---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 99

                            Headlines

AIR CANADA: Fails to Refund for Cancelled Flights, Vozzolo Claims
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Lafleur Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Denies Morrows' Bid to Certify Class
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Thompson Appeals Ruling in Consumer FDCPA Suit
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Werner Sues Over Refusal to Refund Ski Fees

AMAZON.COM INC: Caudel Alleges Deceptive Content Marketing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs in Anti-Steering Litig. Mull Appeal
APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Suit Dismissed

APPLE INC: Taleshpour Sues Over Defective Cables in MacBook Pro
ASCENT RESOURCES: Rhiel Seeks to Recover Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
ASPEN CONSTRUCTION: Arroyo Seeks to Certify Laborers Class
AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Class Suit Dismissed
B COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Approve Maleeff Settlement Pending

B COMMUNICATIONS: Customer Suit Against Bezeq Underway
B COMMUNICATIONS: License Violation Suit vs. Pelephone Ongoing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Mobile Radio Services Suit v. Pelephone Underway
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Communications Package Suit
B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit v. Pelephone over Internet Use Underway

B&E SPA SERVICES: Rivera Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Suit
BANCO BBVA: Faces Investors' Class Action
BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
BECHT ENGINEERING: Costellow Alleges Unlawful OT Pay for Advisors

BMW FINANCIAL: Rawlings Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BOB MARTIN: Sued by Roe in California for Misclassifying Dancers
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, Cox Claims
BRF SA: $40MM Deal Reached in Birmingham Retirement & Relief Suit
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces Ide Suit Over Denial of Air Fare Refunds

BROWN & BROWN: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Putman Claims
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Give Tuition or Fee Refund, Doe Says
CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT: Fletcher Seeks OT Wages Under PMWA & FLSA
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit Set for Sept. 28
CAR PROTECTION: Foote TCPA Suit Moved from Georgia to N.D. Texas

CARMAX INC: Settlement Reached in Calif. Wage & Hour Suits
CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY: Cattie Seeks to Certify Class
CENTURY REALTY: Baloga Suit Seeks to Certify Homeowners Class
CHART INDUSTRIES: Accord Reached in Ontario Suit Over Cryo Tank
CHART INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over Cryo Tank Failure Ongoing

CHEMICAL & MINING: Class Cert. Bid in S.D.N.Y. Suit Still Pending
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Alvarez Seeks Class Certification
CINCINNATI BELL: Class Suits Challenge MIRA Merger Deal
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Taste of Belgium Asks Coverage Under Policy
CITIZENS INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID Losses, Image Alleges

CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks OT Pay for Nursing Assistants
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICA: Romero Challenges Proposed Gilat Merger
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for August 2020
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Haynie Seeks Tuition Refund Amid COVID-19
CPFL ENERGIA: Appeal in Suit Against Geracao Unit Still Pending

CPFL ENERGIA: PROCON Class Suit Against Paulista Unit Ongoing
CREDIT KARMA: Lott Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
DEPT OF DEFENSE: Samma Seeks to Certify Non-Citizen Soldiers Class
DIRECT ENERGY: Forte Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ELI LILLY: Value Drug Alleges Bribes & Kickbacks in Insulin Sales

EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed
EQUIFAX INC: Deal Reached in Pennsylvania State Court Case
EQUIFAX INC: To Appeal Ontario Court Ruling
FAST ENTERPRISES: Filed Motion to Deny Class Certification
FCA US: Durham Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Vehicle Engine

FIFTH THIRD: Class Certification Sought in Cash Advance Litigation
GLOBAL OPERATIONS: Thomas Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
GLOBAL STRATEGY: Faces Elzen Suit Over Unsolicited Survey Texts
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss IPO Class Suits Pending
H MART INC: Hee Sues Over Misleading Labels on Mochi Ice Cream

HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Faces Schulze Securities Suit in N.D. Texas
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Black Magic Suit in D. South Carolina
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Red Apple Sues Over Denied Insurance Claim
HARVARD STREET: Faces Zuvich Civil Rights Suit in D. Oregon
HERC HOLDINGS: Appeal to Revive Ramirez Class Suit Pending

HOFGUR LLC: Faces Schoengood Suit in E.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Breach
HOFGUR LLC: Schoengood Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
HOMEADVISOR INC: Van Hise Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Ads
IKEA NORTH: Faces Nazarchuk Suit Over Defective Kullen Dressers
IMT INSURANCE: Refuses to Pay for COVID-19 Losses, Seifert Claims

INTEL CORP: Consolidated Oregon Class Action Dismissed
ITURAN LOCATION: Hearing This Month in Data Security Suits
ITURAN LOCATION: Still Defends Antitrust Suit in Tel-Aviv
JADE FARM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Cuturic Claims
JADE HOUSE: Lu Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code

JM COFFEE: Garcia Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
JOHN STEVENS: Faunce Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Starwalk Suit Over PPP Loan Removed to N.D. Texas
LAPEER INDUSTRIES: Nikora Class Certification Bid Denied
LENOVO: Singh et al. Sue Over Hinge Defect in Laptops & Tablets

LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Manopla Class Action Ongoing
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Won't Pay for COVID-19 Losses, Biltrite Claims
LIFELINE INNOVATIONS: Faces Hayes Fraud Suit in M.D. Florida
LOGMEIN INC: Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit Ongoing
LOGMEIN INC: Suits Challenge Francisco Partners-Elliott Buyout

LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Bowens Suit Seeks Overtime Premium Under PMWA
MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY: Mebrahtu Demands Refund of Tuition & Fees
MATRIX ABSENCE: Misclassifies Claims Examiners, Weeks Suit Claims
MDL 2800: Objectors Appeal Settlement Approval in Data Breach Suit

MDL 2924: Koppell v. Perrigo Co. Over Ranitidine, Consolidated
METLIFE INC: Sun Life Still Defends Sales Practices Lawsuits
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Brooklyn Appeals Order to 2nd Cir.
MGM RESORTS: Faces Maldonado Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
MISSOURI GAMING: Lipari-Williams MMWL Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri

MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Salim Class Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Refuses to Honor Policy, Border Chicken Claims
NEW YORK: Bellin Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS: Mearidy Seeks OT Pay for Call-Center Assocs.
PEORIA DISPOSAL: Stinson Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

PETSMART INC: Hemp Seed Oil Can't Be Lawfully Sold, Sassano Says
PINDUODUO INC: Asay & Johan Appeal Ruling in Wei Suit to 2nd Cir.
PITA CAFE: Rojas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tipped Wages Under FLSA
PLANET FITNESS: Faces Holloway Suit Over Post-Closure Charges
POLARIS INC: Class Suits Underway in Minnesota and California

PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES: Underpays Cleaners, Hernandez Claims
QUANTUM HEALTH: Snider Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
QUDIAN INC: Bid to Lift Stay in Consolidated NY Class Suit Pending
QUDIAN INC: Initial Conference in Bellingham Suit Set for June 18
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Woods Suit Over Dishonest Marketing Scheme

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Hotter Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners' Lawsuit Stayed Amid Ch.11 Filing
RIDER UNIVERSITY: Quiroz Sues Over Failure to Refund Tuition Fees
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford & Josten Class Action Underway
RITE AID: Sued by Lemons for Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages

SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Faces Cwikla Suit Alleging Retaliation
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Class Status Sought in Educational Plan Litig.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Denies Claims for COVID-19 Losses, GV Says
SEABOARD CORP: Bid to Dismiss Pork Antitrust Litigation Pending
SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Simon Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Hair Perfect Seeks Coverage for COVID Losses
SETON HALL: Schoening Sues Over Failure to Refund Tuition & Fees
SNAP INC: Settlement in IPO Class Suit Wins Initial Approval
SONENDO INC: Misclassifies Field Service Engineers, Fite Says
SOUTHERN OAKS: Burgess FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Florida

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Clark Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
SRI THAI CORP: Godines Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
STATE AUTO: Faces Young Blood Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
STUBHUB INC: Reynolds Sues Over Unlawful Changes in Refund Policy
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Nix Securities Suit over ADS Pending

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Stichting Complaint Under Appeal
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Ryan Sues Over Refusal to Provide Refunds
TRUMAN ROAD: Court Denies Smith Bid for Class Certification
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Bertrim Suit Moved From California to Florida

TWIN STONE: Gonazalez Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers Under FLSA
UNION PACIFIC: 8th Cir. Panel Decertifies ADA Suit
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Mediation Underway in Meyer Class Suit
UNITED STATES: CARES Act Deprives Constitutional Rights, Doe Says
UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: Brandmeyer Seeks Refund Amid COVID-19 Closure

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Burnett Seeks Refund Amid COVID-19 Closure
UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Dieckhaus Seeks Refund Amid COVID Closure
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dimitryuk Seeks Tuition Refund Amid COVID-19
US BANCORP: David S. Lowry Challenges Distribution of PPP Loans
VAIL RESORTS: Clarke Seeks Refund of Unused Ski Ticket

VITOL INC: PWDI Sues Over Violation of Unfair Competition Law
W&W ENERGY: Campos Seeks Overtime Pay for Tool Pushers
WAL-MART STORES: Assistant Store Managers Can't Proceed as Class
WALGREEN CO: Court Denies Le's Bid to Certify Pharmacists Class
WARNER BROS: O'Connor Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces AD Sims Suit Over PPP Loan Distribution
WORLD WRESTLING: Oral Argument on Appeal Set for June 5
WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
YUNJI INC: Chen and Hoomissen Suits Consolidated
ZTO EXPRESS: Bid for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending

[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class

                            *********

AIR CANADA: Fails to Refund for Cancelled Flights, Vozzolo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio L. Vozzolo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AIR CANADA, Case No. 7:20-cv-03503 (S.D.N.Y., May 5,
2020), arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide full
refunds to consumers whose flights were cancelled as a result the
COVID-19 virus.

According to the complaint, the Defendant responded to the decrease
in demand and concern for health safety arising from the COVID-19
virus by reducing its flight schedules and cancelling flights for
thousands of passengers. But rather than refund passengers for the
value of their cancelled flights, the Defendant is refusing to
provide anything other than vouchers for the pre-paid flights, even
if the purpose for the trip has ended. In doing so, Defendant
breaches its Terms and Conditions which promise that it will refund
customers the full value of their ticket, upon request, for flights
cancelled by Air Canada, including if the cancellation was
"required for safety purposes."

The Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a full refund for his
cancelled Air Canada flight. Instead, the Defendant issued him, and
countless other customers, a voucher that will expire if not used
within a set period of time. The Defendant has undoubtedly
experienced economic hardships as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic
and the resulting decrease in demand for air travel.

While the Plaintiff and his counsel are not numb to this, they
bring this action on behalf of individuals also facing severe
hardship who, unlike the Defendant, have not been granted
staggering government relief and whose hard-earned money the
Defendant is now holding without having provided the flight they
booked and contracted.

Mr. Vozzolo purchased five round-trip tickets from the Defendant
for the purpose of him and four of his immediate family members
traveling from Newark, New Jersey, to Vancouver BC, Canada, for a
family wedding.

Air Canada is Canada's largest domestic and international airline,
with its principal place of business in Montreal, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          29 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10006-3205
          Phone: (212) 952-0014
          Email: jkravec@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          VOZZOLO LAW LLC
          345 Route 17 South
          Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
          Phone: (201) 630-8820
          Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Lafleur Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY LAFLEUR, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated  v. ALLERGAN INC., f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation and ALLERGAN, USA INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00681-WCG (E.D. Wis., May 1, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.

The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.

On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends she will be forced to
expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated
with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity
costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.

Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.

The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit adds.

In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Schwaba, J.D.
          SCHWABA LAW FIRM LLC
          962 First Street, PO Box 512
          Menominee, MI 49858
          Telephone: 906 424 4661
          Facsimile: 906 424 4663
          E-mail: aschwaba@schwabalaw.com


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Denies Morrows' Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BARBARA MORROW and BENNY
MORROW, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated
v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-HL
(M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Hugh Lawson denies Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class consisting of:

   "individuals who hold homeowners insurance policies with
   Defendant Allstate Insurance Company or another Allstate
   insurance provider."

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 to justify class certification.
No uniform resolution is possible among the proposed class because
Anderson indicates that failure to assess claims depend, in part,
on whether a defendant can demonstrate that no diminished value
occurred. Likewise, the Court also denies class certification of
the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs because
adjudication of class members' claims requires individualized
inquiries. The Court also finds that the individual class members'
breach of contract claims will be too factually dissimilar to
adjudicate uniformly. Thus, class certification is inappropriate.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)
as to their breach of contract claim alleging that the Defendants
breached their duty to assess for diminished value due to stigma.

According to the Plaintiffs, the homeowners policy created a duty
to assess for diminished value, and the Defendants failed to
complete such an assessment on a class-wide basis after class
members submitted general claims on their insurance policy. The
Plaintiffs submitted claims on their homeowners policy, and the
Defendants paid to repair and remediate the damage. The Plaintiffs
now allege that despite the 2010 and 2015 repairs, the home's fair
market value suffered a diminution in value due to stigma following
the physical damage.

Allstate provides insurance products and services.[CC]

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Thompson Appeals Ruling in Consumer FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sheria Thompson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Sheria Thompson v. Alltran Financial LP, Case
No. 3-19-cv-06618, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Sheria Thompson v. Alltran
Financial LP, Case No. 20-1915, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHERIA THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHULSKY KAPLAN
          280 Prospect Avenue, Suite 66
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (877) 827-3395

Defendant-Appellee ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP is represented by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          Email: aeasley@sessions.legal.com


ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Werner Sues Over Refusal to Refund Ski Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Werner and Ryan Collins, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY and IKON PASS
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01254-SKC (D. Colo., May 5, 2020), is
brought to seek redress for the Defendants' refusal to refund fees
after they closed all of their North American ski resorts, well
short of the promised duration of the ski season.

Alterra Mountain Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Ikon Pass
Inc. marketed and sold the Ikon Pass and Ikon Base Pass
(collectively, the "Passes") for the 2019-20 season. Alterra
promised that its Ikon Pass provided "unlimited access at 14 iconic
destinations" and also provided up to 7 days each at another 26
"select global destinations" with "no blackout dates."

On March 14, 2020, Alterra publicly announced that due to the
COVID-19 outbreak, as of March 15, 2020, all of its North American
ski resorts would be closed until further notice. Alterra did not
offer refunds to purchasers of the Passes due to their inability to
use their Passes for the remainder of the 2019-20 ski season but
instead have retained the payments made by Pass purchasers.
Alterra collected fees from skiers, snowboarders, and others, but
then deprived them of the promised "unlimited" skiing and
snowboarding, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased an Ikon Base Pass from the Defendants for
the 2019-20 season.

Alterra owns and operates 15 North American ski resorts, including
destinations such as Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows and Mammoth
Mountain in California, Steamboat and Winter Park Resort in
Colorado, Deer Valley Resort in Utah, and several others.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
          Alec C. Sherod, Esq.
          Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
          Gregory S. Otsuka, Esq.
          Brian W. Nelson, Esq.
          Daniel K. Asiedu, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Phone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          Email: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
                 asherod@hjlawfirm.com
                 mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
                 gotsuka@hjlawfirm.com
                 bwnelson@hjlawfirm.com
                 dasiedu@hjlawfirm.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Caudel Alleges Deceptive Content Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA CAUDEL, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-at-00409 (E.D. Cal., April 24, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA") by making the representations and omissions it made at the
Video Content point-of-sale at its "Video Purchases & Rentals"
webpage when it knew, or should have known, that these
representations and omissions were false and misleading.

The consumers including the Plaintiff expect that the use of a
"Buy" button and the representation that their Video Content is a
"Purchase" means that the consumer has paid for full access to the
Video Content and, like any bought product, that access cannot be
revoked.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated CLRA by
representing that the Video Content has characteristics and
benefits that they do not have, i.e., Defendant made
representations to Plaintiff and the Class members indicating that
the Video Content had been "Purchased" and, as such, that it would
be available for viewing online indefinitely, when in fact
Defendant knew that the Video Content could become unavailable for
viewing due to content provider licensing restrictions or other
reasons.

Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class members, requests that the Court
enjoin Defendant from engaging in the false and misleading
advertising and marketing set forth herein. If the Court does not
restrain Defendant from engaging in such conduct, Plaintiff and the
Class members will be harmed in that they will continue to purchase
Video Content they believe will be available indefinitely, when in
fact, the Video Content can be made unavailable at any time.

Amazon.com Inc. is the largest American online retailer and
includes among its myriad services the option for consumers to rent
or buy movies, television shows and other media for a fee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael R. Reese, Esq.
            Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
            REESE LLP  
            100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
            New York, NY 10025
            Telephone: (212) 643-0500
            Email: mreese@reesellp.com
                   cramirez@reesellp.com

                      - and -

            George V. Granade, Esq.
            REESE LLP
            8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
            Los Angeles, CA 90211
            Telephone: (310) 393-0070
            Email: ggranade@reesellp.com

                      - and -

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

AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that that the class action
suit initiated by B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and
Grove Liquors LLC remains pending.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market,
et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against American Express
Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks
and EMVCo, LLC.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants
after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals.

Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint
was filed on July 15, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not accept
American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California court
transferred the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

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

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself against an antitrust class action lawsuit
entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.

In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in another
putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York
and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of the company's charge cards and
credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

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

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs in Anti-Steering Litig. Mull Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
class action suit entitled, In re: American Express Anti-Steering
Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), have sought leave to file a motion
seeking the right to file an interlocutory appeal.

A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New
York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),
alleged that provisions in the company's merchant agreements
prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging the company's
cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or
another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and
"non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust
laws.

On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of
claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to
dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted.

Plaintiffs have sought leave to file a motion seeking the right to
file an interlocutory appeal.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Apogee Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2020, that a Minnesota court has
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the class action suit
initiated by Murray Mayer.

On November 5, 2018, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class
action lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed as lead plaintiffs the
City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and the
City of Cape Coral Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Plan.

On April 26, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

On March 25, 2020, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss without prejudice this matter.

Apogee Enterprises, Inc. designs and develops glass and metal
products and services in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. The
company operates in four segments: Architectural Framing Systems,
Architectural Glass, Architectural Services, and Large-Scale
Optical Technologies (LSO). The company was founded in 1949 and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


APPLE INC: Taleshpour Sues Over Defective Cables in MacBook Pro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mahan Taleshpour, on behalf of himself and all members of the
putative class v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-03122 (N.D. Cal.,
May 6, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the California
Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in connection with the defective
cables in its updated 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro models.

In 2016, Apple introduced its updated 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro
models. Apple described these laptops as "revolutionary" and
"groundbreaking," with "breakthrough performance." The laptops'
main selling point was their display. To make these MacBook Pros
thinner and sleeker, APPLE used thin flexible ribbon cables to
connect the display screen to the display controller board. These
cables wrap around the display controller board and are secured by
a pair of spring-loaded covers.

According to the complaint, at first, these cables function
correctly. But their length and placement causes them to rub
against the control board each time the laptop is opened or closed.
This consistent rubbing slowly causes the cables wear and tear
overtime. At first, the tearing of the display cable will cause a
"stage lighting" effect of alternating patches of light and
darkness on the bottom of the display.

Further use results in further tearing, causing a complete failure
of the backlighting system when the display is opened beyond
40-degrees. This renders the laptop essentially useless. Although
APPLE provides limited one-year warranties for its MacBook Pros,
the cable display defect typically manifests itself outside the
warranty period. Consequently, the Plaintiff asserts, consumers,
who experience this defect, must pay out-of-pocket to repair their
cables.

The Plaintiff contends that APPLE is aware, and has been aware, of
the defect in its display cables. Upon releasing the 2016 models,
APPLE received complaints from consumers about the display lighting
effect and the failure of the display, says the complaint. These
complaints only increased as more MacBook Pros were sold and used.
But despite being aware of this defect, APPLE continued to promote
the MacBook Pros' display, failed to disclose the problem to
consumers. Had the Plaintiff known the display cable defect, he
would not have purchased his MacBook or would have paid
significantly less for it.

The Plaintiff purchased a new 15-inch 2016 MacBook Pro for
$2,526.00 at an APPLE store in Sherman Oaks, California.

APPLE is the largest technology company in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Phone: (661)949-2595
          Facsimile: (661)949-7524
          Email: rrex@parris.com
                 alex@parris.com
                 jbickford@parris.com


ASCENT RESOURCES: Rhiel Seeks to Recover Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Rhiel, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00423-J (W.D. Okla.,
May 6, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, but the
Defendant did not pay him overtime, according to the complaint.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and the Ohio
Wages Acts, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated workers as independent contractors and paid them
a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime
compensation. The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff or the Day
Rate Workers a guaranteed salary.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an Operator in Ohio from
May 2018 until March 2019.

Ascent bills itself as one of the largest privately held
exploration and production companies in the United States and the
largest oil and natural gas producer in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ASPEN CONSTRUCTION: Arroyo Seeks to Certify Laborers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM ARROYO, on behalf of
Himself and all others similarly situated v. ASPEN CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, INC. and KRZYSZTOF KACZMARCZYK, Case No.
2:19-cv-05317-JHS (E.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 12, 2019), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former Masons/Laborers who work and worked
      for Defendants between November 2016 and the present: (1)
      who were paid pursuant to Defendants' policy of avoiding
      overtime; and (2) who worked more than forty hours per
      week without overtime pay";

   b. directing the Defendants to produce, in a readable
      electronic format, to the Plaintiff's counsel within 14
      days of this Order granting this Motion, a list containing
      the full names, job titles, last known addresses, personal
      email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and
      dates of employment for all putative class members who
      worked as Masons/Laborers for Defendants between November
      2016 and the present;

   c. prohibiting the Defendants' contact with any individual
      disclosed as a putative class member for reasons related
      to this litigation until after such individuals consent to
      join has been filed Golf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89,
      99-102 (1981);

   d. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send initial notice
      and a consent form to:

      "all of the individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants' counsel by First Class Mail";

   e. directing the Defendants to post at every location in
      which it employs Masons/Laborers, a copy of the initial
      Notices and Consent Forms;

   f. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a follow-up
      notice, in the forms to:

      "all individuals whose names appear on the list produced
      by the Defendants' counsel but who, by the fourteenth day
      prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period
      have yet to opt in the subject action"; and

   g. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants' counsel, a total of 60 days from
      the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
      Consent to Be Opt-In Plaintiff Form.

