transferred L.P. to a different mental health/substance
abuse residential treatment program at Uinta Academy in Utah
starting Feb. 14, 2017.  L.P. received care at Uinta until Nov. 30,
2017.  Both Summit and Uinta are treatment facilities which provide
sub-acute inpatient treatment to adolescents with mental health,
behavioral, and/or substance abuse problems.

The Plaintiffs filed insurance claims with United for coverage of
L.P.'s treatment at Summit and Uinta.  United denied paying
benefits for all of L.P.'s residential care at Summit and covered
one week of her treatment at Uinta.  The Plaintiffs exhausted
internal and external appeals of United's benefits denials, all of
which were rejected.  The Plaintiffs allege that United's denial of
benefits for L.P.'s treatment at Summit and Uinta caused the
Plaintiffs to incur over $177,000 in medical expenses.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' claims adjudication
processes and decision to deny benefits for L.P.'s treatment at
Summit and Uinta violated ERISA in three ways.  In their First
Cause of Action, they allege that the Defendants wrongfully denied
benefits for all of L.P.'s treatment at Summit and all but one week
of her care at Uinta, and seek damages under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B).  Under this claim, the Plaintiffs complain that
United failed to engage in meaningful dialogue during the appeals
process, did not act in L.P.'s interest, and failed to cover
medically necessary treatment based on the terms of the Plan.

In their Second Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants violated the Parity Act, a component of ERISA.  They
allege that the Defendants violated the Parity Act by imposing more
restrictive or additional treatment limitations on mental
health/substance use disorder benefits than the limitations applied
to analogous medical/surgical benefits.  To rectify the alleged
Parity Act violations, the Plaintiffs seek equitable relief under
29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) in the form of judicial declaration,
injunction, reformation, disgorgement, accounting, surcharge,
restitution, and equitable estoppel.

In their Third Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs request statutory
penalties under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(1)(A) and 1132(c).  They
argue that ERISA requires plan administrators or their agents to
produce certain plan documents and benefits criteria within thirty
days of request, and that United failed to provide such documents
on six occasions.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek an award of
statutory penalties against the Defendants of up to $110 per day
after the first 30 days for each instance in which United failed to
provide the Plaintiffs with requested documents.

In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants advance four principal
arguments in seeking to dismiss all or part of the Plaintiffs'
Complaint.  First, they contend that David P. lacks statutory and
constitutional standing to bring his individual claims.  Second,
Defendants urge the court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint with
prejudice (or in the alternative, to enter a stay) because
Defendants assert that L.P. is a member of a pending class action
that the Defendants believe is premised on the same grounds as this
lawsuit.  Third, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Second
Cause of Action alleging violations of the Parity Act is
inadequately pled and should be dismissed with prejudice.  Fourth,
theys contend that the Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for
statutory penalties should be dismissed with prejudice because
their requests for documents were directed to the wrong entity or
are time-barred.  

Judge Parrish rejects the Defendants' first, second, and third
arguments, but accepts its fourth argument concerning statutory
penalties.  Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have adequately pled their Parity Act claims because (1) the
Plaintiffs identified a specific non-quantitative treatment
limitation in United's application of acute-level criteria to a
benefits claim for subacute mental health/substance abuse care at
residential treatment centers; (2) the Plaintiffs appropriately
(based on Parity Act regulations) analogize to medical/surgical
care at skilled nursing, inpatient hospice, or inpatient
rehabilitation facilities that are covered by the Plan; and (3) the
Plaintiffs plausibly allege a treatment limitation disparity that
Defendants applied acute-level criteria to subacute mental
health/substance abuse services, but would have applied subacute
level criteria to the analogous subacute medical/surgical
services.

The Court will dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' statutory
penalties argument under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c).  The
Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action alleges that they are entitled to
an award of statutory penalties under ERISA because United failed
to provide Plan documents, policies, and criteria upon repeated
request.  The Court finds that the Plaintiffs point to no binding
or persuasive authority to support their argument, and she has
found no such authority in the Tenth Circuit.  Because the
Plaintiffs directed their documents requests to United, the claims
administrator, and not to MSCHRO, the plan administrator, their
requests did not trigger the ERISA disclosure requirements and
therefore do not warrant imposing statutory penalties.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court granted in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' Third Cause of
Action for statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c) is
dismissed with prejudice.  In all other respects, the Court denied
the Defendants' motion .