The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that he and the other
Masons/Laborers who were employed by the Defendants were deprived
of proper overtime wages by virtue of the Defendants' policies to
not pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aspen Construction is a full service mason company.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank P. Spada, Jr., Esq.
          Stephen C. Goldblum, Esq.
          Joseph W. Fluehr, Esq.
          SEMANOFF ORMSBY
          GREENBERG & TORCHIA, LLC
          2617 Huntingdon Pike
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 887-0200
          E-mail: fspada@sogtlaw.com
                  sgoldblum@sogtlaw.com
                  jfluehr@sogtlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicholas J. Sansone, Esq.
          COOPER LEVENSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          1415 Marlton Pike (Route 70) East
          Cherry Hill Plaza - Suite 205
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------
AxoGen, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission dated April 23, 2020, that the class action
suit initiated by Neil Einhorn has been dismissed.

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws
against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the
Company's underwriters.

Plaintiff claimed that Defendants made false or misleading
statements when the Company provided its opinion as to the size of
the total addressable market ("TAM") for its products.

On July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On April 21, 2020, the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida dismissed the complaint without prejudice,
finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  

The Plaintiff has 60 days to file an amended complaint or the
action will be dismissed with prejudice.

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Approve Maleeff Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for approval
of the settlement in the class action suit initiated by Lynne P.
Maleeff is pending.

On June 29, 2017, Lynne P. Maleeff commenced litigation on behalf
of a purported class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's shares between March 18, 2015 and
September 6, 2017.

The original defendants were the company, Doron Turgeman (the
company's former CEO), Itzik Tadmor (the company's CFO) and Ehud
Yahalom (the company's former CFO).

On December 8, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding 10 new defendants: Shaul Elovitch, Or Elovitch, Ron Eilon,
Stella Handler, David Mizrahi, Micky Neiman, Allon Raveh, Linor
Yochelman, DBS and Eurocom Communications.

"The amended complaint alleges a single cause of action against our
company for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that we
made false and misleading statements and omissions in our SEC
filings," the Company said.

On February 20, 2018, the company moved to dismiss the litigation
for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to stay the
litigation pending the outcome of criminal investigations in
Israel. The company's motion to dismiss asserted that plaintiffs
failed to allege that we had the required knowledge or scienter
about the purported wrongdoing by other defendants and that the
company did not make any materially false statements. Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion.

The court issued a decision dated September 27, 2018 granting in
part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss. The court
dismissed all claims against the company relating to its code of
ethics, internal controls, and compliance with laws generally and
all claims relating to the Bezeq subcommittee reviewing the
Bezeq-Yes transaction except for certain allegations relating to
statements in one particular filing and to allegations regarding
our statements about our or Bezeq's Free Cash Flow.

The court denied the company's motion to stay without prejudice to
its ability to seek a stay in the future if circumstances change.

On July 12, 2018, motions to dismiss were filed by (1) defendants
Doron Turgeman, Itzik Tadmor, and Ehud Yahalom, all former officers
of our company, (2) Ron Eilon, Micky Neiman and DBS; and (3) Stella
Handler, Allon Raveh, Linor Yochelman, and David Mizrahi, officers
of Bezeq.

On March 28, 2019, the court concluded that the complaint failed to
allege claims against the company's executive officers for either
primary violations of the U.S. securities laws or "control person"
liability for the alleged violations by others of the U.S.
securities laws.  

The court therefore dismissed the complaint against Doron Turgeman,
Itzik Tadmor and Ehud Yahalom. The court also concluded that the
complaint failed to adequately allege personal jurisdiction against
certain executive officers of Bezeq and DBS.  The court therefore
dismissed the complaint against the DBS and Bezeq defendants for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

On December 5, 2019, the court held a telephonic conference to
address plaintiffs' request that the company shall be compelled to
produce documents held by Bezeq or DBS. The court denied
plaintiffs' request, and the plaintiffs indicated that they
anticipate filing a formal motion to compel the company to produce
these documents.

The court directed the parties to meet and confer about what
discovery would be needed in advance of plaintiffs' anticipated
motion. The company's counsel and the plaintiffs engaged in
settlement negotiations in early 2020 and subsequently entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding dated February 3, 2020 setting forth
key settlement terms.

Counsel and the plaintiffs advised the court on February 3, 2020
that the company had reached a settlement in principal, and the
court issued an order dated February 4, 2020 staying all deadlines
in the litigation and directing the parties to file a motion for
approval of the settlement on or before March 3, 2020.

The company executed a stipulation of settlement dated March 3,
2020. The stipulation of settlement provides in relevant part that
the company (or its insurer) will pay a total of $1.2 million, the
litigation will be dismissed with prejudice, and all class members
who do not opt out of the settlement will be deemed to fully and
finally release all claims against the defendants which were or
could have been asserted in the litigation relating to the
purchase, holding or sale of the company's shares during the class
period.

The settlement will not take final effect unless and until it is
approved by the court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for approval
of the settlement on March 3, 2020.

To date, no person or entity has filed an opposition to the motion.


B Communications said, "In light of the current COVID-19
coronavirus situation in New York, it is not clear when the court
will rule on this motion. The litigation is essentially stayed
pending the outcome of the motion for approval of the settlement
agreement."

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.

B COMMUNICATIONS: Customer Suit Against Bezeq Underway
------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Bezeq International
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the  Israel
Central District Court.

On April 2019, a customer filed a financial claim filed with a
motion to certify it as a class action against Bezeq International
and other telecommunications operators in Israel Central District
Court.

The applicants allege that Bezeq International does not inform its
customers as required concerning the possible risks involved in the
use of the internet and the option of joining content filtering
services free of charge, and this contrary to the provisions of the
Communications Law.

Furthermore, Bezeq International provides abusive website and
content filtering services which, the applicants argue, are not
sufficiently effective.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: License Violation Suit vs. Pelephone Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to its alleged
violation on its license and the provisions in law.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On November 2019, a financial claim filed with a motion to certify
as a class action has been filed against Pelephone in the Tel Aviv
District Court.

The applicants claim that Pelephone collected from its customers in
the past fees for third parties for content services using the
payment means that were provided to Pelephone for paying their
cellular bill, and this contrary to the provisions of Pelephone's
license and the provisions in law.

The amount of the claim is 400 (NIS millions) against each of the
defendants.

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

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Mobile Radio Services Suit v. Pelephone Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to mobile radio service
provided to mobile devices manufactured by Xiaomi.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On March 2018, a customer filed a financial claim filed with a
motion to certify as a class action against Pelephone, Golan
Telecom, Cellcom and Hamilton in the Israel Central District
Court.

The claimants allege that the defendants marketed and/or provided
mobile radio service to mobile devices manufactured by Xiaomi, from
which it was not possible to call emergency numbers in Israel.  

The amount of claim is 65 NIS millions.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Communications Package Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone has been named
as a defendant in a putative class action suit related to overseas
communications package.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On January 2020, a customer filed a financial claim filed with a
motion to certify as a class action against Pelephone, in the
Tel-Aviv, District Court.

The applicants claim that Pelephone forced every customer that
purchased an overseas communications package that includes calls
and/or internet browsing from it, via its website or mobile phone
App, to consent to receiving advertising notices from it. The
amount of the claim is not specified.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit v. Pelephone over Internet Use Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone and Bezeq
International continue to defend a putative class action suit
related to their alleged failure to inform customers as required
concerning the possible risks involved in the use of the internet
and the option of joining content filtering services free of
charge.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On April 2019, a financial claim filed with a motion to certify as
a class action was filed by a customer against Pelephone, Bezeq
International and 6 other companies in the Central District of
Israel.

The applicants allege that the respondents fail to inform their
customers as required concerning the possible risks involved in the
use of the internet and the option of joining content filtering
services free of charge, and this contrary to the provisions of the
Communications Law. Furthermore, the respondents provide abusive
website and content filtering services which, they argue, are not
sufficiently effective. The applicants claim that the foregoing
constitutes, among other things, a violation of the provisions of
the Consumer Protection Law, violation of their duties under the
Torts Ordinance, a breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The amount of the claim is not stated, but is estimated in the tens
of millions of shekels.

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

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B&E SPA SERVICES: Rivera Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misma Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. B&E SPA SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. CACE-20-007596 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 6,
2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To solicit new customers, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of
those messages, according to the complaint. The Defendant caused
thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant operates a salon and spa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend the consolidated class action suit by Tri-State Joint
Fund and City of Providence.

On July 3, 2017, the company closed the business combination (the
Transactions) of the oil and gas business of General Electric
Company (GE O&G) and Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI). As a result,
substantially all of the businesses of GE O&G and of BHI were
transferred to a subsidiary of the Company, Baker Hughes, a GE
company, LLC (BHGE LLC). Following the Transactions, the company
held a minority economic interest in BHGE LLC. However, the company
conducted and exercised full control over all activities of BHGE
LLC without the approval of any other member. Accordingly, the
company consolidated the financial results of BHGE LLC and reported
a noncontrolling interest in the company's consolidated financial
statements for the economic interest in BHGE LLC not held by the
company.

On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders
of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric
Company, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and
certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the
Transactions.

On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI
against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI,
and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same
claims in connection with the Transactions.

The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a
declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an
award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against
certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches.

The December 2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board
of Directors of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as
President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remain
named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE.

The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a
declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary
duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Baker Hughes said, "At this time, we are not able to predict the
outcome of these claims."

Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The
Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations,
petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers
gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators,
and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


BANCO BBVA: Faces Investors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Banco BBVA Argentina SA  said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company was
notified of a class action for the alleged damage suffered by
investors in certain investment funds managed by BBVA Argentina.

In February 2020, the company was notified of a class action for
the alleged damage suffered by investors in certain investment
funds managed by the Bank, following the unilateral modification of
the price of certain future dollar contracts in which the affected
funds investment-ed.

These modifications were carried out by the organized market in
which these future dollar contracts were negotiated, and the class
action plaintiffs allege a failure by the Bank to contest the
unilateral modifications carried out by the organized market in
order to defend the fund investors' financial interests.

Banco BBVA Argentina SA operates as a full-service bank for large
corporations, middle market businesses, and individuals. The Bank
offers consumer and corporate lending, securities trading and
insurance, sponsors credit cards, administers pension funds, and
manages mutual funds. BBVA Argentina serves customers worldwide.

BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as J.T. HAND, individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. BEACH
ENTERTAINMENT KC, LLC d/b/a SHARK BAR, THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC.,
and ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No.
4:18-cv-00668-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey
entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
      judgment;

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
      motion for summary judgment;

   3. denying the Defendants' motion to exclude expert
      testimony;

   4. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      motion for class certification is, with the Do Not Call
      class defined as:

      "all individuals on either the SendSmart or Txt Live Class
      Lists who received more than one text message from Shark
      Bar in any-month period to a number included on the
      national do-not-call registry"; and

   5. appointing William C. Kenney, Benjamin H. Richman, Michael
      Ovca, and Eve-Lynn J. Rapp as class counsel.

The Court said, "Should Defendants be found liable and the damages
awarded be disproportionate to the offense, they may choose seek
relief from this Court. The potential that Defendants could face a
high damages award if found liable for their conduct is not a
sufficient reason to deny class certification here. Thus, the Court
finds that Hand has met his burden of showing a class action is the
superior method for adjudicating the claims of the proposed class
members. Therefore, the Court finds that the Do Not Call class
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and grants
Plaintiff’s motion to certify this class. While the Court denies
as moot the motion as to the SendSmart and Txt Live classes."

The Defendants are doing business in the entertainment
industry.[CC]

BECHT ENGINEERING: Costellow Alleges Unlawful OT Pay for Advisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JON M. COSTELLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED VS BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00179
(E.D. Tex., April 27, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff
on behalf of himself and all those that are similarly situated,
which is all nonexempt hourly current and former employees who
worked for Defendant and who were subject to Defendants' single pay
rate system which deprived Plaintiff and those similarly situated
of overtime wages mandated by Section 207 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff has been employed as an Advisor with Defendant since
approximately November 2018.

Becht Engineering Co., Inc. is a company based in New Jersey which
business includes providing (i) engineering related work and
solutions, (ii) plant services, and (iii) software tools to
different industry segments worldwide, including the petrochemical
industry, crude refining and production, and other industry
segments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            John Werner, Esq.
            Mark Frasher, Esq.
            REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
            801 Laurel Street
            Post Office Box 26005
            Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
            Telephone: (409) 838-1000
            Facsimile: (409) 833-8236
            Email: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com
                   mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com

BMW FINANCIAL: Rawlings Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Rawlings, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-02289-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 5, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly,
non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff, for all hours
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or
more hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff for time spent starting and logging
into the Defendant's computer systems, time tracking system, and
numerous software applications during which they performed work
that managers and/or other agents and/or representatives observed.

As a result of the Plaintiff not being paid for all hours worked,
the Plaintiff were not paid overtime compensation for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The
Plaintiff worked as a recovery specialist for the Defendant in its
Hilliard, Ohio call center.

BMW is in the business of selling/leasing BMW automobiles,
providing maintenance and other automobile services, and, among
other miscellaneous services associated with the automobile
industry, providing financial services to its customers, which
includes providing finance agreements for individuals, who purchase
BMW automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


BOB MARTIN: Sued by Roe in California for Misclassifying Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE ROE, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
v. DAVID BRIAN BAILEY; BOB MARTIN, INC. dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB; BAILEY FOOD AND BEVERAGE GROUP, LLC dba THE LIBRARY
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; CBDM REDLANDS, LLC dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16592 (Cal. Super.,
April 30, 2020), seeks to recover penalties, attorney's fees, and
costs and expenses pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, Labor Code, arising from the Defendants' misclassification of
the Plaintiff and other dancers as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Wage Order, all of which contribute to Defendants'
deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff alleges that she and
other aggrieved employees, who performed at the Defendants'
establishments in California as dancers, were misclassified as
independent contractors during the one-year period preceding the
filing of this complaint to the present.

The Defendants operate 'The Library Gentleman's Club' and other
exotic dance clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Carolyn M. Bell, Esq.
          EGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, Cox Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKURA COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-10834-RGS (D. Mass., April 30, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's refusal to provide any tuition or fee refund for the
Spring 2020 semester.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite sending students home and
closing its campus(es), the Defendant continues to charge for
tuition and fees as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the
financial benefit of millions of dollars from students. The
Plaintiff adds that the Defendant does so despite students'
complete inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus
buildings and dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs
and events.

While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, the Defendant excludes itself from
such other institutions treating students fairly, equitably, and as
required by the law. The Defendant has refused to provide any
tuition or fee refund for the Spring 2020 semester, says the
complaint.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit comes during a time of
hardship for so many Americans, with each day bringing different
news regarding the novel coronavirus COVID-19. Social distancing,
shelter-in-place orders, and efforts to 'flatten the curve'
prompted colleges and universities across the country to shut down
their campuses, evict students from campus residence halls, and
switch to online "distance" learning.

The Plaintiff brings this action because the Plaintiff and the
Class Members did not receive the full value of the services paid
and did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. They
have lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered
out-of-pocket loss and are entitled to recover compensatory
damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney's fees and costs.

Trustees of Boston University operates as a legal owner and
authority of the University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristie LaSalle, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: kristiel@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Levetown, Esq.
          IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP
          6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (703) 618-2264
          E-mail: asl@iveylevetown.com


BRF SA: $40MM Deal Reached in Birmingham Retirement & Relief Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRF S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the class
action suit headed by the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System have reached an agreement to settle the case for R$204.44
million (U.S.$40 million), subject to definitive documentation and
court approval.

On March 12, 2018, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, some of its former managers and a current
officer of the company in the U.S. Federal District Court in the
Southern District of New York.

On July 2, 2018, the Court appointed the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System lead plaintiff in the action (the
"Lead Plaintiff").

On December 5, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that sought to represent all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired BRF American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) during
the period from April 4, 2013, through and including March 2, 2018.


The class action alleges, among other things, that BRF and certain
of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices related to the regulatory issues
in connection with the Carne Fraca Operation and Trapaça
Operation. On December 13, 2019, the company and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On January 21, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition motion
and, on February 11, 2020, the company and the other defendants
filed their response.

While the court's decision on the motion to dismiss was still
pending, the parties reached an agreement on March 27, 2020 to
settle this class action for an amount equivalent to R$204.44
million (U.S.$40 million), subject to definitive documentation and
court approval.

BRF S.A. focuses on raising, producing, and slaughtering poultry
and pork for processing, production, and sale of fresh meat,
processed products, pasta, frozen vegetables, and soybean
by-products. The company was formerly known as BRF-Brasil Foods
S.A. and changed its name to BRF S.A. in April 2013. BRF S.A. is
headquartered in Itajai, Brazil.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces Ide Suit Over Denial of Air Fare Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Ide, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC (UK), Case No. 1:20-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y., May
6, 2020), is brought to obtain the refunds to which the Plaintiff
is entitled, due to the Defendant's wrongful practice of denying
refunds that has deprived consumers like the Plaintiff of the money
they paid for cancelled travel during a time of crisis when they
need access to those funds.

The Plaintiff purchased a round-trip ticket on British Airways PLC,
("BA"). With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, BA cancelled the
Plaintiff's flight. Under BA's Conditions of Carriage, the
Plaintiff says he had the contractual right to a refund.

Instead of honoring this contractual right, BA issued the Plaintiff
a voucher for future travel and refuses to refund him the amount he
paid for his ticket, says the complaint. The Plaintiff sues for BA
to honor their contract and provide a refund for himself and all
others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff is a Massachusetts citizen residing in Norton,
Massachusetts.

BA is the flag carrier for the United Kingdom and is the largest
international air carrier in the UK.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: scarson@bm.net

               - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Tom Watts, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                 apolk@girardsharp.com
                 tomw@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          711 Third Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 798-0136
          Fax: (212) 557-2952


BROWN & BROWN: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Putman Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
LUKE PUTMAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. BROWN & BROWN PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA and RANDY L. BROWN, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00130 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Delivery Driver from
approximately 2015 to April 2019 at Defendant's Domino's store
located in Huntsville, Texas.

According to the complaint, Defendants required their delivery
drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable and insured
automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. Plaintiff
incurred costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and
maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses.
However, Defendant applied a reimbursement policy that reimburses
delivery drivers much less than a reasonable approximation of their
automobile expenses, thereby failing to pay them the federal
minimum wage.

Randy L. Brown is an owner, officer and director of Brown & Brown
Pizza, Inc.

Brown & Brown Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Domino's Pizza owns and operates
numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214)210-2100
          Fax: (214)346-5909
          Emails: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
                  jay@foresterhaynie.com


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Give Tuition or Fee Refund, Doe Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brown University, Case No. 1:20-cv-00191-WES-LDA
(D.R.I., April 30, 2020), alleges that despite sending students
home and closing its campus, the Defendant continues to charge for
tuition, fees, and room and board as if nothing has changed,
continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars
from students.

While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, the Defendant excludes itself from
such other institutions treating students fairly, equitably, and as
required by the law. The Defendant has refused to provide any
tuition or fee refund for the Spring 2020 semester, says the
complaint.

The lawsuit comes during a time of hardship for so many Americans,
with each day bringing different news regarding the novel
coronavirus COVID-19. Social distancing, shelter-in-place orders,
and efforts to 'flatten the curve' prompted colleges and
universities across the country to shut down their campuses, evict
students from campus residence halls, and switch to online
"distance" learning.

The Plaintiff brings this action because Plaintiff and the Class
Members did not receive the full value of the services paid and did
not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. They have lost
the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss and
are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where
permitted, and attorney's fees and costs.

Brown University is a private Ivy League research university in
Providence, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
          MCINTYRE TATE LLP
          50 Park Row West, Suite 109
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 351-7700
          Facsimile: (401) 331-6095
          E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com


CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT: Fletcher Seeks OT Wages Under PMWA & FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN FLETCHER, Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly
situated v. CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00641-DSC
(April 30, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Fletcher alleges that he and other workers like him regularly
worked for Campbell Development in excess of 40 hours each week but
they never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the
FLSA and the PMWA, Campbell Development paid these workers a daily
rate with no overtime pay and improperly classified them as
independent contractors, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as Landman.

Campbell is a full-service land management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Amanda E. McGowen, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com
                  amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit Set for Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial to
determine liability issues in the class action suit related to the
train derailment in Lac-Megantic is scheduled to commence September
28, 2020.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

The derailment occurred on a section of railway owned and operated
by the MMA Group and while the MMA Group exclusively controlled the
train.

Following the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada
under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and MMAR filed for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Plans of arrangement were approved in both
Canada and the U.S. (the "Plans"), providing for the distribution
of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.

A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced in
Canada and the U.S. against CP and others:

(1) Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment,
Wildlife and Parks ordered various parties, including the company
(CP), to remediate the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order") and
served CP with a Notice of Claim for $95 million for those costs.
CP appealed the Cleanup Order and contested the Notice of Claim
with the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. These proceedings are
stayed pending determination of the Attorney General of Quebec
("AGQ") action.

(2) The AGQ sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court claiming $409
million in damages, which was amended and reduced to $315 million
(the "AGQ Action"). The AGQ Action alleges that: (i) CP was
responsible for the petroleum crude oil from its point of origin
until its delivery to Irving Oil Ltd.; and (ii) CP is vicariously
liable for the acts and omissions of the MMA Group.