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. Feb. 7, 2020
Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/ZLMNcp
from Leagle.com.

David P. & L. P., Plaintiffs, represented by Brian S. King, BRIAN S
KING PC, Brent J. Newton, BRIAN S KING PC & Nediha Hadzikadunic,
BRIAN S KING PC.

United Healthcare Insurance, Morgan Stanley Chief Human Resources
Officer & Morgan Stanley Medical Plan, Defendants, represented by
Clint R. Hansen -- chansen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT,
Scott M. Petersen -- spetersen@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VANCOTT
& Michael H. Bernstein -- mbernstein@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE LLC,
pro hac vice.


UNITED STATES: DeSuze Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary DeSuze, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum & Order dated March 5, 2020, and Judgment dated
March 6, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled DeSuze, et al. v.
Carson, et al., Case No. 18-cv-180, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, according to
the complaint, through the action under the Administrative
Procedures Act, the Enforcement Act of 1871, and New York state
common law, longstanding and former tenants of Linden Plaza seek to
demonstrate that their interest in affordable housing converges
with the public interest in avoiding waste. Over the past decade,
hundreds of households who have called Linden Plaza, a 1,527-unit
state and federally subsidized rental project, home for decades
have perversely and ironically struggled after their rents doubled
or tripled because of a "preservation transaction" approved by HUD.
Simply to pay the inflated rents, low-and-moderate income families
have gone hungry, dispensed with childcare, taken out high interest
loans, put off live-saving medical treatment, or prematurely
invaded retirement plans lest they end up homeless. Some, like
Petra Montgomery, became permanently homeless where, after having
exhausted all desperate alternatives, they were inevitably evicted.
Others have succumbed to illnesses or even taken their lives due to
the stress of the omnipresent specter of eviction.

The appellate case is captioned as DeSuze, et al. v. Carson, et
al., Case No. 20-1141, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary DeSuze, and other similarly situated
current or former tenants of Linden Plaza, et al., are represented
by:

          Gregory Emmanuel Louis, Esq.
          COMMUNITIES RESIST, INC.
          109 South 5th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11249
          Telephone: 718-288-4458
          Email: glouis@communitiesresist.org

Defendants-Appellees Ben Carson, et al., are represented by:

         Varuni Nelson, Esq.
         ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
         THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
         EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
         271 Cadman Plaza East
         Brooklyn, NY 11201

                   – and –

         Peter C. Neger, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         101 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10178
         Telephone: 212-309-6935

                   – and –

         James Edward Johnson, Esq.
         CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
         100 Church Street
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: 212-356-2500


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dixon Files Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Miami.
The case is styled as Adelaide Dixon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University of Miami,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01348-BHH (D.S.C., April 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to a Diversity-Contract Dispute.

The University of Miami (informally referred to as UM, UMiami, U of
M or The U) is a private research university in Coral Gables,
Florida. As of 2019, the university enrolls 17,811 students in 12
separate colleges/schools, including the Leonard M. Miller School
of Medicine in Miami's Health District, a law school on the main
campus, and the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
focused on the study of oceanography and atmospheric sciences on
Virginia Key, with research facilities at the Richmond Facility in
southern Miami-Dade County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric Poulin, Esq.
   Anastopoulo Law Firm LLC
   32 Ann Street
   Charleston, SC 29403
   Tel: (843) 614-8888
   Fax: (843) 494-5536
   Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com

      - and -

   Roy T Willey , IV, Esq.
   Anastopoulo Law Firm LLC
   32 Ann Street
   Unit B
   Charleston, SC 29403
   Tel: (843) 614-8888
   Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Ziarno Sues Over Automobile Sunroof Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
KRZYSZTOF ZIARNO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
and VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03833 (D.N.J.,
April 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and
marketed Volkswagen vehicles, including 2016-present Audi A1 Mk2,
Audi A3 Mk3, Audi TT Mk3, Audi Q2, Audi Q3, Volkswagen Arteon,
Volkswagen Atlas/Teramont, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Jetta,
Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Polo, Volkswagen Tiguan, and
Volkswagen Touranhas, with sunroof defect. The Defendants refused
to disclose and failed to warn consumers of the defect and the
propensity for the vehicles' sunroofs to leak despite the company's
knowledge of the Defect and the problems associated with it.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
automobile manufacturer Volkswagen AG, with its principal place of
business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia.