(3) A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of
persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in,
operating a business in, or physically present in Lac-Megantic at
the time of the derailment was certified against CP on May 8, 2015
(the "Class Action"). Other defendants including MMAC and Mr.
Thomas Harding ("Harding") were added to the Class Action on
January 25, 2017. The Class Action seeks unquantified damages,
including for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and
economic loss.

(4) Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court
claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which was amended
and reduced to approximately $15 million (the "Promutuel Action"),
and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP claiming
approximately $3 million in damages (the "Royal Action").

Both actions contain similar allegations as the AGQ Action. The
actions do not identify the subrogated parties. As such, the extent
of any overlap between the damages claimed in these actions and
under the Plans is unclear. The Royal Action is stayed.

On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the
Promutuel Action were consolidated. These consolidated claims are
currently scheduled for a joint liability trial commencing
September 28, 2020, followed by a damages trial, if necessary.

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

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.


CAR PROTECTION: Foote TCPA Suit Moved from Georgia to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA FOOTE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAR PROTECTION USA D/B/A
CLEAR PATH and JOHN DAVIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-04381 (Filed Sept. 29,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on April 30, 2020.

The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01084-L to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Foote
alleges that Car Protection and its owner John Davis, who directed
and controlled the activities of Clear Path, sent her a
pre-recorded call. The Plaintiff and putative class members never
consented to receive these calls, says the complaint.

The Defendant advocates clean energy technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (615) 485-0018
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 234-2727
          E-mail: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin I. Fink, Esq.
          FREED & BERMAN
          3423 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 261-7711

               - and -

          Gregory M. Caffas, Esq.
          ROTH JACKSON GIBBONS CONDLIN, PLC
          8200 Greensboro Drive
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 485-3533
          E-mail: gcaffas@rothjackson.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Bowser, Esq.
          INNOVISTA LAW PLLC
          1200 18th St. NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 750-3501
          Facsimile: (202) 750-3503
          E-mail: joseph.bowser@innovistalaw.com


CARMAX INC: Settlement Reached in Calif. Wage & Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits by Ryan Gomez et al. and Derek McElhannon et al.
against CarMax, Inc. have been dismissed according to a global
settlement, the Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 29, 2020.

CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California.

The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory
relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties,
interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.  

On November 21, 2018, Derek McElhannon et al v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast,
Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda. On February 1, 2019, the McElhannon
lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division. The lawsuit was remanded
back to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on June
4, 2019. The McElhannon lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties, interest, cost and
attorneys' fees.

CarMax has reached a memorandum of understanding and expects to
finalize a global agreement settling the Weiss, Gomez and
McElhannon lawsuits on a class basis. Once final, the settlement
agreement will be submitted for approval to the Superior Court of
California, County of Placer as part of the Weiss lawsuit.

In anticipation of the consolidation of claims under the global
settlement agreement, on March 11, 2020, the Gomez and McElhannon
lawsuits were dismissed as the claims of the plaintiffs will be
addressed in the global settlement. The monetary settlement under
this agreement is for an immaterial amount that has been fully
accrued.

The Sabanovich lawsuit is not included in the global settlement
agreement.

CarMax said, "Based upon our evaluation of information currently
available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing
proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either
individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY: Cattie Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CASEY CATTIE, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY
EMPLOYEES LLC and CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a
BOBBY HOTEL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00237 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action under
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b) consisting of:

      "current and former servers and bartenders employed by the
      Defendants at the Bobby Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee who
      were paid an hourly rate lower than $7.25."

   2. approving the stipulated Notice and Consent Form;

   3. directing that within 21 days following the Court's
      granting of this Motion, the Defendants will provide to
      the Plaintiff's counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing
      the name, last known mailing address(es), last known e-
      mail address(es), last known telephone number(s), and
      dates of employments for each class member;

   4. directing that within seven days of receiving the Class
      List from the Defendants, the Plaintiff and her counsel
      will cause the approved Notice and Consent Forms to issue
      to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
      Short Message Service (SMS) message, at their initial
      expense without prejudice to seeking reimbursement and
      shall include a self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope
      with the initial mailing;

   5. providing for an opt-in period of 60 days from the mailing
      of the Court-authorized Notice and Consent Form.

The Plaintiff and her counsel note that Bobby Hotel opened in
Nashville in or around and April 2018, so the Fair Labor Standards
Act's three-year statute of limitation will be met for all
potential opt-in plaintiffs, and therefore no end date is provided
in the proposed class definition.[CC]

Castlerock is a Nashville-based property development and management
company specializing in hotels, restaurants and residences.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Robinson, Esq.
          M. Levy Leatherman, Esq
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Commerce Street, Suite 1450
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 383-3033
          Facsimile: (615) 383-3323
          E-mail: jenrobinson@littler.com
                  lleatherman@littler.com

CENTURY REALTY: Baloga Suit Seeks to Certify Homeowners Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Stephen Baloga, Robert Bame,
James R. Campbell, James Campbell, Linda Davy, Gerald Kruithoff,
Richard Mansfield, Jane Petersen, James Rotter, Robert Schwegler,
Robert Tattersall, and Katherine Wimer, on behalf of themselves,
the class of current, former, and future homeowners in the
Community and all others similarly situated v. Lawrence W. Maxwell,
Century Realty Funds, Inc., CRF Management Co., Inc., Mark E.
Schreiber, David Scott Owens, MX Communication Services, LLC,
Baytree Partners, LLC, Vienna Square Homeowners' Association, Inc.,
The Villas at Vienna Square Homeowners' Association, Inc., Century
Residential, LLC, Ronald L. Clark, Craig B. Hill, and Clark,
Campbell, Lancaster & Munson, P.A., f/k/a Clark, Campbell &
Lancaster, P.A., f/k/a Clark, Campbell, Mawhinney & Lancaster,
P.A., f/k/a Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A., f/k/a Clark &
Campbell, P.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02936-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "200 elderly current, former, and future homeowners in the
   Polk County subdivision known as Vienna Square."

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges the Defendants violated the
Federal and Florida law by fraudulent and conspiratorial acts to
illegally manipulate Homeowner Association Documents in a
retirement community with 200 elderly home purchasers to cause
those same elderly home purchasers to be forced into paying a
monthly illegal System Assessment averaging $90 per month for
non-essential Cable TV and Security Monitoring until the end of
time, despite a clear statutory prohibition on clauses in Homeowner
Association Documents which either give the developer control or
have the effect of giving the developer control for any community
created after October 1, 1998 -- a full seven years before Vienna
Square was created by the developer-defendants.

Century Realty provides real estate services. CRF is a private
investment firm.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          4767 New Broad St., No. 1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com

CHART INDUSTRIES: Accord Reached in Ontario Suit Over Cryo Tank
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that  a settlement has been
reached in the class action suit filed before the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice  with respect to the alleged failure of an
aluminum cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at
The Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke,
Ontario.  

Chart has been named in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum
cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The
Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.


The company had confirmed that the tank in question was part of the
aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on April 23, 2018.

As of March 31, 2020, a settlement was reached by the parties in
the lawsuit with no material effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over Cryo Tank Failure Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of its aluminum cryobiological storage tank product.

During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.

The company continues to evaluate the merits of such claims in
light of the information available to date regarding use,
maintenance and operation of the tank that was sold to the Pacific
Fertility Center through an independent distributor and which has
been out of our control for six years prior to the alleged
failure.

Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from
the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not
currently probable or estimable.

Chart said, "We have asserted various defenses against the claims
in the lawsuits, including a defense that since manufacture, we
were not in any way involved with the installation, ongoing
maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility center
cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of the
tank."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHEMICAL & MINING: Class Cert. Bid in S.D.N.Y. Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
yet to rule on a motion for class certification in a securities
lawsuit.

Since October 2015, a consolidated class action lawsuit has been
pending against the Company before the District Court for the
Southern District of New York of the United States.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that certain statements made by
the Company between June 30, 2010, and June 18, 2015, mainly in
documents filed with the SEC and in Company press releases, were
materially false and this constitutes a violation of Section 10 (b)
of the Securities Exchange Act and of the correlative Standard
10b-5.

Specifically, the consolidated lawsuit challenges certain
statements issued by the Company associated with its compliance
with or implementation of the laws and regulations that regulate
it, the effectiveness of its internal controls, the adoption of a
code of ethics consistent with SEC requirements, of its income or
revenue and taxes paid, and of the applicable accounting standards.


The primary plaintiff seeks compensation for the class in a yet
undetermined amount for economic losses occurring as a result of
the questioned statements.

On January 10, 2018, the primary plaintiff filed a motion to
certify a class composed of all people or entities who purchased
ADSs in the Company between June 30, 2010, and March 18, 2015, and
this motion is still pending with the court.

Chemical and Mining said, "Although the Company expects to actively
and decisively defend its position, the outcome of this litigation
cannot be predicted."

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

Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. is a Chilean chemical
company and a supplier of plant nutrients, iodine, lithium and
industrial chemicals. It is the world's biggest lithium producer.


CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Alvarez Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Jacinto Victor ALVAREZ,
Joseph BRODERICK, Marlene CANO, Jose CRESPO-VENEGAS, Noe
GONZALEZ-SOTO, Victor LARA-SOTO, Racquel RAMCHARAN, George RIDLEY,
Michael Jamil SMITH, Leopoldo SZURGOT, Jane DOE, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. Christopher J. LAROSE,
Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Steven C. STAFFORD,
United States Marshal for the Southern District of California; and
Donald W. WASHINGTON, Director of the United States Marshal
Service, Case No. 3:20-cv-00782-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an order granting class certification of
the proposed classes and subclasses defined as follows:

-- Pretrial Class
    (Plaintiffs Alvarez, Broderick, Lara-Soto, Ridley, Szurgot,
    and Doe)

    "all current and future persons in pretrial detention at
    OMDC";

-- Pretrial Medically Vulnerable Subclass
    (Plaintiffs Alvarez, Ridley, Szurgot, and Doe)

    "all current and future people detained pretrial at OMDC who
    are aged 45 years or older or who have medical conditions
    that place them at heightened risk of severe illness or
    death from COVID-19";

-- Post-Conviction Class
    (Plaintiffs Cano, Crespo-Venegas, Gonzalez-Soto, Ramcharan,
    and Smith):

    "all current and future persons in post-conviction detention
    at OMDC"; and

-- Post-Conviction Medically Vulnerable Subclass
    (Plaintiffs Crespo-Venegas, Gonzalez-Soto, and Smith):

    "all current and future people detained post-conviction at
    OMDC who are aged 45 years or older or who have medical
    conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe
    illness or death from COVID-19".[CC]

The Plaintiff-Petitioners are represented by:

          Nicole Horowitz, Esq.
          Joan McPhee, Esq.
          Alexander B. Simkin, Esq.
          Helen Gugel, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 315-6300
          E-mail: nicole.horowitz@ropesgray.com
                  joan.mcphee@ropesgray.com
                  alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com
                  helen.gugel@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Sirine Shebaya, Esq.
          Matthew Vogel, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT
          THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          2201 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (617) 227-9727
          E-mail: sirine@nipnlg.org
                  matt@nipnlg.org

               - and -

          Mitra Ebadolahi,Esq.
          Bardis Vakili,Esq.
          Sarah Thompson, Esq.
          David Loy, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO &
          IMPERIAL COUNTIES
          P.O. Box 87131
          San Diego, CA 92138-7131
          Telephone: (619) 398-4187
          E-mail: mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org
                  bvakili@aclusandiego.org
                  sthompson@aclusandiego.org
                  davidloy@aclusandiego.org

               - and -

          Z Gabriel Arkles, Esq.
          Clara Spera, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (212) 549-2569
          E-mail: garkles@aclu.org
                  cspera@aclu.org

CINCINNATI BELL: Class Suits Challenge MIRA Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 27, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in several class action suits
related to MIRA merger deal.

On March 13, 2020, Cincinnati Bell Inc., an Ohio Corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "MIRA Merger
Agreement") with Red Fiber Parent LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Parent"), and RF Merger Sub Inc., an Ohio corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").

The MIRA Merger Agreement, which has been approved by the Board of
Directors of the Company, provides for the merger of Merger Sub
with and into the Company (the "MIRA Merger"), with the Company
surviving the MIRA Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

As disclosed beginning on page 85 of the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 25, 2020 in connection with the MIRA Merger Agreement (the
"Proxy Statement"), prior to the filing of the Proxy Statement five
complaints were filed in connection with the now-terminated
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 21, 2019, among
the Company, Charlie AcquireCo Inc. ("Brookfield Parent") and
Charlie Merger Sub Inc. ("Brookfield Merger Sub"), against the
Company and members of the Board and, in the case of certain such
complaints, Brookfield Parent and Brookfield Merger Sub. The
complaints are captioned as follows: Stein v. Cincinnati Bell Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01282 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed February 13,
2020); Palkon v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00244-CFC (D. Del.) (filed February 20, 2020); Katz v.
Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-1607 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed February 24, 2020);  Lin v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01635 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed February 25, 2020); and
Vollweiler v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01120
(E.D.N.Y.) (filed February 28, 2020) (collectively, the "Brookfield
complaints").

The plaintiffs in the Brookfield complaints allege that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 4, 2020 in connection with the then-proposed merger with
Brookfield Asset Management's infrastructure investment division
known as the Brookfield Infrastructure Group (the "proposed
Brookfield merger") omitted certain material information in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

The Brookfield plaintiffs sought various remedies, including, among
other things, injunctive relief to prevent the shareholder vote on
and/or the consummation of the proposed Brookfield merger.

On March 23, 2020, the plaintiff in the putative class action
captioned Palkon v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00244-CFC (D. Del.) voluntarily dismissed such complaint
without prejudice and filed a new putative class action complaint
against the Company, the members of the Board, Parent and Merger
Sub on behalf of the public shareholders of the Company under the
caption Palkon v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00411-RGA (D. Del.) (the "second Palkon complaint"),
seeking various remedies including, among other things, injunctive
relief to prevent the consummation of the MIRA Merger.

The second Palkon complaint alleges that the Company's preliminary
proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 19, 2020 in connection
with the MIRA Merger Agreement omitted certain material information
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Since the Proxy Statement was filed by the Company, four additional
complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and one additional complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in connection with the MIRA Merger Agreement,
and disclosures with respect thereto, which seek, among other
remedies, injunctive relief to prevent the shareholder vote on
and/or the consummation of the MIRA Merger.

On March 25, 2020, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiff
Gerald Atkins, a purported shareholder of the Company, against the
Company and the members of the Board under the caption Atkins v.
Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02548 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Atkins complaint").

On March 30, 2020, the plaintiff in the case captioned Lin v.
Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01635 (S.D.N.Y.)
filed an amended complaint against the Company and members of the
Board (the "amended Lin complaint").

On April 9, 2020, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Barry Lass,
a purported shareholder of the Company, against the Company and
members of the Board under the caption Lass v. Cincinnati Bell,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02929 (S.D.N.Y) (the "Lass
complaint").

On April 12, 2020, the plaintiff in the case captioned Vollweiler
v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01120 (E.D.N.Y.)
voluntarily dismissed such complaint without prejudice and filed a
new complaint against the Company and members of the Board under
the caption Vollweiler v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01775 (E.D.N.Y.) (the "second Vollweiler complaint").

On April 21, 2020, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Danial
Rast, a purported shareholder of the Company, against the Company
and members of the Board under the caption Rast v. Cincinnati Bell
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03165 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Rast
complaint" and, together with the Brookfield complaints, second
Palkon complaint, Atkins complaint, amended Lin complaint, Lass
complaint and second Vollweiler complaint, the "complaints").

The Atkins complaint, the amended Lin complaint, the Lass
complaint, the second Vollweiler complaint and the Rast complaint
allege that the Proxy Statement omitted certain material
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Among other remedies, the Atkins complaint seeks an order enjoining
the defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote or
consummating the MIRA Merger unless and until certain additional
disclosures are provided, awarding damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees, and granting such other and further relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

Among other remedies, the amended Lin complaint seeks an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the MIRA Merger,
directing the individual defendants to disseminate an amendment to
the Proxy Statement that does not contain any untrue statements of
material fact and that states all material facts necessary to make
the statements contained therein not misleading, awarding damages
and costs, including attorneys' fees, and granting such other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Among other remedies, the Lass complaint seeks an order enjoining
the defendants from proceeding with the MIRA Merger unless and
until certain additional disclosures are provided, declaring that
the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, awarding costs, including attorneys' fees, and granting such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Among other remedies, the second Vollweiler complaint seeks an
order enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the shareholder
vote or consummating the MIRA Merger unless and until certain
additional disclosures are provided, awarding damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees, and granting such other and further
relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Among other remedies, the Rast complaint seeks an order enjoining
the defendants from consummating the MIRA Merger, rescinding the
MIRA Merger in the event that it is consummated or awarding
rescissory damages, directing the individual defendants to
disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue
statements of material fact and that states all material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading,
declaring that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, awarding costs, including attorneys' fees, and
granting such other and further relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the complaints are
without merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the
complaints delaying or adversely affecting the MIRA Merger and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement.

Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary,
the Company specifically denies all allegations in the complaints
that any additional disclosure was or is required.

These supplemental disclosures will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the MIRA Merger or the timing of the Company.s
virtual special meeting of shareholders scheduled to be held online
via live webcast on May 7, 2020 at 11:00 am, Eastern Daylight
Time.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2WaLt7U.

Cincinnati Bell is a regional telecommunications service provider
based in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. It provides landline
telephone, fiber-optic Internet, and IPTV services through its
subsidiaries Cincinnati Bell Telephone and Hawaiian Telcom, which
are the incumbent local exchange carriers for the Cincinnati and
Dayton metropolitan areas and Hawaii. Other subsidiaries provide
enterprise information technology services and long distance
calling.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Taste of Belgium Asks Coverage Under Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taste of Belgium LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The
Cincinnati Casualty Company, The Cincinnati Indemnity Company, and
Cincinnati Financial Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00357-MWM (S.D.
Ohio, May 5, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
failure to pay Business Income, Extended Business Income, and Extra
Expense coverage benefits pursuant to the terms of the Plaintiff's
property insurance policies for claims related to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiff purchased Policy No. ECP0557779 (the "Policy") from
the Defendants to protect its business in the event that it had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of the Plaintiff's control.
The Policy's effective dates are from November 4, 2019, to November
4, 2020. The Policy contains coverage extensions for Business
Income, Extended Business Income, and Extra Expense. These
coverages provide for the payment of business income losses and
extra expenses incurred by the Plaintiff during a period of
restoration. The Policy also contains a Civil Authority provision,
which compensates the insured for lost business income and extra
expenses caused by an action of a civil authority prohibiting
access to the property.

Because of the Orders issued by the Ohio Department of Health, the
Plaintiff was forced to suspend its business at all of its
restaurants. Although the Plaintiff was able to offer limited carry
out and delivery services at certain locations, other locations
were, and remain, fully closed, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff
avers that it provided the Defendants timely notice of its claim
under the Policy but has not received the benefits owed.

The Defendants uniformly refuse to pay their insureds for losses
suffered due to mandatory business closures required by executive
orders issued by civil authorities in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. As a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff
and similarly situated policyholders nationwide are entitled to
damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a chain of local restaurants in
Southern and Central Ohio.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company is an Ohio corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Fairfield,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS, CO., L.P.A.
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: 513.723.1600
          Fax: 513.723.1620
          Email: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Jeff Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-345-8291
          Fax: 513-345-8294
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                 tnaylor@gs-legal.com


CITIZENS INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID Losses, Image Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Image Dental, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02759 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its refusal to provide coverage under the policy for
losses incurred due to suspension of the Plaintiff's operations in
line with Covid-19.

The Plaintiff has been forced, by recent orders of the State of
Illinois, to cease most of its operations as part of the State's
efforts to slow the spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The State has
deemed elective dental work that is not an emergency as
"non-essential" and, through various orders, prohibited elective
dental procedures. This type of work comprises the vast majority of
the Plaintiff's business.

The Plaintiff purchased business interruption insurance from
Citizens Insurance Company of America to protect itself from
situations like these, which threaten the existence of the
Plaintiff's livelihood and business. The "Businessowners Coverage
Form" in the policy provides "Business Income" coverage, in which
Citizens agrees to pay for loss of "Business Income" due to the
necessary "Suspension" of "operations."

According to the complaint, Citizens is obligated, but has refused,
to provide coverage under the policy for losses incurred due to
suspension of the Plaintiff's operations as a result of covered
causes of loss. The Plaintiff timely paid its premiums in exchange
for the promised coverage and its claim for coverage has been
denied. Citizens has, on a wide scale and uniform basis, refused to
pay its insureds under its Business Loss, Civil Authority, and
Extra Expense provisions.

Image is the owner and operator of dental offices in the Chicago
area.

Citizens is authorized to write, sell, and issue insurance policies
providing property and business income coverage in Illinois and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
          Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
          1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Phone: (312) 263-0272
          Email: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
                 eliveris@mmulderlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Joshua G. Konecky, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                 jkonekcy@schneiderwallace.com
                 mweiler@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Schneider, Esq.
          Edward R. Batten, Esq.
          Ryan R. Hicks, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 338-2560
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                 ebatten@schneiderwallace.com
                 rhicks@schneiderwallace.com


CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks OT Pay for Nursing Assistants
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRA CARTER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v.
CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT KY, LLC, CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT TN, LLC and COLLIERVILLE NURSING AND REHABILITATION,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02313 (W.D. Tenn., April 27,
2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendants as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those
similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week within
weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly rate of
pay, as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff Demetra Carter has been employed by Defendants as an
hourly-paid Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNA") at their
Collierville Health and Rehab Center in Tennessee.

Clearview Healthcare Management KY, LLC is a New Jersey-based
company that manages and oversees the operations of Collierville
Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC, d/b/a Collierville Health and
Rehab Center, as well as many other nursing and rehabilitation
centers throughout the United States.