Volkswagen AG is a multinational automotive manufacturing company
headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103          
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604          
          E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net
                  apark@bm.net
                  agertner@bm.net

               - and -
          
          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Jason Barnes, Esq.
          Brittany A. Boswell, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          12 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416          
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
                  jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
                  bboswell@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -
          
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929         
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -
          
          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER PSC
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
          E-mail: mark@bryant.law
                  emily@bryant.law

WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Miller Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wegmans Food Markets,
Inc. The case is styled as Glennette Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wegmans Food Markets,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01703-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., owns and operates a chain of grocery
stores. The Company offers products such as meat, seafood, deli,
baked goods, health supplements, herbal remedies, pharmacy
products, and wines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTON MEMORY: Underpays Caregivers, Troutman Claims
----------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE TROUTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTON MEMORY CARE, LLC and SANCTUARY CARE
GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00332 (W.D. Wis., April 7,
2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt Caregiver working primarily at Defendants' DeForest,
Wisconsin location in the State of Wisconsin in approximately
December 2019 and still currently employed with Defendants.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees frequently worked in excess of forty hours per
workweek during the three years. However, Defendants deliberately
deprived them of their wages earned for all compensable work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.

Allegedly, Defendants employed an unlawful compensation policies,
practices, customs, and/or schemes of failing to include all forms
of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift
differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and
payments, in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes.

Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

Weston Memory Care, LLC owns and operates multiple physical
locations, often referred to as "communities," such as
rehabilitation, memory care, and assisted living facilities, in the
State of Wisconsin.

Sanctuary Care Group, LLC manages Western Memory Care's physical
locations or communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemond Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WS 53005
          Tel: (262)780-1953
          Fax: (262)565-6469
          Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com



YONKERS, NY: Malkawi Files Civil Rights Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Yonkers. The
case is styled as Ihsan Malkawi, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Yonkers, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02893 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000.

Yonkers is a city on the Hudson River, in Westchester County, New
York. Green spaces include Untermyer Park and Gardens, with its
formal Walled Garden, water features and river views. The Hudson
River Museum has American art, an 1876 mansion and a planetarium.
Presidential portraits are displayed at Philipse Manor Hall State
Historic Site, a Georgian house. Empire City Casino and Raceway
hosts horse races.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Emma Lerner Freeman, Esq.
   Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP
   600 Fifth Avenue
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 763-5000
   Fax: (212) 763-5001
   Email: efreeman@ecbalaw.com

      - and -

   Ogilvie Andrew Fraser Wilson, Esq.
   Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP
   600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 763-5000
   Fax: (212) 763-5001
   Email: awilson@ecbalaw.com


ZOOM VIDEO: Brams Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents
----------------------------------------------------
KIM BRAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
ERIC S. YUAN, and KELLY STECKELBERG, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02396 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
Zoom securities from April 18, 2019 through April 6, 2020, alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about
Zoom's business, operational and compliance policies, particularly
the degree to which its video communication software was encrypted,
in connection with its initial public offering. The truth on the
deficiencies of the company's video communication software emerged
due to the increased utilization of the software as an impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Following a series of news reports and
admission of the company that it had significantly overstated the
encryption level of the software, the market value of its
securities precipitous decline, which caused losses and damages to
the Plaintiff and Class members.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a San Jose, California-based
company that designs, develops, and sells a popular cloud-based
communications platform that concentrates on video conferencing.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                  busch@wvbrlaw.com

               - and -
          
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005          
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.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 ***