Clearview Healthcare Management TN, LLC is a New Jersey-based
company that manages and oversees the operations of Collierville
Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC, d/b/a Collierville Health and
Rehab Center, as well as many other nursing and rehabilitation
centers.

Collierville Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC is a Tennessee-based
company that provides nursing and rehabilitation services to short
term patients, long term residents and individuals going through
rehabilitation for the Collierville, Tennessee area under the
management and oversight of Clearview Healthcare Management KY, LLC
and Clearview Healthcare Management TN, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COMTECH TELECOMMUNICA: Romero Challenges Proposed Gilat Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank L. Romero, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COMTECH TELECOMMUNICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02070
(E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020), is brought against Comtech and its
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Fred Kornberg for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the materially incomplete and misleading proxy
statement/prospectus concerning the proposed merger between Gilat
Satellite Networks Ltd. and Comtech.

On January 29, 2020, Comtech and Gilat entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Gilat's shareholders will
receive a combination of (i) $7.18 in cash and (ii) 0.08425 shares
of Comtech common stock in exchange for each share of Gilat common
stock they own. Comtech and Gilat have told shareholders that the
implied value of the Merger Consideration is $10.25 per Gilat
common share.

On April 3, 2020, to convince Gilat shareholders to vote in favor
of the Proposed Merger, the Defendants authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement/prospectus
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the
Exchange Act, according to the complaint. In particular, the Proxy
contains misleadingly incomplete information concerning Comtech's
material financial projections. The special meeting of Gilat
shareholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is set for May 8, 2020.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the Shareholder Vote
so the Plaintiff can cast an informed vote and properly exercise
his corporate suffrage rights, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Gilat common stock. The Plaintiff
seeks to preserve the status quo and enjoin the consummation of the
Proposed Merger until the omitted material information is disclosed
to Gilat's shareholders sufficiently in advance of the Shareholder
Vote or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the violations of the Exchange Act.

Gilat is a provider of satellite-based broadband
communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-971-1341
          Fax: 212-202-7880
          Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for August 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a hearing will be held
in August 2020 to consider the fairness of the settlement in the
Wisconsin class action suit related to gas index price reporting.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in four class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.

Allegations include price‑fixing conspiracies, restraint of
trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for an
amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In 2017, the federal
district court approved the settlement. Plaintiffs are making
claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys'
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.

In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case
back to the federal district court.

In 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the two pending class action cases in
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in August 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to
the federal district court for further consideration.

In January 2019, the judge in the multidistrict litigation granted
motions filed by plaintiffs for Suggestion of Remand of the actions
back to the respective transferor courts in Wisconsin and Kansas
for further handling.

In the Kansas action, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the remand and the case has been transferred. In
the Wisconsin actions, oppositions to the remand were filed, but
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the remand
in June 2019.

In 2019, CMS Energy and the plaintiffs in each of the Kansas and
the Wisconsin actions engaged in settlement discussions and CMS
Energy recorded a $30 million liability at December 31, 2019 as the
probable estimate to settle the two cases.

The parties executed a settlement agreement in the Kansas case in
February 2020, and that case is now complete.

The parties executed a settlement agreement in the Wisconsin case,
and a motion for preliminary approval was filed with the Federal
District Court in March 2020.

CMS Energy can give no assurances that the Wisconsin court will
approve the settlement. In April 2020, the Wisconsin court issued a
preliminary approval order.

A fairness hearing will occur in August 2020.

Consumers Energy said, "If settlement is not approved and the
outcome after appeals is unfavorable to CMS Energy, the remaining
Wisconsin case could negatively affect CMS Energy’s liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations."

Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in
Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility
segments. The Electric Utility segment generates, purchases,
transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. The company was
founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson, Michigan. Consumers Energy
Company is a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation.


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Haynie Seeks Tuition Refund Amid COVID-19
-------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA HAYNIE on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00467-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 23, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for the
Spring 2020 academic semester at Cornell, and who, because of
Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which
they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid,
without having their tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 13, 2020, Cornell, through a news release, announced that
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be
suspended for two weeks, in addition to a spring break between
March 29, 2020 through April 6, 2020. Students were discouraged
from contacting their professors during this time. The announcement
also informed students that following the two-week closure, classes
would be held remotely through online formats.

As a result of the closure of Defendant's facilities, Defendant has
not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Ms. Haynie and the putative class contracted and
paid for. The online learning options being offered to Cornell
students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of
facilities, materials, and access to faculty.
    
Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund
of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not provided.

Plaintiff seeks, for herself and Class members, Defendant's
disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees,
proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the
Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online and campus services
ceased being provided.

Cornell University is a private institution of higher education
with its principal place of business in Ithaca, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                     – and –

            Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
            Miami, FL 33133
            Telephone: (305) 330-5512
            Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
            Email: swestcot@bursor.com

CPFL ENERGIA: Appeal in Suit Against Geracao Unit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit initiated by the Sport Fishing Association against the
National Environmental Agency, the Brazilian Institute of
Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro
do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis), Furnas and
CPFL Geracao, is still pending.

In 2014, a class action was filed by the Sport Fishing Association
against the National Environmental Agency, the Brazilian Institute
of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto
Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis),
Furnas and CPFL Geracao seeking to require the defendants to repair
and mitigate the environmental impact caused by the construction
and operation of the Serra da Mesa Hydroelectric Power Plant, based
on the alleged damming of the Tocantins River.  

In September 2017, CPFL Geracao obtained a favorable decision in
the court of first instance.  

The company is currently awaiting judgment on the plaintiffs'
appeal.  

CPFL Energia said, "We understand that the likelihood of loss in
this proceeding is remote as to an estimated amount of R$336
million and possible as to an estimated amount of R$31 million, as
of December 31, 2019."

CPFL Energia S.A., together with its subsidiaries, generates,
transmits, distributes, and commercializes electricity to
residential, industrial, and commercial customers in Brazil. The
company generates electricity through wind, biomass-powered
thermal, solar, and hydroelectric power plants.  CPFL Energia S.A.
was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


CPFL ENERGIA: PROCON Class Suit Against Paulista Unit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that CPFL Paulista, a company
subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by
the Consumer Protection Office (Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor
- PROCON).

CPFL Paulista is a defendant in a class action suit commenced by
the Consumer Protection Office (Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor
- PROCON) of Campinas in the state of Sao Paulo, seeking to suspend
the tariff adjustment authorized by ANEEL in 2009.  

The claim against the company was rejected by the court of first
instance, but the Consumer Protection Office appealed the decision.


The tariff adjustment remains in effect until a ruling on appeal is
made.  

CPFL Energia said, "We believe that the risk of loss in this
proceeding is possible and therefore have not recorded any
accounting provision in this respect."

CPFL Energia S.A., together with its subsidiaries, generates,
transmits, distributes, and commercializes electricity to
residential, industrial, and commercial customers in Brazil. The
company generates electricity through wind, biomass-powered
thermal, solar, and hydroelectric power plants.  CPFL Energia S.A.
was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


CREDIT KARMA: Lott Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
The case, TIFFANY LOTT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT KARMA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02837-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
April 24, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed
text messages to consumers.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has received numerous
unsolicited text messages from Defendant's short code 837-401 on
March 17, 2020 and March 25, 2020. Plaintiff has never provided her
consent to Defendant to contact her and send her text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant's unsolicited texts were a
nuisance, has aggravated Plaintiff, wasted her time, invaded her
privacy, diminished the value of her cellular services she paid
for, caused her to temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her
phone, and caused wear and tear to her phone's data, memory,
software, hardware, and battery components.

Credit Karma, Inc. provides credit-related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Tel: (310)474-9111
          Fax: (310)474-8585
          Emails: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and –

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Tel: (305)469-5881
          Email: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com


DEPT OF DEFENSE: Samma Seeks to Certify Non-Citizen Soldiers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGE SAMMA et al., on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01104 (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

     1. certifying a proposed class consisting of:

        "all individuals who: (a) are non-citizens serving
        honorably in the U.S. military; (b) have requested but
        not received a certified Form N-426, and (c) are not
        Selected Reserve MAVNIs covered by the Kirwa lawsuit;
        and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.

The Plaintiffs seek to challenge a Department of Defense policy
(N-426 Policy) pursuant to which the Defendants have refused to
certify the honorable service of non-citizen service members in the
United States Armed Forces, thereby blocking their ability to apply
for naturalization as Congress has provided for them.

USDOD is an executive branch department of the federal government
charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and
functions of the government directly related to national security
and the United States Armed Forces.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Pasquarella, Esq.
          Michelle (Minju) Cho, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5236
          E-mail: jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
                  mcho@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Jonathan Hafetz, Esq.
          Scarlet Kim, Esq.
          Noor Zafar, Esq.
          Brett Max Kaufman, Esq.
          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2500
          E-mail: jhafetz@aclu.org
                  scarletk@aclu.org
                  nzafar@aclu.org
                  bkaufman@aclu.org
                  aspitzer@acludc.org

DIRECT ENERGY: Forte Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARTIN FORTE, Plaintiff, and
THOMAS AURELIA, JERRY BAGLIONE, and RICHARD SCHAFER,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-00264-FJS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Aurelia, Baglione, Forte, and
      Schafer as Class representatives; and

   3. appointing KamberLaw, LLC and Steelman & Gaunt as Class
      counsel.

Direct Energy offers electricity, natural gas and home services
across the U.S. and Canada.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          201 Milwaukee St, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN & GAUNT
          901 Pine Street, Ste. 110
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

ELI LILLY: Value Drug Alleges Bribes & Kickbacks in Insulin Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALUE DRUG COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, NOVO
NORDISK INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, CVS HEALTH CORPORATION,
CAREMARKPCS HEALTH LLC, CAREMARK LLC, CAREMARK RX LLC, EXPRESS
SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, EXPRESS SCRIPTS INC., MEDCO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC., UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES INC., OPTUM INC., OPTUMRX HOLDINGS, LLC, and OPTUMRX INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05129 (D.N.J., April 27, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of direct
purchasers of analog insulin from the Defendant drug manufacturers,
alleges that the Defendants are engaged in wrongful practice of
increasing the volume of insulin sales through paying bribes and
kickbacks to the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) Defendants in the
form of unprecedented rebates, fees, discounts, or other payments
or financial incentives in exchange for inclusion and/or favorable
placement of the Defendant drug manufacturers' respective insulin
products on the Defendant PBMs' formularies; and by concealing and
making fraudulent statements in connection with the scheme. The
Defendant drug manufacturers' bribes and kickbacks to the Defendant
PBMs have caused significant supra-competitive pricing inflation
and market-wide consumer harm. The Plaintiff and Class members seek
recovery of overcharges as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent
schemes.

Value Drug Company is a distributor of pharmaceuticals products
located at 195 Theater Drive, Duncansville, Pennsylvania.

Eli Lilly and Company is a diabetes drug manufacturer, with its
principal place of business located at Lilly Corporate Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana.

Novo Nordisk, Inc. is a diabetes drug manufacturer with principal
place of business located at 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro,
New Jersey.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is a drug manufacturing company with a
principal place of business located at 55 Corporate Drive,
Bridgewater, New Jersey.

CVS Health Corporation is a retail pharmacy and healthcare company
headquartered at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., a provider of pharmacy benefit
management services to various health insurance entities, formerly
known as Caremark PCS Health, L.P., was incorporated in 2002 and is
headquartered at 750 West John Carpenter Freeway, Irving, Texas.

Caremark, L.L.C. is a pharmacy benefit management services provider
to various health insurance entities, headquartered at 2211 Sanders
Road, Northbrook, Illinois.

Caremark Rx, L.L.C., is a company that provides pharmacy benefit
management services, headquartered at 211 Commerce Street,
Nashville, Tennessee.

Express Scripts Holding Company is a full-service pharmacy benefit
management and specialty managed care company headquartered at One
Express Way, St. Louis, Missouri.

Express Scripts, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager headquartered
at One Express Way, St. Louis, Missouri.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager
headquartered at 100 Parsons Pond Road, Franklin Lakes, New
Jersey.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a health benefits provider
headquartered at 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, Minnesota.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth
Group Incorporated and provides pharmacy benefit management
services through its subsidiaries to various health insurance
entities. It is headquartered at 9700 Health Care Lane, Minnetonka,
Minnesota.

Optum, Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc.,
which provides pharmacy benefit management services through its
subsidiaries to various health insurance entities. It is
headquartered at 11000 Optum Circle, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

OptumRx Holdings, LLC is a subsidiary of Optum, Inc., which
provides pharmacy benefit management services through its
subsidiaries to various health insurance entities. It is
headquartered at 2300 Main Street, Irvine, California.

OptumRx, Inc. is a subsidiary of OptumRx Holdings, LLC, which
provides pharmacy benefit management services. It is headquartered
at 2300 Main Street, Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

         Russ Chorush, Esq.
         HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
         111 Bagby, Suite 2100
         Houston, TX 77002
         Telephone: (713) 221-2000
         E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

         David F. Sorensen, Esq.
         Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                 ccoslett@bm.net

               - and –

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

EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suits pending before
the Fulton County Business Court in Georgia remains stayed.

Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity
incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior
Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar
allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL
Litigation and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other
related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens.

These cases were transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County
Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a
single action.

On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August
17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated case.

These cases remain stayed pending final resolution of the U.S.
Consumer MDL Litigation.

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

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Deal Reached in Pennsylvania State Court Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has reached an agreement in
principle to resolve a class action lawsuit involving financial
institutions pending in Pennsylvania state court.

Specifically, the Company has reached an agreement in principle to
resolve a purported class action lawsuit brought by one of the
initial named plaintiffs in a multi-district litigation in the
Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania on behalf of
financial institutions headquartered in Pennsylvania.

The claims being asserted in this matter are substantially similar
to claims that previously were dismissed in the MDL proceeding for
lack of standing.

Equifax said, "The settlement is subject to court approval, and we
can provide no assurance that the necessary court approval will be
obtained."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: To Appeal Ontario Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company has sought leave to appeal
the decision of a court in Ontario, Canada, granting certification
of a nationwide class that includes impacted Canadians as well as
Canadians who had subscription products with Equifax between March
7, 2017 and July 30, 2017.

Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a
national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have
been filed against Equifax in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec,
British Columbia and Alberta. Each of the proposed Canadian class
actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking
monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the
2017 cybersecurity incident.

The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization
on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was
allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident.

In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf
of a larger group of Canadian consumers who had contracts for
subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident
or earlier and were not impacted by the incident.

On October 21, 2019, the court in the Quebec case dismissed the
plaintiff's motion for authorization to institute a class action.

On December 13, 2019, the court in the active Ontario case granted
certification of a nationwide class that includes impacted
Canadians as well as Canadians who had subscription products with
Equifax between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017.

Equifax said, "We have sought leave to appeal this decision. All
remaining purported class actions are at preliminary stages. In
addition, one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan
case have been stayed. The court's order staying the Saskatchewan
case is on appeal."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


FAST ENTERPRISES: Filed Motion to Deny Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN
MENDYK, and KHADIJA COLE, HYON PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. SAS
INSTITUTE INC., FAST ENTERPRISES, LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS,
STEVE GESKEY in his individual capacity, SHEMIN BLUNDELL, in her
individual capacity, DORIS MITCHELL, in her individual capacity,
DEBRA SINGLETON, in her individual capacity, JULIE A. McMURTRY, in
her individual capacity, SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY, in her individual
capacity, Case No. 2:17-cv-10657-DML-RSW (E.D. Mich.), Fast
Enterprises, LLC asks the court to deny class certification.

Fast Enterprises contends that the Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class whose members were wrongfully accused of fraud, denied
benefits, or denied due process. They have thus defined a fail-safe
class, whose members include only those with valid claims. Such a
class is not ascertainable without first addressing the merits of
each class member's claim. The motion for certification should be
denied for this reason alone.

Fast Enterprises develops and installs software for government
agencies.[CC]

Attorneys for Fast Enterprises, LLC are:

          Craig Stewart, Esq.
          Claire E. Wells Hanson, Esq.
          Erik F. Stidham, Esq.
          Sara M. Berry, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8478
          Facsimile: (303) 295-8261
          E-mail: cstewart@hollandhart.com
                   cehanson@hollandhart.com
                   efstidham@hollandhart.com
                   smberry@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Walter J. Piszczatowski, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Rd., Ste. 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183
          Telephone: (248) 335-5000
          Facsimile: (248) 335-3346
          E-mail: wallyp@hertzschram.com

FCA US: Durham Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Vehicle Engine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KRISHAWN DURHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. FCA US LLC, FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V.,
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-11040-JEL-RSW
(E.D. Mich., April 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act, the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
Ohio negligent design, engineering and manufacture, fraud and
fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent individuals who purchased or
leased FCA vehicles fitted with a 2.4-liter Tigershark MultiAir II
Engine.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' vehicle models
2013-2016 Dodge Dart, 2014-2020 Jeep Cherokee, 2015-2020 Jeep
Renegade, 2015-2017 Chrysler 200, 2015-2020 Ram ProMaster City,
2017-2020 Jeep Compass, and 2017-2020 Dodge Journey, contain a
significant design and/or manufacturing defect in their engines, a
defect that causes them to improperly burn off and/or consume
abnormally high amounts of oil. As a result of the oil consumption
defect, the Class vehicles can shut down during the course of their
normal operation, placing the occupants and surrounding vehicles at
an increased risk of serious injury and even death.

FCA US LLC is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place
of business and headquarters located at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn
Hills, Michigan.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. is a Dutch corporation and the
parent company of FCA US LLC, headquartered in London, England.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
          Mark I. Richards, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  sah@mccunewright.com
                  mir@mccunewright.com

FIFTH THIRD: Class Certification Sought in Cash Advance Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash
Advance Litigation, Case No. 1:12-cv-00851-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying these Classes:

      Breach of Contract Class:

      "all persons in the United States who enrolled in Fifth
      Third's Early Access Loan Program prior to May 1, 2013 and
      took out at least one Early Access Loan"; and

      Truth in Lending Act Class:

      "all persons in the United States who were enrolled in
      Fifth Third's Early Access Loan Program from August 3,
      2011 through April 30, 2013."

      Specifically excluded from the putative Classes are
      Defendant, any entities in which Defendant has a
      controlling interest, any of Defendant's parents,
      subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees
      and members of such persons' immediate families, and the
      presiding judge(s) in this case, their staff, and his,
      her, or their immediate family.

   2. appointing themselves as representatives of the Classes;

   3. appointing Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei, Stuart E.
      Scott of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP, and Jason
      Whittemore of Wagner McLaughlin, P.A. as counsel for the
      Classes pursuant to [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(g)(1);

This putative class action concerns Defendant Fifth Third Bank's
"Early Access" cash advance loan program, a short-term lending
option the bank offered to certain customers who held eligible
checking accounts with it.

Fifth Third Bank is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, at
Fifth Third Center. It is the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third
Bancorp, a bank holding company.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Anna A. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Jason K. Whittemore, Esq.
          WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, PA
          601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813)-225-4000
          Facsimile: (813) 225-4010
          E-mail: Jason@wagnerlaw.com

GLOBAL OPERATIONS: Thomas Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clive Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL OPERATIONS SECURITY SERVICES INC., and SHAY
AMIR, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-03512 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the New York State Labor Law, the New York
Code of Rules and Regulations, and The New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours
worked, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was required to
clock in using time sheets and a log book. The Defendant did not
pay the Plaintiff based off of the hours worked and entered into
the Defendant's timekeeping system, instead, each pay period, the
Defendant would pay the Plaintiff for an arbitrary amount of hours
that were less than the actual amount of hours worked by the
Plaintiff. This resulted in the Plaintiff being paid a reduced
amount of straight and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 2019
through the present.

Global Operations Security Services Inc. is a corporation organized
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, which employs manual
workers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (516) 742-4949
          Email: mark@bglawny.com


GLOBAL STRATEGY: Faces Elzen Suit Over Unsolicited Survey Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Van Elzen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL STRATEGY GROUP, LLC, a New York limited
liability company, and AMERICAN DIRECTIONS RESEARCH GROUP, INC., a
Washington DC corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-03541 (S.D.N.Y., May 6,
2020), is brought to stop the Defendants from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited,
autodialed text messages to consumers.

According to the complaint, Global Strategy hired Defendant
American Directions to perform a text message blasting campaign to
consumers' cell phones without consent to fill out survey responses
on decipherinc.com, for which Global Strategy was paid. Such text
messages were sent using an automated telephone dialing system
("ATDS" or "autodialer") without any consent from the consumer. The
Plaintiff received an autodialed text message to his cellular phone
from the Defendants regarding a local issue that is presumed to be
political in nature.

In response to this text message, the Plaintiff files this class
action lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendants
to cease sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages to
consumers' cellular telephone numbers, as well as an award of
statutory damages to the members of the Class.

The Plaintiff is a Menasha, Wisconsin resident.

Global Strategy is a public relations, research, and political
polling firm that conducts phone and text message surveys directed
to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Fishman, Esq.
          WINCORN FISHMAN, LLP
          29-28 41st Avenue, 1st Floor
          New York, NY 11101
          Phone: (646) 688-3234
          Email: ben@wincornfishman.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                 swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss IPO Class Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motions to
dismiss the securities class action suits related to the company's
initial public offering (IPO) remain pending.

On August 2, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, officers and
directors of the Company, and the underwriters for related to the
Company's initial public offering.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
registration statement related to its initial public offering
included untrue statements of material fact and, or omitted to
state material facts necessary to make the statements in the
registration statement not misleading, in violation of Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Since August 2, four additional purported class action lawsuits
have been filed making substantially similar allegations. At this
time, the class has not been certified and the Company cannot
estimate the amount of damages (if any) being sought by the
plaintiffs.

Three of the complaints alleging violations of securities laws as
described above were filed against the Company in the Circuit Court
of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida.

These cases have been consolidated under the caption In re
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
50-2019-CA-010026). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
December 9, 2019 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
February 7, 2020.

Two of the complaints alleging violations of securities laws as
described above were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

These cases have been consolidated under the caption In re
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
19-CV-81259). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6,
2020 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 20, 2020.

Greenlane Holdings, Inc. distributes consumption accessories and
vaporization products to wholesale and retail customers in the
United States and Canada. The company offers vaporizers and parts,
cleaning products, grinders and storage containers, pipes, rolling
papers, and customized lines of specialty packaging. It also
operates e-commerce Websites, such as VaporNation.com and
VapeWorld.com. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered
in Boca Raton, Florida.


H MART INC: Hee Sues Over Misleading Labels on Mochi Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD HEE, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. H MART, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02960-NC (N.D. Cal., April 30,
2020), alleges that the labeling of the Defendant's Mochi Ice Cream
products are misleading and deceptive because they do not contain
the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the
flavoring in the ice cream, which is required and consistent with
consumer expectations.

The Products are available to consumers from the Defendant's retail
stores in at least 12 states, including California, and the
Defendant's website and are sold in boxes containing 6 pieces of
1.5 FL OZ (9 FL OZ).

H Mart manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
confections made from mochi (sticky rice) with a purported vanilla
ice cream filling, under their Mochi Mochi brand.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no
less than $5.99 per 9 FL OZ, excluding tax--compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product for personal use and
consumption based on the above representations, for no less than
the price indicated, supra, excluding tax. The Plaintiff would not
have purchased at all, or would have paid less for, the Products if
he known that the vanilla presentations was false and misleading.

The "Japanese sticky rice dough" known as Mochi "can be traced as
far back as the year 794 A.D." This novelty frozen dessert consists
of "a ball of ice cream encased in pillowy soft, rice paste mochi,
and dusted with potato or corn starch." The origins of Mochi Ice
Cream, however, are less exact, with sources citing its creation in
Hawaii, California and Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Faces Schulze Securities Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Schulze, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HALLMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., NAVEEN ANAND, and
JEFFREY R. PASSMORE, Case No. 3:20-cv-01130-X (N.D. Tex., May 5,
2020), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Hallmark Financial securities between March
5, 2019, and March 17, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced that it had decided
to exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business, and
reported a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting
years. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.10, or more
than 14%, to close at $12.23 per share on March 3, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On March 11, 2020, Hallmark Financial disclosed that it had
dismissed its independent auditor, BDO USA, LLP due to a
disagreement regarding estimates for reserves for unpaid losses,
among other things. On this news, the Company's share price fell
$2.39, or over 29%, to close at $5.71 per share on March 12, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

On March 17, 2020, Hallmark Financial filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a letter from BDO in which BDO stated "BDO
expanded significantly the scope of its audit on January 31, 2020,
with respect to which a substantial portion of the requests had not
been received and/or tested prior to our termination." On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.08 per share, or 2.5%, to
close at $3.12 per share on March 18, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid
losses; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for reserve for
unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding
Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) that, as a result, Hallmark
Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss
development for prior underwriting years; (4) that, as a result,
Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial
Auto business; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Hallmark Financial securities during the
Class Period.

Hallmark Financial is a diversified property/casualty insurance
group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

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


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Black Magic Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Black
Magic LLC, doing business as: Black Magic Cafe, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. The Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc., Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Case No.
2:20-cv-01743-BHH (D.S.C., May 4, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The
Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton B. McCullough, Esq.
          Ross Alan Appel, Esq.
          SCHWABA LAW FIRM
          359 King Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 937-0400
          Fax: (843) 937-0706
          Email: clay@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Red Apple Sues Over Denied Insurance Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Red Apple Dental PC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:20-cv-03549
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendant's
wrongful practice of denying the Plaintiff's insurance claim.

Like many dental practices in New York, Red Apple was forced to
significantly curtail its dental practice due to COVID-19, and the
Executive Orders issued by the Governor of New York, as well as
guidance issued by the New York Department of Health, which
prohibit all non-emergency dental services, according to the
complaint. Red Apple sought to protect itself--and believed that it
had protected itself--in the event that its operations were
suspended or reduced for reasons outside of its control beyond just
damage to the physical premises (such as fire), by purchasing an
"all-risk" property Spectrum Business Owner's Policy through
Defendants (the "Special Property Coverage Form").

The Business Income and Civil Authority coverages purchased by the
Plaintiff do not include, and are not subject to, any exclusion for
losses caused by viruses or pandemics, the Plaintiff notes. Had the
Defendants, as the drafters of the policy, wanted to exclude the
risks of a virus or a pandemic, and related issues, like closure
orders and social distancing, they could easily have done so in
plain text (without trying to retroactively rewrite their
policies), the Plaintiff asserts.

Notwithstanding, when the Plaintiff suffered an actual loss of
Business Income as a result of a covered cause of loss, the
Defendants wrongfully--and in direct contravention of the
policy--denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim. The Plaintiff is
not alone. The Defendants have systematically refused to pay all
their insureds under their Business Income and Civil Authority
coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, regardless of
whether the implicated insurance policy has a virus exclusion or
not, says the complaint.

Red Apple provides dental care to patients.

The Hartford is a financial holding company for a group of
insurance and non-insurance subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-559-9745
          Email: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: scarson@bm.net
                 mitwersky@bm.net

               - and -

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –

          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: 865-247-0080
          Fax: 865-522-0049
          Email: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Phone: 919-600-5000
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 pat@whitfieldbryson.com


HARVARD STREET: Faces Zuvich Civil Rights Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Street
Wishrock, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carol-Lee Zuvich, as an
individual and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Harvard
Street Wishrock, LLC, doing business as: Harvard Street Apartments,
Wishrock & Ray, LLC, Wishrock Group in Maine, doing business as:
Wishrock & Ray, LLC in Oregon, Guardian Management LLC, Guardian
Real Estate Services, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00737-MC (D. Ore., May
4, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for
the Fair Housing Act.

Harvard Street Apartments feature 1, 2 & 3 bedroom apartment homes
in the city of Bandon, nestled along the Oregon Coast.

Plaintiff Carol-Lee Zuvich, of Bandon, Oregon, appears pro se.[BN]


HERC HOLDINGS: Appeal to Revive Ramirez Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from the
judgment dismissing the class action  entitled,  Pedro Ramirez, Jr.
v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., is still pending.

In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings’
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period and made allegations that were
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint.

In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint which included additional allegations, named additional
then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the
putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16,
2015.

In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1,
2016.

Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016. In April
2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with
prejudice.

In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018,
oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice. On February 5, 2019,
plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment against it, and
for leave to file a fifth amended complaint.  

The proposed amended complaint would add allegations related to New
Hertz’s December 31, 2018 settlement with the SEC that, among
other things, ordered New Hertz to cease and desist from violating
certain of the federal securities laws and imposed a civil penalty
of $16.0 million.  

On February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion. On September 30, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint.

On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and appellate briefing
was completed in March 2020.

Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.


HOFGUR LLC: Faces Schoengood Suit in E.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hofgur LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Bryan Schoengood, Annetta King Simpson,
Willie Roland, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Hofgur LLC, doing business as: Queens Adult Care
Center, Gefen Senior Care Group, Case No. 2:20-cv-02022 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 4, 2020).

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

Queens Adult Care Center is a senior care facility in Elmhurst, New
York. Queens Adult Care Center can provide care for up to 352
residents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron S. Halpern, Esq.
          Alan Leonard Fuchsberg, Esq.
          Jaehyun Oh, Esq.
          THE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW FIRM, LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 100161
          Phone: (212) 869-3500
          Fax: (212) 398-1532
          Email: a.halpern@fuchsberg.com
                 a.fuchsberg@fuchsberg.com
                 j.oh@fuchsberg.com


HOFGUR LLC: Schoengood Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hofgur LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Bryan Schoengood, Annetta King Simpson,
Willie Roland, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Hofgur LLC, doing business as: Queens Adult Care
Center, Gefen Senior Care Group, Case No. 1:20-cv-02022 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 4, 2020).

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

Queens Adult Care Center is a senior care facility in Elmhurst, New
York. Queens Adult Care Center can provide care for up to 352
residents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jaehyun Oh, Esq.
          Aaron S. Halpern, Esq.
          THE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW FIRM, LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 100161
          Phone: (212) 869-3500
          Fax: (212) 398-1532
          Email: j.oh@fuchsberg.com
                 a.halpern@fuchsberg.com


HOMEADVISOR INC: Van Hise Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Van Hise and Trevor Van Hise d/b/a Carpet & Tile By The
Mile, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00617 (D. Conn., May 5, 2020), is brought to challenge the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited advertisements via
facsimile in violation the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

On February 3, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiffs an
unsolicited fax advertisement in violation of the TCPA, according
to the complaint. The Defendant's unsolicited faxes have damaged
the Plaintiffs 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.

The Plaintiffs are Connecticut residents, who do business as CARPET
& TILE BY THE MILE.

The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that is in the business
of recommending/providing individuals with lists of trusted local
professionals for any home project.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


IKEA NORTH: Faces Nazarchuk Suit Over Defective Kullen Dressers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZAVETA NAZARCHUK, individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00887-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal., April 30, 2020), is brought under
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and
the False Advertising Law due to IKEA's alleged sale of defective
tip-prone dressers known as the Kullen dresser.

The Plaintiff contends that the Product does not comply with the
furniture industry's voluntary stability standard, making the
Product defective due to tip-over and entrapment hazards, and poses
a serious danger to consumers which, if disclosed by IKEA to the
Class, would have caused them not to purchase or use the Product.

IKEA is a company based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, that
manufactures, markets and/or sells, among other things, a range of
home furnishing products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela Prescott, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6806
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com
                  pamela@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com


IMT INSURANCE: Refuses to Pay for COVID-19 Losses, Seifert Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Seifert d/b/a The Hair Place and Harmar Barbers, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMT
Insurance Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-01102-JRT-DTS (D. Minn., May 6,
2020), is brought against the Defendant who, on a widescale basis,
refused to pay its insureds under its business owners and
commercial property coverages for losses associated with business
suspensions caused by Covid-19.

To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or in
order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiffs purchased
insurance coverage from the Defendant, including Businessowner's
Owners Insurance, which promises to pay for loss due to the
necessary suspension of operations following "direct physical loss
of or damage to" the Plaintiffs' businesses and for action by civil
authority that prohibits access to the insured premises for
business purposes.

According to the complaint, the Hair Place and Harmar Barbers were
forced to suspend business due to the recent Executive Orders
issued by the Governor of Minnesota put in place to protect the
public from the spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic, mandating the
closure of businesses like the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and the
Class members' businesses were open prior to the Governmental
Pandemic Closure Orders and would be open if not for the
Governmental Pandemic Closure Orders, just like the many businesses
that have never been required to close. As a result of the
Governmental Pandemic Closure Orders, the Plaintiffs and the other
Class members lost Business Income.

The Defendant has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay
its insureds under its business owners and commercial property
coverages for losses associated with business suspensions caused by
Governor Walz's Executive Orders and other such orders by civil
authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business. Indeed, Defendant, through its authorized agent, has
advised The Hair Place and Harmar Barbers of the Defendant's
position that no coverage is available under the Defendants'
business owners and/or commercial property insurance policies under
the circumstances, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kenneth Seifert d/b/a The Hair Place (The Hair Place) is
a hair salon located in Kenyon, Minnesota. Plaintiff Harmar
Barbers, Inc., also owned by Plaintiff Kenneth Seifert, is a
traditional barber shop located in St. Paul, Minnesota

IMT Insurance Company is an insurance company domiciled in the
State of Iowa, with its principal place of business in Des Moines,
Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                 mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          600 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          Cornerstone Building
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com

               - and -

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: ymflaherty@locklaw.com


INTEL CORP: Consolidated Oregon Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that a consolidated consumer
class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon has been dismissed.

As of April 22, 2020, consumer class action lawsuits relating to
certain security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed in 2018 were
pending in the U.S., Canada, and Israel.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by
Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the security
vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.

In the U.S., numerous individual class action suits filed in
various jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.

In March 2020, the court granted Intel's motion to dismiss the
complaint in that consolidated action, but granted plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint.

In Canada, in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled.
In a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Quebec, the court has stayed the case until April 2020.

In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Haifa.

In the first case, the District Court denied the parties' joint
motion to stay filed in January 2019, but to date has deferred
Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint in view of Intel's
pending motion to dismiss in the consolidated proceeding in the
U.S. Intel filed a motion to stay the second case pending
resolution of the consolidated proceeding in the U.S., and a
hearing on that motion has been scheduled for May 2020.

Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary
damages or other related relief.

Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and
intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending
proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not
been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that
might arise from those matters."

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.


ITURAN LOCATION: Hearing This Month in Data Security Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the first court
hearings in the class action suits related to alleged violation by
the company of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741 – 1981 and the
Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security) 5777-2017, is
scheduled for May 2020.

On July 19, 2018 the company received two class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company, alleging that the Company
violated the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741 – 1981 and the
Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security) 5777-2017.

The plaintiffs request that the lawsuits will be approved as a
class action and allege that The Company did not secure customer
information properly, as required by the law, and that the lack of
information security procedures allowed hacking into the company's
website, which caused to exposure of customers sensitive personal
information. The lawsuits are yet to be approved as a class action
lawsuit.

First court hearings is scheduled for May 2020.

The total amount claimed if the lawsuits are to be approved as a
class action were estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately
NIS 600 million (approximately US$ 170 million) Our defense against
the approval of the class action lawsuits was filed on December 13,
2018.

Ituran Location and Control Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
provides location-based services and wireless communications
products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States. The
company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Azor, Israel.


ITURAN LOCATION: Still Defends Antitrust Suit in Tel-Aviv
---------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit filed
in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv.

On July 13, 2015 the company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber
of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a
monopoly under the Israeli Antitrust Law, 1988, unlawfully abused
its power as a monopoly and discriminated between its customers.

The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from
the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from
customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to
install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the
monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are
not required by insurance companies to install location and
recovery systems in their vehicles.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers to
customers who are not required by insurance companies to install
location and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discounted
warranty service to their location and recovery systems. The
plaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actions raise
additional causes of action against the Company such as
negotiations without good faith, executing contract without good
faith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumer
protection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty.

The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action.

The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class
action was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300
million (approximately US$ 87 million). Our defense against the
approval of the class action lawsuit was filed on January 3, 2016.


The plaintiff has responded to the company's defense on February
29, 2016. Hearing for first stage ,i.e. whether claim will be
approved as a class action are over and parties are filing their
summaries.

A class action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the
Company, which was filed on form 6-K on March 22, 2011, was
dismissed by the court on the request of both parties, on March 5,
2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff and his attorneys,
in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately US$ 8,700). Such
dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may have a positive
effect on the Company's defense against the current lawsuit.

Ituran said, "Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, at this
preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's
chances of success (therefore, the Company has not made any
provision in its consolidated financial statements in respect to
this claim), however based on the documents of the claim, the
Company has good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the
plaintiff and that the chances that the lawsuit will not be
approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will be
approved. While the company cannot predict the outcome of this
case, if the company will not be successful in defending these
claims, the company could be subject to significant costs,
adversely affecting our results of operations."

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

Ituran Location and Control Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
provides location-based services and wireless communications
products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States. The
company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Azor, Israel.


JADE FARM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Cuturic Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADMIR CUTURIC, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. THE JADE FARM LLC d/b/a JUE LAN CLUB, NAOMI RAM and MOHAMMAD ALI
AMANOLLAHI, Case No. 1:20-cv-03363 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to pay legally
required overtime wage for all hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants misappropriated
tips, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that he worked more than 40 hours
per week. His regular weekly schedule included 3 dinners, which
lasted 8 to 9 hours each, and one double lunch/dinner shift, which
lasted 12.5 hours, totaling roughly 36 hours. He remained on call
the remaining 3 days of each week, and when he picked up one
additional dinner, he worked more than 40 hours that week. However,
the Defendants did not pay him for all of the overtime hours he
worked.

Jade Farm owns and operates the restaurant Jue Lan Club. Naomi Ram
and Mohammad Ali Amanollahi are owners and operators of the
Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


JADE HOUSE: Lu Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEI LIN LU, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
v. JADE HOUSE, INC., a California business; SHAN-CHU TING, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16812
(May 1, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages for
all hours worked, to pay overtime wages, and to provide lawful rest
and meal breaks in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked as an office worker for Jade House from
October 2018 until July 2019.

Jade House is a jewelers-wholesale company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Y. Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN, Esq.
          13200 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 475
          City of Industry, CA 91746
          Telephone: (562) 692-5828
          Facsimile: (626) 389-5455
          E-mail: Attomey@KellyChenLaw.com


JM COFFEE: Garcia Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ELISA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JM COFFEE SHOP & BAKERY CORP (DBA AS JM COFFEE SHOP &
BAKERY) AND MANUEL SINCHI, Case No. 1:20-cv-02012 (E.D.N.Y., May 3,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that she worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the
hours over 40 per week that she worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of her hours worked,
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over
40, either at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional
overtime premium. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants failed to
pay her the required spread of hours pay for any day in which she
had to work over 10 hours a day.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants. She was primarily
employed to perform various duties of a cook and cleaning at the
Defendants' bakery.

The Defendants own, operate or control a Bakery at 171-06 Jamaica
Avenue, in Queens, New York, under the name "JM COFFEE SHOP
BAKERY."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212 203 2417


JOHN STEVENS: Faunce Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE FAUNCE v. JOHN STEVENS, individually, Case No. 6:20-cv-00752
(M.D. Fla., April 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees seeking minimum and overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the federal
minimum wage provision by failing to compensate her at a rate not
less than $7.25 an hour. The Defendant has willfully and
intentionally refused to pay her overtime pay for all of those
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, she adds.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant on May 15, 2019, as
a Property Manager.

The Defendant owns real estate/rental properties in the state of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph C. Wood, Esq.
          Maurice Arcadier, Esq.
          ARCADIER, BIGGIE & WOOD, PLLC
          2815 W. New Haven, Suite 304
          Melbourne, FL 32904
          Telephone: (321) 953-5998
          Facsimile: (321) 953-6075
          E-mail: office@wamalaw.com
                  arcadier@wamalaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Starwalk Suit Over PPP Loan Removed to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STARWALK OF DALLAS, LLC AND
KONA-WOOD HOUSTON, LLC, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., D/B/A CHASE BANK, Case
No. DC-20-05797 (Filed April 20, 2020), was removed from the Texas
District Court, Dallas County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on April 22, 2020.

The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01005-X to the proceeding.

The lawsuit involves allegations that Chase purportedly failed to
process the Plaintiffs' loan applications in the recently enacted
federal Paycheck Protection Program.

JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 665-3600
          Facsimile: (214) 665-3601
          E-mail: dodrillc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Ferak, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
          E-mail: ferakp@gtlaw.com


LAPEER INDUSTRIES: Nikora Class Certification Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as  ALEX NIKORA IV, v. LAPEER
INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-10816-MFL-MKM (E.D.  Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order:

   1. denying Nikora's pending motion for class certification
      without prejudice at this time, and, if necessary, may be
      renewed following the Court's decision on the motion to
      amend;

   2. denying as moot Lapeer Industries, Inc.'s motion to strike
      Nikora's supplemental brief; and

   3. directing Nikora by no later than May 11, 2020, to file a
      motion to amend his complaint in order to add Desmond A.
      Robertson as a co-plaintiff in this action.

The Court said, "Lapeer Industries shall file a response to the
motion to amend by no later than May 26, 2020. Nikora shall file a
reply brief by no later than June 2, 2020. Once the Court resolves
the motion to amend, it will schedule a status conference with
counsel for all parties to determine the next steps in this
action."

Lapeer provides automotive and military engineering services.[CC]

LENOVO: Singh et al. Sue Over Hinge Defect in Laptops & Tablets
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEHA SINGH and SANDRA COX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01082-CCB (D. Md., April 27, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,
the Missouri Merchandise Practices Act, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent
omission or concealment.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated current and former owners of Lenovo-brand
700-series 2-in-1 Yoga laptop/tablets equipped with a dual-hinge
system, allege that the dual-hinge system the Defendant utilizes in
the devices is defective. It prematurely and unexpectedly cracks
and fails, rendering the hinges inoperable and prohibiting the
Plaintiffs and Class members from changing the configuration of
their devices. The defect thereby deprives them of the devices'
defining feature, the ability to use their devices as either a
tablet or a laptop. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant denies
that the defect exists and asserts hinges only fail when the
devices are misused. As a result of Lenovo's unfair, deceptive,
and/or fraudulent business practices in connection with the defect,
current and former owners of Class devices, including Plaintiffs,
have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss
in value. Had they known about the defect at the time of purchase,
they would have paid substantially less for their Class devices, or
would not have purchased them and avoided the significant
out-of-pocket costs they have or will incur to repair or replace
Class devices once the defect manifests.

Lenovo United States, Inc. is a company that operates as a software
and hardware reseller, with its principal place of business in
Morrisville, North Carolina. It offers desktops, laptops,
ultrabooks, tablets, monitors, printers, servers, and workstations.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          James P. Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM PA
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
          E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

               - and -
          
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312)782-4880
          Facsimile: (312)782-7785
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -
          
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (888)-711-9975
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Manopla Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Daniel Manopla v.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and
Pablo Lapuerta, M.D.

On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D. was filed against
the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

A first amended complaint was filed on July 30, 2019 and the
company filed a motion to dismiss such first amended complaint on
September 30, 2019. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss on November 14, 2019 and the company
filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss on December 13,
2019.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from March
11, 2016 through July 29, 2019. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning data
from the company's Phase 3 clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type
1 diabetes patients and the prospects of FDA approval of
sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

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

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Won't Pay for COVID-19 Losses, Biltrite Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BILTRITE FURNITURE, INC. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00656 (E.D. Wis., April 24, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders who paid premiums in exchange for an all-risk
commercial property insurance policy that included lost business
income and extra expense coverage.

According to the complaint, Defendant, and most insurers that
underwrote all-risk commercial property insurance policies with
business interruption coverage, are denying their obligation to pay
for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to
stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.

Plaintiff through this action seeks a declaratory judgment that
affirms that the orders issued by civil authorities to stop the
spread of the COVID-19 outbreak triggers coverage, has caused
physical property loss and damage to the insured property, provides
coverage for future civil authority orders that result in future
suspensions or curtailments of business operations, and finds that
Defendants are liable for the losses suffered by policyholders.

Further, the action brings a claim against Defendant for its breach
of its contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial
property insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and
related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to
stop the human-to-human and surface to human spread of the COVID-19
outbreak.

Biltrite Furniture, Inc. operates a retail furniture and mattress
store in Milwaukee County.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is one of the world's largest
property and casualty insurers with its principal place of business
in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Guri Ademi, Esq.
            Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
            John D. Blythin, Esq.
            ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
            3620 East Layton Avenue
            Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110
            Telephone: (414) 482-8000

                       - and -

            Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
            Dan Drachler, Esq.
            Ana Maria Cabassa-Torres, Esq.
            ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
            41 Madison Avenue
            New York, NY 10010
            Telephone: (212) 223-3900

                       - and -

            James E. Cecchi, Esq.
            Lindsey H. Taylor,. Esq.
            CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
            5 Becker Farm Road
            Roseland, NJ 07068
            Telephone: (973) 994-1700

                       - and -

            Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
            Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
            SEEGER WEISS
            55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
            Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
            Telephone: (973) 639-9100

                       - and -

            Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
            ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
            58 South Service Road, Suite 200
            Melville, NY 11747
            Telephone: (631) 367-7100

                       - and -

             Paul J. Geller, Esq.
             Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
             ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
             120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
             Boca Raton, FL 33432
             Telephone: (561) 750-3000

LIFELINE INNOVATIONS: Faces Hayes Fraud Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifeline Innovations
& Insurance Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as Annette Hayes,
Cheryl McGrory, Robert Cobleigh, and Mazdi Randeria, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifeline
Innovations & Insurance Solutions, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability
company; Tony James Michael Kelly, a Florida individual; John
Albino Marques, a California individual; and Gregory Talbot, a
California individual, Case No. 8:20-cv-00935-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
April 22, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber.

The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.

Lifeline Innovations is an insurance broker.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK, FRANCAVILLA, BLATT
          & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232

               - and -

          Herman J. Russomanno, Esq.
          Robert John Borrello, Esq.
          Herman J. Russomanno, III, Esq.
          RUSSOMANNO & BORRELLO, PA
          PH 2800-Museum Tower
          150 W Flagler St.
          Miami, FL 33130-1536
          Telephone: (305) 373-2101
          Facsimile: (305) 373-2103
          E-mail: hrussomanno@russomanno.com
                  rborrello@russomanno.com
                  herman2@russomanno.com


LOGMEIN INC: Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local Union 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems, Inc.,
LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK,
9:19-cv-81155).

On July 25, 2019, a securities class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, referred to herein as the
’33 Act Claim, was initiated in the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida against
the Company, Citrix Systems, Inc. and certain officers and
directors of both LogMeIn and Citrix, entitled Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Citrix Systems,
Inc., LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 502019CA009587XXXXMB Div AK,
9:19-cv-81155).  

The lawsuit, which arises from substantially the same set of facts
as the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Action, was
purportedly filed on behalf of current and former Citrix
stockholders who acquired LogMeIn common stock in connection with
the Company's January 2017 acquisition of the GoTo Business from
Citrix and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged misstatements
or omissions made in the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-4 and the related prospectus as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in December 2016.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs.

The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.

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

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


LOGMEIN INC: Suits Challenge Francisco Partners-Elliott Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company is facing
several class action lawsuits related to a definitive agreement in
which LogMeIn will be acquired in a transaction led by Francisco
Partners, a technology-focused global private equity firm, and
Evergreen Coast Capital Corporation, the private equity affiliate
of Elliott Management Corporation.

In December 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Logan Parent, LLC, or Parent,
and Logan Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, or
Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub would merge with and into LogMeIn, with LogMeIn continuing as
the surviving corporation of the Merger and as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective
time of the Merger, each share of LogMeIn common stock that is
issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of
the Merger (other than shares to be cancelled pursuant to the
Merger Agreement or shares of common stock held by holders who have
made a valid demand for appraisal in accordance with Section 262 of
the Delaware General Corporation Law), shall be automatically
converted into the right to receive $86.05 in cash, without
interest.

On March 12, 2020, LogMeIn said its stockholders voted to adopt the
definitive agreement at a special stockholders' meeting held
earlier that day. LogMeIn stockholders adopted the merger agreement
with more than 74% of the outstanding shares voting in vfavor of
the deal.

Since the announcement of the Merger, six putative class action
complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged
Company stockholders – three in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, captioned Stein v. LogMeIn, Inc., et
al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00098), filed January 22, 2020; Carter v.
LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00124), filed January 24,
2020; and Thompson v. LogMeIn, Inc., et. al., (Case No.
1:20-cv-00129), filed January 27, 2020, and two in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Ford v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-00582),
filed January 22, 2020; and Rosenfeld v. LogMeIn, Inc. et. al.,
(Case No. 1:20-cv-00981), filed February 5, 2020; and one in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Abrams v. LogMeIn, Inc., et al., (Case No.
1:20-cv-10272), filed February 12, 2020 (together, the "Actions").


The Actions name as defendants, the Company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer and its Board of Directors. The Actions
allege, among other things, that all defendants violated provisions
of the Exchange Act insofar as the proxy statement preliminarily
filed by the Company on January 17, 2020 or the definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company on February 7, 2020
(together, the "Proxy Statement") allegedly omitted material
information with respect to the transactions contemplated therein,
thereby rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

The Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief, rescissory
damages, declaratory judgment and an award of plaintiffs' fees and
expenses.

On March 2, 2020, prior to the Company's Special Meeting of
Stockholders held on March 12, 2020, the Company filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K which supplemented the disclosure provided in
the Proxy Statement as had been requested by the plaintiffs. On
March 17, 2020, the complaint entitled Abrams v. LogMeIn, Inc. was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

The Company continues to believe the claims asserted in the
remaining complaints are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously.

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Wasson v.
LogMeIn, Inc. et al.

On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, referred to
herein as the Securities Class Action, was initiated by purported
stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No.
2:18-cv-07285).

On November 6, 2018, the case was transferred to the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330).

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements
or omissions concerning renewal rates for the Company's
subscription contracts.

The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.

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

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Bowens Suit Seeks Overtime Premium Under PMWA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL BOWENS and JASON MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. (Pa. Com. Pleas, April 22,
2020), seeks all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

At its retail stores, the Defendants employ Department Managers,
Service Managers, and Support Managers, who are paid an hourly
wage, are classified by the Defendants as eligible for overtime
pay, and often work over 40 hours per week. They call such
employees "Hourly Managers," the complaint says.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' standardized
timekeeping system does not credit their and other Hourly Managers
for certain mandatory tasks that occur on the Defendant's premises
and fall within the duties and responsibilities of the Hourly
Manager positions. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
violated the PMWA by failing to pay them and other class members
overtime premium compensation for time associated with their tasks.
Hourly Managers work a rotating schedule that generally requires
them to work 5-6 days per week and over 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiffs add.

The Defendants own and operate a large retail store at 1500 North
50th Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Rob Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Town Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300


MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY: Mebrahtu Demands Refund of Tuition & Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
HERMELA MEBRAHTU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05457 (D.N.J.,
May 1, 2020), seeks the Defendant's disgorgement of the pro-rated
portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time
that remained in the Spring 2020 Semester when classes moved online
and campus services ceased being provided.

The lawsuit arises from Manchester's announcement that because of
the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes would be
suspended effective immediately. The announcement informed students
that all classes would instead be held remotely through online
formats upon return from the university's Spring Break, which was
held from March 14 through March 22, 2020, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends she and on behalf of all people, who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 Semester at Manchester
University, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid,
and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having
their tuition and fees refunded to them.

Manchester is a private university, with an enrollment of
approximately 2,000 students. The University offers more than 70
degree options for undergraduate students, as well as four graduate
and certificate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


MATRIX ABSENCE: Misclassifies Claims Examiners, Weeks Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Weeks, Michael McDonald, & Cassandra Magdaleno, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Matrix Absence
Management, Inc., an Arizona Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-DLR
(D. Ariz., May 6, 2020), alleges that due to the Defendant's
misclassification scheme, the Plaintiffs were not paid all earned
overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant classified Claims Examination Employees as exempt
from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime
when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks, the
Plaintiffs aver. Because the Defendant's Claims Examination
Employees primarily performed non-exempt work, the Defendant
violated the FLSA, by failing to pay them overtime when they worked
over 40 hours in individual workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as Claims Examination
Employees.

The Defendant is "one of the top third party administrators of
disability and leave of absence claims" in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phone: (480) 382-5176
          Fax: (480) 304-3805
          Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (281) 572-0727
          Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Phone: (214) 790-4454
          Web: http://www.4overtimelawyer.com/


MDL 2800: Objectors Appeal Settlement Approval in Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that several objectors have taken an appeal
from the final order approving the settlement in the class action
suit entitled, In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 2800.

On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, the company entered into
multiple agreements that resolve the U.S. consolidated consumer
class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (the "U.S. Consumer MDL
Litigation"), and the investigations of the FTC, the CFPB, the
Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico (the "MSAG Group") and the NYDFS (collectively, the "Consumer
Settlement").

Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will
contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund
(the "Consumer Restitution Fund") to provide restitution for U.S.
consumers identified by the Company whose personal information was
compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident as well
as to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and
expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. Consumer MDL
Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million), settlement administration
and notice costs.

The Company has agreed to contribute up to an additional $125.0
million to the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover certain
unreimbursed costs and expenditures incurred by affected U.S.
consumers in the event the $380.5 million in the Consumer
Restitution Fund is exhausted.

The Company also agreed to various business practice commitments
related to consumer assistance and its information security
program, including conducting third party assessments of its
information security program.

On January 13, 2020, the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S.
District Court overseeing centralized pre-trial proceedings for the
U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and numerous other federal court
actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident (the "MDL
Court"), entered an order granting final approval of the settlement
in connection with the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation.

The MDL Court entered an amended order granting final approval of
the settlement on March 17, 2020.

Several objectors have appealed the final approval order.

Until the appeals are finally adjudicated or dismissed, the comapny
can provide no assurance that the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation will
be resolved as contemplated by the settlement agreement.

Equifax said, "If the MDL Court's order approving the settlement is
reversed by an appellate court, there is a risk that we would not
be able to settle the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation on acceptable
terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


MDL 2924: Koppell v. Perrigo Co. Over Ranitidine, Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY KOPPELL and DAN
ZHOVTIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, PERRIGO RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CVS
HEALTH CO., and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10253
(Filed Nov. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on May 1,
2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80735-RLR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

The case involves Perrigo's manufacturing and distribution, and
Defendants CVS and Walmart's sale of, ranitidine-based
over-the-counter medications that contain dangerously high levels
of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity. Ranitidine is an over-the-counter medication that is
designed to decrease the amount of acid created by the stomach.

The Koppell case is being consolidated with MDL 2924, In re: ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6 2020. These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the
active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can
form the carcinogen NDMA, either during storage or when metabolized
in the human body.

In its 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the
Southern District of Florida will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. The lead case is Case No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


METLIFE INC: Sun Life Still Defends Sales Practices Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2019, that the sales practices lawsuits against Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada are still ongoing.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred
to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales
practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario Litigation").

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for
some or all of the claims in these lawsuits.

In September 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the
lower court's decision to not certify the sales practices claims in
the Ontario Litigation.

These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Brooklyn Appeals Order to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, et
al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Decision
and Order dated March 30, 2020, and Judgment dated March 31, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit styled Center for Independence of the
Disabled v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Case No.
17-cv-2990, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

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

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine B. Forrest.

The appellate case is captioned as Center for Independence of the
Disabled v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Case No.
20-1433, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Brooklyn Center for Independence of the
Disabled, a nonprofit organization, et al., are represented by:

          Michelle Anne Caiola, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          655 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 644-8644
          Email: mcaiola@dralegal.com

Defendants-Appellees Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a
public benefit corporation, et al., are represented by:

           Eamonn Francis Foley, Esq.
           DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR LITIGATION
           NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
           130 Livingston Street
           Brooklyn, NY 11201
           Email: eamonn.foley@nyct.com

                   - and -

           Helene Rachel Hechtkopf, Esq.
           HOGUET NEWMAN REGAL & KENNEY, LLP
           1 Grand Central Place
           60 East 42nd Street
           New York, NY 10165
           Telephone: (212) 689-8808
           Email: hhechtkopf@hnrklaw.com


MGM RESORTS: Faces Maldonado Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria D. Maldonado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, and MARINA DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA, Case No.
1:20-cv-05599 (D.N.J., May 6, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a sub-minimum direct cash wage
and purported to claim a tip credit in the amount necessary to meet
the federal minimum hourly wage required by the FLSA, according to
the complaint. The Defendants, however, failed to adequately inform
the Plaintiff about the tip credit provisions as required by the
FLSA and its implementing regulations. As a result, the Defendants
are ineligible to claim a tip credit and are liable to the
Plaintiff for the full minimum wage, plus liquated damages,
attorney's fees and costs of this action.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an employee at the
Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa located in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

MGM Resorts operates a hub and spoke employment structure whereby,
MGM Resorts, at the operational center of the wheel, has spokes
leading out to each of its individual casino subsidiaries,
including Borgata and its many other casino resorts throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: 215-884-2491
          Facsimile: 215-884-2492
          Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                 mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Todd M. McGuire, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: 816-714-7101
          Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                 mcguire@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          A Professional Corporation
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Phone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                 mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


MISSOURI GAMING: Lipari-Williams MMWL Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GINA R. LIPARI-WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
MISSOURI GAMING COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a ARGOSY RIVERSIDE CASINO and
PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., Case No. 20AE-CC00099 (Filed March 31,
2020), was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, Platte County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
May 1, 2020.

The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-06067-SRB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit on behalf
of herself and others allegedly similarly situated against the
Defendants.

Missouri Gaming was founded in 2005. The Company's line of business
includes operating sports, amusement, and recreation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Denise K. Drake, Esq.
          Travis L. Salmon, Esq.
          Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq.
          Kaitlin E. Gallen, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: ddrake@polsinelli.com
                  tsalmon@polsinelli.com
                  jplowman@polsinelli.com
                  kgallen@polsineli.com


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Salim Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mobile TeleSystems PJSC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a proposed class action suit initiated by Shayan Salim.

In March 2019, a proposed class action complaint on behalf of
Shayan Salim and all other persons similarly situated has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against MTS PJSC and certain of its managers.

The complaint is alleging certain securities law violations
relating to the recently announced resolution of US government
investigations related to the Group's former operations in
Uzbekistan.

The Group is reviewing the allegations and intends to defend its
interests.

It is currently impossible to measure possible implications and
amount of claim reliably, the Company said.

Mobile TeleSystems PJSC ("MTS") is a telecommunications group,
offering mobile and fixed voice, broadband and pay TV services. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, offers its services to mobile
subscribers in Russia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Armenia and Belarus.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Refuses to Honor Policy, Border Chicken Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Border Chicken AZ LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and
Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Case No.
2:20-cv-00785-JJT (D. Ariz., April 22, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated alleging that they
suffered business losses, for which coverage is afforded under
their "Premier Businessowners Policy" and other similar business
protection policies issued by the Defendants, in connection of the
current coronavirus pandemic and the civil actions taken by
governmental authorities in efforts to quell the Pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' unlawful repudiation of
coverage, if not enjoined, will subject the Policyowners to
enormous continuing future harm and will cause irreparable injuries
them.

The additional named insureds under the Policy are:

-- BORDER CHICKEN AZ, LLC;
-- BORDER CHICKEN AZ, LLC-DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN;
-- BORDER CHICKEN NM, LLC-DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN;
-- LCAZ, LLC-DBA LITTLE CAESARS;
-- BORDER CHICKEN AZ, LLC;
-- BORDER CHICKEN AZ, LLC–DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN;
-- BORDER CHICKEN NM, LLC–DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN;
-- LCAZ, LLC–DBA LITTLE CAESARS;
-- BORDER CHICKEN PEORIA, LLC–DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN;
-- BORDER CHICKEN DOUGLAS, LLC–DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN;
-- BORDER CHICKEN NM, LLC–DBA CHURCH'S CHICKEN; and
-- LCAZ, LLC–DBA LITTLE CAESARS.

The Plaintiff and the other named insureds are in the fast food
restaurant business having 15 franchises of Church's Fried Chicken
and one franchise of Little Caesars Pizza, 14 in Arizona and 1 in
New Mexico.

Nationwide markets insurance in all 50 states, including Arizona.
Allied operates under the Allied Insurance brand with the business
focus on personal lines and small to medium commercial markets,
with premium concentration in the central and western regions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Melissa Mazur, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C.
          2001 Market St., Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8700
          Facsimile: (215) 735-5170

               - and -

          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO LLP
          81 Main Street, Suite 515
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 278-5100
          Facsimile: (917) 591-5245
          E-mail: kfleischman@fbrllp.com
                  jglatter@fbrllp.com


NEW YORK: Bellin Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rosalind Bellin filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion & Order dated April 30, 2020, and Judgment dated April 20,
2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Bellin v. Zucker, Case No.
19-cv-5694, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises under Civil Rights Act.

ElderServe Health, Inc., is a home health care service in New York
City, New York.

The appellate case is captioned as Bellin v. Zucker, Case No.
20-1463, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Rosalind Bellin, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Howard A. Zucker, M.D., J.D., in his official
capacity as Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, and
ElderServe Health, Inc., DBA RiverSpring at Home, are represented
by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005

                  - and -

          Brian Thomas McGovern, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          200 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 504-6117


NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS: Mearidy Seeks OT Pay for Call-Center Assocs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLORINDA MEARIDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00387
(M.D.N.C., May 1, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's systemic
failure across its Customer Service Centers to compensate
call-center associates for all hours worked, and for overtime hours
worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has maintained a
corporate policy of failing to compensate call-center associates
for all mandatory pre-and/or post-shift work. She adds that she
routinely worked 40 hours or more per week, without being
compensated for the pre- and/or post-shift work or compensated at
the overtime rate for hours worked over 40 per week.

nThrive is a multinational application software technology
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com


PEORIA DISPOSAL: Stinson Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HELEN STINSON, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEORIA DISPOSAL
COMPANY and AREA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01130-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective Fair Labor
      Standards Act class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail,
      and text-message) to:

      "all current and former waste disposal drivers who worked
      for Peoria Disposal Company and/or Area Disposal Service,
      Inc. anywhere in the United States, at any time from March
      27, 2017 through the final disposition of this matter";

   3. approving a Reminder Email and Text-Message to be sent to
      Putative Class Members halfway through the 90-day notice
      period; and

   4. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
      Court's order, identify all Putative Class Members by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of all Putative Class Members who worked for
      Defendants at any time from beginning three years
      immediately preceding the filing of the Original Complaint
      through the present.

PDC is responsible for residential trash and recycling pickup for
the city of Peoria and parts of Peoria county. Area Disposal
Service was founded in 1989. The company's line of business
includes provides trucking or transfer services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.cm

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

PETSMART INC: Hemp Seed Oil Can't Be Lawfully Sold, Sassano Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASTORRIA SASSANO v. PETSMART, INC., a Foreign For-Profit
Corporation, Case No. CACE-20-006963 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty.,
April 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated regarding the Defendant's actions of
advertising, marketing and selling an unapproved and misbranded new
drug 'Only Natural Pet Hemp Seed Oil with Krill and Cod Liver,' in
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff says that the Product's packaging, as well as the
Defendant's advertising and marketing of the Product, makes clear
that the Product's contents are intended to treat, mitigate, or
prevent disease and/or are intended to affect the structure or any
function of the body; specifically, to support the immune system,
cardiovascular system, and brain development or function. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not disclose to
consumers, including the Plaintiff and putative Class Members, that
the Product could not lawfully be sold because it was an unapproved
new animal drug and/or because it was misbranded.

On April 19, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased Only Natural Pet Hemp
Seed Oil with Krill and Cod Liver 8.0 FL OZJ237 ML bottle, from
PETSMART located at 1700 N. Federal Highway, in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.

PetSmart is an American retail chain operating in the United States
and Canada that is engaged in the sale of specialty pet animal
products, such as food, furniture, habitats, and accessories, and
services, such as dog grooming and dog training, boarding
facilities, and daycare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr. Apt. 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: 832 715-2788
          Facsimile: 561 688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


PINDUODUO INC: Asay & Johan Appeal Ruling in Wei Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kerry Asay and Johan Johan filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion dated March 30, 2020, and Judgment dated
March 31, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Wei v. Pinduoduo
Inc., Case No. 18-cv-7625, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Pinduoduo pursuant and/or
traceable to its July 26, 2018 initial public offering.

On July 26, 2018, Pinduoduo completed its IPO, offering 85.6
million American depositary shares priced at $19.00 per share and
raising $1.63 billion.

In the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with Pinduoduo's IPO, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies, according to the complaint. Specifically,
the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Pinduoduo's controls
were ineffective to present third-party vendors from selling
counterfeit goods on the Company's online platform; (ii)
consequently, Pinduoduo's revenues and the number of active
merchants using its platform were traceable in part to unlawful
conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iii) as a result, Pinduoduo's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

The appellate case is captioned as Wei v. Pinduoduo Inc., Case No.
20-1423, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Kerry Asay and Johan Johan are represented
by:

          Ex Kano Shirden Sams, II, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Email: esams@glancylaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Pinduoduo Inc. is represented by:

          Scott Musoff, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 735-7852
          Email: scottmusoff@skadden.com


PITA CAFE: Rojas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tipped Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ariana Rojas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pita Cafe, LLC d/b/a Pita Cafe, an Arizona company;
Scottsdale Burger Bar Inc. d/b/a Scottsdale Burger Bar, an Arizona
company; Johnny's Greek Inc. d/b/a/ Johnny's Greek and Burger Bar,
an Arizona company; Johnathan Yasso, an Arizona resident; and
Amanda Yasso, an Arizona resident; Case No. 2:20-cv-00874-DLR (D.
Ariz., May 5, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid tipped wage
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not provided her
proper tips that she had earned. The Plaintiff's managers and/or
owners would pool the tips earned by the restaurant workers between
themselves and the Officers kept portions of the tips. The
Defendants are sued for their unlawful distribution of the
Plaintiff's tips.

The Plaintiff is a tipped restaurant worker employed by the
Defendants.

Defendants Pita Cafe, Scottsdale Burger Bar, Johnny's Greek and
Burger Bar are/were Arizona companies, authorized to do business in
the State of Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: 480.442.3410
          Email: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                 jbarrat@zoldangroup.com


PLANET FITNESS: Faces Holloway Suit Over Post-Closure Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO HOLLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PLANET FITNESS FRANCHISING LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; ALDER PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and PF JONESBORO, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01868-CAP (N.D. Ga., April 30,
2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for unlawfully
charging the Plaintiff and Class members monthly fitness center
membership fees after the Defendants' facilities were already
closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rather than providing adequate customer service to address these
wrongful charges, the Defendants have hidden behind a single,
inaccurate statement on their website regarding the charges and
have redirected all billing inquiries, both via online chat and
telephone, to a telephone number that indicates the Defendants are
closed for business, the Plaintiff contends. Thus, the Defendants
have even prevented the Plaintiff and Class members with a method
to inquire about and/or dispute these charges, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that by debiting these post-closure charges,
the Defendants breached its agreements with the Class, who suffered
monetary losses in the monthly amounts charged. The Plaintiff and
Class Members seek to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
breaches of contract, violations of Georgia's consumer protection
statutes, and unjust enrichment.

Planet Fitness is an American franchisor and operator of fitness
centers based in Hampton, New Hampshire. Alder Partners is an
independent franchisee of Planet Fitness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
          THE HIRSCH LAW FIRM
          230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: 404-487-6552
          Facsimile: 678-541-9356
          E-mail: andrea@thehirschlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310 474-9111
          Facsimile: 310 474-8585


POLARIS INC: Class Suits Underway in Minnesota and California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative
class action suits in Minnesota and California.

Polaris said, "As of the date hereof, we are party to three
putative class actions pending against Polaris in the U.S., all of
which were previously reported in the Company's 10-K annual report
for the period ended December 31, 2019."

The first putative class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of
allegations that certain Polaris products suffer from unresolved
fire hazards allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the
result of the consolidation of the three putative class actions
that were filed between April 5-10, 2018 and that the company
disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018.

The second putative class action is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges
excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks
damages for alleged economic loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel
Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James
Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4, 2016. On March 31,
2020, the district court judge denied class certification.
Plaintiffs are pursuing an appeal.

The third putative class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and alleges
violations of various California consumer protection laws,
including in connection with ROPS (rollover protection systems)
certifications, for various Polaris products sold in California:
Paul Guzman and Jeremy Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries
Inc., and Polaris Sales Inc., August 8, 2019.

With respect to each of these three class action lawsuits, the
Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the
likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate
of the range of possible loss.

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES: Underpays Cleaners, Hernandez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, GUSTAVO ROJAS HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES
(SOUTHWEST), LLC and PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00508-XR (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cleaner from 2010 through
March 23, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff frequently worked over 40
hours per workweek during his entire period of employment with the
Defendants.  But, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at
one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked over
forty in a workweek.

Moreover, Plaintiff complained to Defendants via its san Antonio
office, Austin office, and New York office, about not receiving
overtime. However, Defendant never addressed or resolved
Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, statutory liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Pritchard Industries (SouthWest), LLC and Pritchard Industries,
Inc. are cleaning companies that provide office and building
janitorial services in various states, including, but not limited
to New York, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia,
Texas, and Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          Lawrence G. Morales, Esq.
          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 W. Interstate 10, Suite 132
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Tel: 210-225-0811
          Fax: 210-225-0821
          Emails: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com
                  morales1@sbcglobal.net
                  lawrence@themoralesfirm.com



QUANTUM HEALTH: Snider Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Snider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUANTUM HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02296-JLG-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, May 6, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has refused to
pay the Plaintiff overtime wages at one-and-one-half times his
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Utilization Review
Employee from January 2017 to January 2019. He contends that the
Defendant's misclassification scheme resulted in unpaid overtime
pay and those unpaid wages have remained unpaid for more than 30
days of performing the work.

The Defendant administers healthcare coverage for more than a
million members across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                 jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (281) 572-0727
          Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 790-4454
          Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


QUDIAN INC: Bid to Lift Stay in Consolidated NY Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a decision on the motion
to lift the stay and file an amended complaint in the class action
suit entitled, In re Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No.
651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is pending.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were also
named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed
in New York Supreme Court, Panther Partners Inc. v. Qudian Inc.,
Index No. 651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), and The Morrow
Property Trust v. Qudian Inc., Index No. 653047/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.) (collectively, the "New York State Actions").

The New York State Actions — purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their purchase of the the company's American Depostiary Shares
(ADSs) pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public
offering (IPO), similarly allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the United States Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the company's disclosure of business and regulatory
risks.

On August 15, 2018, the two putative securities class actions were
consolidated by joint stipulation under the master caption In re
Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No. 651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.).

On June 1, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the actions
for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to stay the actions
in light of the Federal Actions.

On August 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's
motion to dismiss or stay, and the company filed a reply on October
5, 2018.

A hearing was held on November 8, 2018. On November 14, 2018, the
court granted the company's motion to stay.

On January 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay and
file an amended complaint. The company filed an opposition to the
motion on February 21, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on March
6, 2020. A decision on the motion is pending.

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


QUDIAN INC: Initial Conference in Bellingham Suit Set for June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that an initial conference is
set for June 18, 2020 in the class action suit entitled, Bellingham
v. Qudian Inc., Case 1:20-cv-00577 (S.D.N.Y.) .

The company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on January
22, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Bellingham v. Qudian Inc., Case
1:20-cv-00577 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Bellingham Action").

The Bellingham Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with the company's FY19
financial guidance and certain related public statements.

Pursuant to a joint stipulation and order entered by the Court on
March 5, 2020, the parties will submit a proposed schedule for the
Company to respond to the complaint in the Bellingham Action within
21 days after the Court appoints a Lead Plaintiff in the action.

On April 7, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order appointing
Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel. An initial conference is
set for June 18, 2020.

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Woods Suit Over Dishonest Marketing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lacy Woods, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., a Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-00640-HNJ (N.D. Ala., May 6, 2020), is brought for damages
and other remedies resulting from the conduct of the Defendant in
negligently placing telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's and
other class members' phone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone
service without their express written consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case involves the Defendant's use of dishonest marketing
practices in order to gain access to consumers' cellular phone
numbers for purposes of placing telemarketing text messages, en
masse, to those consumers for the benefit of the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant utilizes a
bait-and-switch website that solicits consumers to provide their
personal information in exchange for the illusory promise of a loan
in the amount of $100,000. After consumers unwittingly provide
their personal information, however, they are not provided with any
loan terms. Instead, they are bombarded with telemarketing text
messages advertising the Defendant's products sent in plain
violation of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Alabama residing in the
City of Somerville.

The Defendant is a Michigan mortgage lending corporation with its
principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8085
          Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                 lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 283-3814
          Email: gklinger@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          Mason Barney, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: aaron@sirillp.com


QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Hotter Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hotter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05592-MAS-LHG
(D.N.J., May 6, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the
University, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the
Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the educational and related
services and facilities for which they paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 10, 2020, Quinnipiac, via letter from University President
Judy Olian, announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
all in-person classes would be suspended through the end of the
Spring Term. The announcement informed students that starting
Wednesday, March 18, all classes would instead be held remotely
through online format for the remainder of the Spring 2020
Semester. Since March 6, 2020, Quinnipiac has not held any
in-person classes. Classes that have continued have only been
offered in an online format, with no in person instruction.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that he and the putative class
contracted and paid for, Mr. Hotter avers. The online learning
options being offered to Quinnipiac students are subpar in
practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials,
and access to faculty. He contends that students have been deprived
of the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person
dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are
in no way the equivalent of the in-person education that he and the
putative class members contracted and paid for, he adds.

The Plaintiff and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a
refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not
provided, says the complaint. Even if Quinnipiac claims it did not
have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing.

Mr. Hotter's son is an undergraduate accounting student at
Quinnipiac.

Quinnipiac is a private university, with an enrollment of
approximately 10,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners' Lawsuit Stayed Amid Ch.11 Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee denied a motion seeking a
temporary stay of a class action litigation on account of Quorum
Health's Chapter 11 Proceedings.  The Motion to Stay was filed by
non-Quorum Health defendants.  Pending further Court order, the
case is stayed solely as to Quorum, the judge said.

Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that on September 9, 2016,
a shareholder filed a purported class action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the
Company and certain of its former officers.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, CHS, Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry
Cash. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants)
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company
between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016. The Complaint sought
damages related to the claims.

On June 23, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
Plaintiff opposed. On April 19, 2018, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its answer to
the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, which Defendants opposed. On March 29, 2019, the
Court granted the motion and certified the class.

Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which petition was denied on July 31, 2019.

On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
alleging additional misstatements. On October 12, 2018, Defendants
moved to dismiss, and, on March 29, 2019, the Court granted the
motion and dismissed the new allegations.

On January 31, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
on all claims, which motion remains pending.

Trial in the case was set to begin on July 7, 2020, and a court
ordered mediation was scheduled for April 30, 2020.

On April 7, 2020, Quorum Health Corporation and 134 affiliated
companies filed petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware seeking relief under chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code.

Quorum Health said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcome
of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that the Company
may incur a loss. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
amount or range of such possible loss. Under some circumstances,
losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in this matter
could be material."

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and
acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical
care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


RIDER UNIVERSITY: Quiroz Sues Over Failure to Refund Tuition Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joscelyn Quiroz and Samuel Quiroz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RIDER UNIVERSITY, Case No.
3:20-cv-05620 (D.N.J., May 6, 2020), arises from the Defendant's
failure to refund tuition and fees.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Rider, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the educational and related
services and facilities for which they paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 17, 2020, Rider announced via news release that because of
the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes would be
suspended effective March 30, 2020 (the first day back from Spring
Break). The announcement informed students that all classes would
instead be held remotely through online formats. Since March 13,
2020, Rider has not held any in-person classes. The closure of
Rider's campuses has been extended through the end of Spring
Semester 2020. Classes that have continued have only been offered
in an online format, with no in-person instruction.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiffs and the putative
class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The
online learning options being offered to Quinnipiac students are
subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities,
materials, and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of
the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue,
feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way
the equivalent of the in-person education that the Plaintiffs and
the putative class members contracted and paid for.

The Plaintiffs contend that it and the putative class are therefore
entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational
services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that the
Defendant has not provided. Even if Rider claims it did not have a
choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Joscelyn Quiroz is an undergraduate student at Rider, and
paid approximately $3,711 in tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
semester. Plaintiff Samuel Quiroz is the parent of Ms. Quiroz.

Rider is a large private university, with an enrollment of
approximately 5,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford & Josten Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended February 29, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Byron Stafford v.
Rite Aid Corp.

The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.

A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was
consolidated with this lawsuit in November, 2019.

The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated
to charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and
customary" price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company
failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to either
predict the outcome or estimate a potential range of loss and is
defending itself against these claims.

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

Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates
through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite
Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Sued by Lemons for Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Lemons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-03124 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2020),
is brought to seek damages and penalties, as well as interest,
attorney's fees, costs, and injunctive relief, all under California
law, including the California Labor Code; IWC Wage Order;
California Code of Civil Procedure; and California Business &
Professions Code.

The Plaintiffs have been injured by the Defendants' failure to pay
wages, including minimum wages, for all hours worked; failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure
to furnish accurate wage statements; failure to pay all wages due
on regularly-scheduled paydays; failure to pay all wages due at
termination of employment; and unfair and unlawful business
practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt retail employee at the Rite
Aid store in Vallejo, California.

Rite Aid operates retail stores throughout the United States,
including approximately 550 stores in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport St., Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510.817.2711
          Fax: 510.562.6830
          Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
                 rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                 hvr@asmlawyers.com
                 caj@asmlawyers.com
                 bar@asmlawyers.com


SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Faces Cwikla Suit Alleging Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
AMES CWIKLA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES,
LLC, and SCSC ENTERPRISES INC., and STEVE CESTARO, individually,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01976 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2020), seeks to recover
damages and equitable relief based upon violations committed on the
Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the anti-retaliation
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As a result of his participation as an opt-in plaintiff in the
FLSA/New York Labor Law wage and hour collective and class action
entitled Egan, et al. v. Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC, et
al., Case No. 18-cv-2052-RJD-PK (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2019), the
Defendants retaliated by terminating his employment in violation of
the FLSA and the NYLL, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendants similarly took actions to discourage and/or threaten
other non-managerial laborers from participating in the Egan
action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial laborer
from March 6, 2017, to February 15, 2020.

The Defendants are two site development and utilities construction
companies that operate as a single enterprise based in Maspeth, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
         Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
         Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
         BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
         655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 679-5000

              - and -

         Keith J. Frank, Esq.
         MORITT HOCK & HAMROFF LLP
         400 Garden City Plaza
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 873-2000


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Class Status Sought in Educational Plan Litig.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as A.M., a minor, by and through
Guardians Ad Litem Lisa Mendez and Anthony Mendez; Lisa Mendez, an
individual; and Anthony Mendez, an individual v. San Bernardino
County Superintendent of Schools, a government entity, Case No.
5:19-cv-01944-PSG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on June 15, 2020 for an order:

   1. certifying that this case is maintainable as a class
      action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2);

   2. certifying the Student Class, defined as:

      "all students, whether minors or adults, who, during the
      Class Period (a) were or are on an Individualized
      Education Plan or 504 plan; and (b) were or are enrolled
      in any educational program administered or supervised by
      the Defendant;

   3. appointing A.M. as the representative plaintiff of the
      Student Class;

   4. certifying the Guardian Class, defined as:

      "all persons who have acted in any of the following
      capacities in relation to a member of the Student Class
      during the Class Period: (a) parent (custodial or non-19
      custodial); or (b) legal guardian"

   5. appointing Lisa Mendez and Anthony Mendez as
      representative plaintiffs for the Guardian Class;

   6. appointing RMO LLP as class counsel for both the Student
      Class and the Guardian Class; and

   7. approving the proposed notice to class members, filed
      concurrently with this motion.

The San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools office acts as
an intermediate service agency between the California Department of
Education and the 33 school districts in San Bernardino County to
help meet the educational needs of all children county-wide.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott E. Rahn, Esq.
          Sean D. Muntz, Esq.
          David G. Greco, Esq.
          Amy E. Martinez, Esq.
          RMO LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 320-9444
          E-mail: rahns@rmolawyers.com
                  muntzs@rmolawyers.com
                  grecod@rmolawyers.com
                  martineza@rmolawyers.com
                  service@rmolawyers.com

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Denies Claims for COVID-19 Losses, GV Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GV KB STORE LLC d/b/a Stefano Versace Gelato, a Florida limited
liability company, and GV SIESTAKEY LLC d/b/a Stefano Versace
Gelato, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SCOTTSDALE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-21815-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 1,
2020), asserts claims against the Defendant for denying business
interruption coverage, extra expense coverage, and additional
coverages to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated all-risk
commercial property insurance policyholders.

The Plaintiffs contend that these policyholders have suffered
business income losses and related covered expenses resulting from
the national emergency and resulting economic lock down due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
national emergency declared over the spread of COVID-19 constitutes
physical loss or damage to the insured property, triggering
coverage under business income loss and extra expense coverage
provisions, and generally under the "all-risk" provisions of the
standardized policies.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders, who paid premiums in exchange for all-risk
commercial property insurance policies that include lost business
income, extra expense and civil authority coverages and do not
include exclusions for pandemics or presence of viruses.

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, President Donald J. Trump,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and members of the
White House Coronavirus Task Force issued guidance to the American
public, styled as "30 Days to Slow the Spread," to arrest the
spread of COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs own, operate, manage and control restaurants that
serve ice cream and related food and beverage.

Scottsdale provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
          Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
          Robert Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com
                  bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  jal@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com


SEABOARD CORP: Bid to Dismiss Pork Antitrust Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation, remains pending.

On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and eleven other indirect purchasers
of pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and
Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data
sharing service.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the
District Court. The complaints were amended and consolidated for
pre-trial purposes, into three consolidated putative class actions
brought on behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect
purchasers and (c) commercial and institutional indirect
purchasers. The amended complaints named Seaboard Corporation as an
additional defendant.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.

Subsequent to the original filings, two additional actions making
similar claims, including one by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
were brought in or transferred to the District Court.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and limiting
production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public
information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through
Agri Stats, Inc.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also included causes of action under various state laws,
including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection statutes and state common law claims for unjust
enrichment.

The complaints also alleged that the defendants concealed this
conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative
classes.

The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes.

On August 8, 2019, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action cases while giving the plaintiffs leave to
amend. The classes and the other two plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in November and December 2019.

In addition to amending the original claims, the consumer indirect
purchasers have asserted a new claim alleging that the exchange of
information by defendants through Agri Stats Inc. unreasonably
restrained trade.

On January 15, 2020, the defendants, including Seaboard, moved to
dismiss the amended complaints. Seaboard intends to defend these
cases vigorously.

Seaboard said, "It is impossible at this stage either to determine
the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting
from these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential
loss or range of potential loss, if any, resulting from the
suits."

Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division
produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins,
and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors,
food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail
outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is
headquartered in Merriam, Kansas.


SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Simon Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Simon, and other similarly situated individuals v. SELENIS
TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction, CERRONI ENGINEERING
LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction, UWE CERRON, and VALERIO CERRON,
Case No. 1:20-cv-21901-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2020), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed services and worked in excess of the
maximum hours provided by the FLSA but no provision was made by the
Defendants to properly pay him at the rate of time and one half for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as provided in
the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from July 2019 through
December 15, 2019.

The Defendants are Florida companies having their main place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (305) 652-5859
          Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


SENTINEL INSURANCE: Hair Perfect Seeks Coverage for COVID Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAIR PERFECT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. SENTINEL INSURANCE
COMPANY, LIMITED, d/b/a THE HARTFORD, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03729 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2020) alleges that Defendant
failed to provide insurance coverage for the losses sustained and
expenses incurred by Plaintiffs because of the ongoing Coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic.

The Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Defendant,
including special property coverage, as set forth in Defendant's
Special Property Coverage Form to protect its business in the event
that it suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of
its control.

Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business due to COVID-19
and the resultant orders issued by the Governor of California and
the City of Pasadena mandating the suspension of business like
Plaintiff's as well as to take necessary steps to prevent further
damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue
operations.

According to the complaint, Defendant has, on a widescale and
uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages
for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil
authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations.
Indeed, Defendant has denied Plaintiff's claim under its policy.

As a result of Defendant's breaches of the Policies, Plaintiff and
the other Business Income Breach Class members have sustained
substantial damages for which Defendant is liable in an amount to
be established at trial.

Sentinel Insurance Company operates as an insurance company
headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Thomas J. Johnston, Esq.
            Nicholas M. Hutchinson, Esq.
            JOHNSTON & HUTCHINSON LLP  
            Two California Plaza
            350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2220
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 542-1978
            Facsimile: (213) 542-1977
            Email: tjj@johnstonhutchinson.com
                   nmh@johnstonhutchinson.com

                      – and –

            Patrick A. Luff, Esq.
            Miriah A. Soliz, Esq.
            THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP
            3700 Montrose Blvd.
            Houston, TX 77006
            Telephone: (713) 523-1606
            Facsimile: (713) 523-4159
            Email: patrick.luff@ammonslaw.com
                   miriah@ammonslaw.com

SETON HALL: Schoening Sues Over Failure to Refund Tuition & Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Schoening, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05566
(D.N.J., May 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the Seton
Hall, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the educational and related
services and facilities for which they paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.

Effective March 11, 2020, Seton Hall suspended all classes for the
Spring 2020 semester because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Seton
Hall has not held any in-person classes since March 10, 2020.
Classes that have continued have only been offered in an online
format, with no in-person instruction. As a result of the closure
of the Defendant's facilities, the Defendant has not delivered the
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
he and the putative class contracted and paid for, Mr. Schoening
contends.

The Plaintiffs asserts that the online learning options being
offered to Seton Hall students are subpar in practically every
aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to
faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity for
collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and
critique. The remote learning options are in no way the equivalent
of the in-person education that he and the putative class members
contracted and paid for, the Plaintiff avers. Nonetheless, he adds,
Seton Hall has not refunded any tuition or mandatory fees for the
Spring 2020 semester.

The Plaintiff and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a
refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not
provided, says the complaint. Even if the Defendant did not have a
choice in cancelling in person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing.

The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student at Seton Hall pursuing a
Bachelor's Degree in International Relations, with minors in German
and Economics.

Seton Hall is one of the country's most preeminent universities,
with an enrollment of over 10,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SNAP INC: Settlement in IPO Class Suit Wins Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the settlement in the class action
related to the company's initial public offering (IPO) has been
granted preliminary approval.

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for the company's initial public
offering (IPO) were named as defendants in securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's Class
A common stock, alleging violation of securities laws that arose
following the company's IPO.

On January 17, 2020, the company reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the securities class actions. The preliminary settlement
agreement was signed in January 2020 and provided for a resolution
of all of the pending claims in the securities class actions for
$187.5 million.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, the company recorded legal expense,
net of amounts directly covered by insurance, of $100.0 million for
the expected settlement of the stockholder actions since the
company concluded the loss was probable and estimable.

Snap said, "The amount was recorded in general and administrative
expense in our consolidated statements of operations."

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


SONENDO INC: Misclassifies Field Service Engineers, Fite Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARRY MICHAEL FITE, JEFFREY AIDEN GREY, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. SONENDO, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00833 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying and
failing to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs and other Field
Service Engineers.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant employed them and other
Field Service Engineers on a salary basis and classified them as
exempt under the FLSA. The Defendant regularly forced them work in
excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, they
add.

The Plaintiffs are former Field Service Engineers employed by the
Defendant.

Sonendo is a dental technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          G. Samule Cleaver, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. SAMUEL CLEAVER
          5670 Wilshire Blvd., 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (213) 568-4088
          Facsimile: (213) 568-4105
          E-mail: sam@gscleaverlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin j. Dolley, Esq.
          James C. Keaney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
                  james.keaney@dolleylaw.com


SOUTHERN OAKS: Burgess FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JANE BURGESS, and those
others that are similarly situated v. SOUTHERN OAKS FACILITY, INC.
d/b/a SOUTHERN OAKS CARE CENTER, and MICHAEL BLEICH, Case No.
2020-CA-000437 (Filed March 25, 2020), was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court in and for Escambia County to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida on May 1, 2020.

The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05439-RV-HTC to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Southern Oaks is a nursing and rehabilitation center.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Todd R. Dobry, Esq.
          Amanda A. Simpson, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 246-8440
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8441
          E-mail: todd.dobry@jacksonlewis.com
                  amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Clark Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Clark, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, FLYWHEEL ENERGY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, and FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-00475-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 5, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff and other Well Tender Pumpers regularly worked over
forty hours per week. The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff of
regular wages and overtime compensation for all of the hours worked
over 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid Well
Tender Pumper from June 2014 to November 2017.

The Defendants are an independent oil and natural gas
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SRI THAI CORP: Godines Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIANO GODINES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SRI THAI CORP., (D/B/A AS THIP OSHA) ANON THEPOUYPORN,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01988 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the
hours over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate record keeping of his hours worked,
failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked over 40,
either at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the required
"spread of hours pay" for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day, he adds.

The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate or control a Thai Restaurant under the
name "THIP OSHA" in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-203-2417


STATE AUTO: Faces Young Blood Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Auto Property
and Casualty Insurance Co. The case is styled as Young Blood Coffee
Roasters, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Co., Case
No. 0:20-cv-01076-PJS-KMM (D. Minn., May 4, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company provides
insurance services. The Company offers business, home, auto,
condos, renters, umbrella, farm and ranch, and casualty insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew James Barber, Esq.
          William R. Sieben, Esq.
          SCHWEBEL, GOETZ & SIEBEN
          5120 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 377-7777
          Fax: (612) 333-6311
          Email: mbarber@schwebel.com
                 wsieben@schwebel.com


STUBHUB INC: Reynolds Sues Over Unlawful Changes in Refund Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Reynolds, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and LAST MINUTE
TRANSACTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-03508-AKH (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' illegal action in retroactively discontinuing its
refund policy.

The lawsuit is brought against Defendants for: breach of contract;
conversion; negligent misrepresentation; violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violations of the unlawful prong
California's Unfair Competition Law; violations of the unfair prong
of the UCL; and violations of California's False Advertising Law.

In the midst of the greatest public health and economic crisis in
living memory, the Defendants have sought to surreptitiously shift
their losses onto their innocent customers, furthering the
financial hardship endured by people across the country, according
to the complaint. Adding insult to injury, the Defendants
repeatedly claim to be doing this for the benefit and/or
convenience of their now-disgruntled customers and refuse to take
responsibility for the hardships that they have created.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have quietly sought to
force their buyers to endure the financial losses that the
Defendants' own guarantee created for the Defendants in the
entirely foreseeable scenario that world occurrences would cause
the simultaneous cancellation of numerous public events. Instead of
instituting responsible financial transaction policies, she notes,
the Defendants made it their practice to pay ticket sellers before
the event had occurred, exposing themselves to the possibility that
they would be left holding the bag (or have to ignore their own
guarantee and cheat their customers) if an event was cancelled and
they could not promptly collect from sellers.

Until March 25, 2020, the FanProtect guarantee promised that if a
StubHub user purchased tickets to any event through Stubhub, and
the event was cancelled, the user would receive a full, money-back
refund for their purchase.

The Plaintiff created a StubHub account on January 8, 2020. The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class of
similarly situated individuals, who were deprived of the benefit of
the Defendants' longstanding "FanProtect" guarantee when, in
response to apparent liabilities it would incur stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants sought to retroactively
discontinue the essential function of FanProtect.

The Defendants own and operate the world's largest "secondary
market" for event tickets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis J. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS J. JOHNSON, JR., L.L.C.
          500 Paterson Plank Road
          Union City, NJ 07087
          Phone: (201) 552-6858
          Fax: (201) 552-6857
          Email: ljohnson@louisjohnsonlaw.com


SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Nix Securities Suit over ADS Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlands Technology Group said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
seeking dismissal of the securities class action suit related to
its American Depositary Shares (ADSs).

In June 2019, the Company, and certain of its current and former
directors and officers and the Company's underwriters in its
initial public offering were named as defendants in a securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Amended complaints in this class action were filed in November
2019.

The action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who
allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the
American Depositary Shares (ADSs), alleges that the company's
registration statement on Form F-1 in connection with its March
2018 initial public offering contains material misstatements and
omissions in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the action in March 2020.

Sunlands siad, "We are currently unable to estimate the potential
loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits, if
they proceed. We believe this case is without merit and intend to
defend the actions vigorously."

Sunlands Technology Group provides educational services. The
Company offers programs in engineering, accounting, human resource
management, finance, and languages. Sunlands Technology Group
serves students in China.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Stichting Complaint Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiffs in the class
action suit headed by Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets
Equity Pool, are taking an appeal from a trial court decision in a
class action lawsuit to the United States Court of Appeal for the
Second Circuit.

On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v.
Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company
and two of its officers.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning the Company’s underwriting practices and
private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative
class.

On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting a new
claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with
statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1,
2017 note offering.

The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to
the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and
November 1, 2018.

The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional
Company officers, the Company's board of directors, and the
underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering. The amended
complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets
Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool
v. Synchrony Financial et al.

On March 31, 2020, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

On April 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the decision
to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.

Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Synchrony Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class suits alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) violations.

Synchrony Bank or Synchrony Financial is, or has been, defending a
number of putative class actions alleging claims under the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a result of phone calls made
by the Bank.

The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company
placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system
or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without
specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The
original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April
7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.

Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Synchrony Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Ryan Sues Over Refusal to Provide Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Ryan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:20-cv-02164 (E.D. Pa.,
May 5, 2020), is brought to seek refunds as a result of the
Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease pandemic.

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020
semester either out of pockets or by utilizing student loan
financing, or otherwise.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Carper, Esq.
          CARPEY LAW, P.C.
          600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
          Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
          Phone: (610) 834-6030
          Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com


TRUMAN ROAD: Court Denies Smith Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ZACHARY SMITH and BRIAN
KAGARICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRUMAN ROAD DEVELOPMENT, LLC d/b/a NO OTHER PUB, THE
CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00670-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette
K. Laughrey entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion partial summary judgment;

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
      motion for summary judgment;

   3. denying the Defendants' motion to exclude expert
      testimony; and

   4. denying Plaintiff Smith's motion for class certification
      of:

      "all individuals who provided their phone number to No
      Other Pub on a sign-in sheet and who received a text
      message from No Other

Judge Laughrey said, "the Court has granted summary judgment to
Defendants on claim for using an automatic telephone dialing system
to send text messages without consent. Therefore, the Smith's
motion to certify a class based on this claim is now moot, and the
Court will deny the motion. [The] Advisory Committee Notes [under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23] similarly permit summary judgment rulings before
class certification."[CC]


TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Bertrim Suit Moved From California to Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JARED BERTRIM, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS
CORPORATION, PATRICIA A. STITZEL, CHRISTOPHER D. O'LEARY, CASSANDRA
HARRIS, and MICHAEL POTESHMAN, the Defendants, and Charles Rosson,
Johnny Yim, David Doremus, Patricia Clark, Srikalahasti M. Vagvala,
Jeffrey M. Jaramillo, Karl Thomas, and Michele Terry, the Movants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01798, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on April 30,
2020.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:20-cv-00757-RBD-EJK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr.

Tupperware is an American multinational multi-level marketing
company. The Company's main focus is kitchen and household
products, particularly plastic containers for food storage and
preparation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jodi E Lopez, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600

The Movants are represented by:

          Adam C McCall, Esq.
          LEVI AND KORSINSKY LLP
          445 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 985-7290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121

               - and -

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
          912 Cole St Ste 251
          San Francisco, CA 94117-4316
          Telephone: (415) 459-6900
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1493

               - and -

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

               - and -

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885


TWIN STONE: Gonazalez Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LIORBIS GONAZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TWIN STONE DESIGNS AND INSTALLATION INC.;
MAYRA PARENTE, individually; and PLINIO MEDINA, individually, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60884-RS (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff's similarly
situated co-workers, installers, finishers, helpers, and other
manual workers (Laborers), who work or have worked at all the
Defendants' job sites.

The Plaintiff contends that despite working over 40 hours and being
a non-exempt employee, the Defendants did not pay 1.5 times his
regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendants from January 2018 through June 2018,
then again from October 2018 through January 2020.

Based out of Hollywood, Florida, Twin Stone supplies natural stone
and tile materials and installation services to construction
projects throughout Florida and around the United States. The
Individual Defendants are owners and operators of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


UNION PACIFIC: 8th Cir. Panel Decertifies ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a panel of judges of
the U.S. Court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decertified
the class action related to the company's alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act.

As reported in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in 2016 in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (the
District Court-Washington) alleging violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act relating to Fitness for Duty requirements for
safety sensitive positions.

On August 8, 2016, the District Court-Washington granted
plaintiffs' motion to transfer their claim to the U.S. District
Court of Nebraska (the District Court-Nebraska).

On February 5, 2019, the District Court-Nebraska granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the ADA allegations as a class
action.

The company was granted the right to appeal this class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
(the Eighth Circuit) on March 13, 2019 and the matter was argued
before the Eighth Circuit in November 2019.

On March 24, 2020, a panel of Eighth Circuit judges issued a
decision overturning the District Court-Nebraska and decertified
the class action.

Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that they will not pursue an
appeal of the Eighth Circuit's decision and will instead pursue
former class members' individual potential ADA claims.

Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, engages in the railroad business in the United
States. Union Pacific Corporation was founded in 1862 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Mediation Underway in Meyer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Microelectronics Corporation said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that mediation
is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Meyer v. United
Microelectronics Corporation.

On March 14, 2019, a putative class action styled Meyer v. United
Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) and several executives, was
filed under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff
counsel on May 23, 2019.

On September 27, 2019, UMC received the service of plaintiffs'
amended complaint and appointed counsels to prepare the relevant
procedures.

Currently the mediation process is ongoing.

The Company does not expect material financial impact resulting
from this claim.

United Microelectronics Corporation is a Taiwanese company which is
based in Hsinchu, Taiwan. It was founded as Taiwan's first
semiconductor company in 1980 as a spin-off of the
government-sponsored Industrial Technology Research Institute. The
company is based in Hsinchu City, Taiwan, Republic of China.


UNITED STATES: CARES Act Deprives Constitutional Rights, Doe Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his individual and official capacity as
President of the United States; MITCH MCCONNELL, in his individual
and official capacity as a Senator and Sponsor of S. 3548 CARES
Act; and STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his individual and official capacity as
the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury; CHARLES
RETTIG, in his individual and official capacity as U.S.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
the U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; and the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Case No. 8:20-cv-00858 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2020), is
brought based upon the Defendants' unconstitutional deprivation of
the rights, privileges, benefits and/or protections provided to
United States Citizens, via the enactment and subsequent
enforcement of the S. 3548-Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act, both enactment and enforcement of which evidence the
discriminatory purpose and intent of said Act.

The civil rights action challenges the CARES Act on constitutional
grounds. The Plaintiffs contends that the CARES Act denies
tax-paying U.S. citizens their rights, privileges, benefits and/or
protections embodied in the CARES Act which, as part of its
provisions, amends Subchapter B of chapter 65 of subtitle F of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, by adding a new section 6428,
entitled "2020 Recovery Rebates For Individuals." Sec. 6428
authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to disburse $1,200.00 to
each "eligible individual" earning up to $75,000.00 in adjusted
gross income who have a Social Security number, and an additional
$500.00 for each child under the age of 17.

The Plaintiff is defined as an "eligible individual" because she is
neither a "nonresident alien individual" nor a dependent child. The
Plaintiff Jane Doe's children are also defined as "qualifying" for
the Stimulus Checks under Sec. 6428 because the children are under
the age of 17 and live in the United States. However, Section 6428
also requires an eligible individual's spouse to have provided a
"valid identification number" on the most recent tax return filed
jointly with the IRS.

The Plaintiff asserts that she did not receive a Stimulus Check
because her spouse lacks a social security number. But for her
spouse lacking a social security number, Plaintiff Doe would have
received a Stimulus Check for herself and her children under the
CARES Act. Had the Plaintiff not been married to an immigrant with
an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, she and her children
would have otherwise qualified for a Stimulus Check. There is no
mechanism by which the Plaintiff can dispute the government's
decision to deny her a Stimulus Check, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who possesses a social security
number and whose spouse lacks a social security number.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his individual and official capacity as
President of the United States, is the President of the United
States who signed the CARES Act into law on March 27, 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
          Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          Elisabeth A. Gavin, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 448-6602
          Fax: (312) 803-194
          Email: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com
                 hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com

               - and -

          Vivian Khalaf, Esq.
          Omar Abuzir, Esq.
          KHALAF & ABUZIR, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Suite 720
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (708) 233-1122
          Fax: (708) 233-1161
          Email: vkhalaf@immigrationjd.com


UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: Brandmeyer Seeks Refund Amid COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIRE BRANDMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02886 (N.D. Cal., April 27,
2020) is a class action brought on behalf of all people who paid
fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester or quarter at any of the
ten campuses within the University of California system and who,
because of University of California's response and policies
relating to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID19")
pandemic, lost the benefits of the services for which their fees
were paid, without having a pro-rated portion of those fees and
costs refunded to them in full and without condition.

By on or about March 14, 2020, University of California had
announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic and mass
gathering guidelines implemented by the California Department of
Health, classes at all University of California campuses would
transition from in-person classes to online classes for the
remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. In mid-March, students were
encouraged to move off of their campuses unless they had no other
option. All athletic events and other co-curricular activities were
also suspended. Students were encouraged to return to their homes
to complete their coursework online.

Despite its constructive eviction of students from campus for the
remainder of the semester and ending all campus activities for at
least that same time period, University of California has not
offered refunds to students for the unused portion of their campus
fees paid to cover the cost of certain on-campus services which are
no longer available to students.  University of California is, in
essence, profiting from this pandemic.

University of California's decision to transition to online classes
and to instruct students to leave campus were responsible decisions
to make, but it is unfair and unlawful for University of California
to retain fees and costs and to pass the losses on to the students
and/or their families.

Plaintiff brings this class action for injunctive, declaratory, and
equitable relief resulting from University of California's illegal,
unfair, or deceptive conduct, namely retaining the costs of fees
paid by Plaintiff and the other Class members, while ceasing to
provide services to Plaintiff and the other Class members (or the
students on behalf of who Plaintiff and Class members paid these
expenses) for which their fees paid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            C. Moze Cowper
            Noel E. Garcia
            COWPER LAW PC
            10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1840
            Los Angeles, CA 90024
            Telephone: (877) 529-3707
            Email: mcowper@cowperlaw.com
                   ngarcia@cowperlaw.com

                        - and -

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

                        - and -

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

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Burnett Seeks Refund Amid COVID-19 Closure
------------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY J. BURNETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SYSTEM, through its governing body, the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, and UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE, a constituent institution, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00103-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C., April 27, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' decision to
close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all
classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel
Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19").

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for Defendants to do, this decision deprived Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class from recognizing the benefits of
in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student
activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which
they had already paid fees and tuition.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have either refused to
provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that
Defendants are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate
and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss.

This action seeks refunds of the amount Plaintiff and other members
of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other
damages.

Plaintiff is not suing to recover monies paid by taxes to the
University; rather, Plaintiff files suit against the Board of
Governors of The University of North Carolina System, a body
politic and corporate that may be sued, for specific disgorgement
of fees and monies paid by students and their parents, guardians,
and families for access and services not received.

The University of North Carolina System, is the multi-campus public
university system for the state of North Carolina, consisting of 17
constituent institutions throughout the state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Travis D. Hilka, Esq.
            Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
            Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
            ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
            32 Ann Street
            Charleston, SC 29403
            Telephone: (843) 614-8888
            Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
            Email: travis@akimlawfirm.com
                   eric@akimlawfirm.com
                   roy@akimlawfirm.com

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Dieckhaus Seeks Refund Amid COVID Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEENA DIECKHAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM,
through its governing body, the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, and UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE, a constituent institution, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00069-BR (E.D.N.C., April 27, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' decision to close campus,
constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an
online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease
("COVID-19").

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for Defendants to do, this decision deprived Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class from recognizing the benefits of
in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student
activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which
they had already paid fees and tuition.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have either refused to
provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that
Defendants are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate
and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss.

This action seeks refunds of the amount Plaintiff and other members
of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other
damages.

Plaintiff is not suing to recover monies paid by taxes to the
University; rather, Plaintiff files suit against the Board of
Governors of The University of North Carolina System, a body
politic and corporate that may be sued, for specific disgorgement
of fees and monies paid by students and their parents, guardians,
and families for access and services not received.

The University of North Carolina System, is the multi-campus public
university system for the state of North Carolina, consisting of 17
constituent institutions throughout the state.[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
            Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
            Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                   roy@akimlawfirm.com

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Dimitryuk Seeks Tuition Refund Amid COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIA DIMITRYUK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Defendant, Case No.
0:20-cv-60851-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all people who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the
University of Miami, and who, because of Defendant's response to
the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the
benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services
or which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and
fees refunded to them.

As a result of the closure of Defendant's facilities due to the the
global COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant has not delivered the
educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for.  The
online learning options being offered to University of Miami
students are subpar in practically every aspect, from the lack of
facilities, materials, and access to faculty. Students have been
deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and
in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote learning
options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person education
that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid
for.

Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund
of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not provided.  Even
if Defendant claims it did not have a choice in cancelling
in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly retained funds
for services it is not providing.

University of Miami is a private university with a total enrollment
of approximately 17,331 students. The university offers over 180
undergraduate degree programs, graduate level degree programs as
well as an online program called UOnline which offers various
graduate-level degrees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
            Miami, FL 33133
            Telephone: (305) 330-5512
            Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
            Email: swestcot@bursor.com

                       - and -  

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


US BANCORP: David S. Lowry Challenges Distribution of PPP Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID S. LOWRY, CPA, LTD., an Ohio limited partnership,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals v. U.S. BANCORP., U.S. BANK, N.A.; THE
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC, PNC BANK N.A.; HUNTINGTON
BANCSHARES, INC., HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK; FIRST FINANCIAL
BANCORP., FIRST FINANCIAL BANK; FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, FIFTH THIRD
BANK; THE NORTH SIDE BANK & TRUST COMPANY; and; DOE LENDERS 1 to
4,975, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00348-MWM (S.D. Ohio, April 30,
2020), alleges that the Defendants did not comply with the United
States Small Business Administration (SBA) or Treasury Regulations
in distributing the Paycheck Protection Program funds.

Instead, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants either retained all of
the Agent Fees or stated that they would only pay to the Agent 50%
of the required fees. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
are refusing to pay or are willing to pay only a partial percentage
of the monies owed to Agents.

The Defendants served as the intermediary between small businesses
and federal funds. The Plaintiffs served as the Agent for the small
businesses applying for the PPP loans with the Defendants. The
Defendants received approval from the SBA and funded loans for
numerous businesses, yet the Defendants failed to issue
compensation to the Plaintiffs (or Agents) that facilitated the
loan process between Lenders and applicants, the Plaintiff
asserts.

U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company that provides
banking, investment, mortgage, trust and payment services to
individuals, businesses, governmental entities, and other financial
institutions. U.S. Bank N.A. operates more than 3,000 banking
offices and nearly 5,000 ATMS, and provides a comprehensive line of
banking, brokerage, insurance, investment, mortgage, trust and
payment-services products to consumers, businesses and
institutions.

PNC Financial is a Pennsylvania corporation and the parent company
of PNC Bank, N.A. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is an
American bank holding company and financial services
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          G. Todd Hoffpauir, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 768-5238
          Facsimile: (513) 768-5238
          E-mail: thoffpauir@mojolaw.com
                  mstubbs@mojolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          MARK J. GERAGOS, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26565 Calabasas Road, Suite 102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834
          E-mail: meadler@graylawinc.com

               - and -

          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          Historic Engine Co. No. 28
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
          E-mail: mark@geragos.com
                  ben@geragos.com

               - and -

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
          E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
                  nsingh@dhillionlaw.com


VAIL RESORTS: Clarke Seeks Refund of Unused Ski Ticket
------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN CLARKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE VAIL CORPORATION, d/b/a VAIL RESORTS
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01163 (D. Colo.,
April 24, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violation of Colorado Consumer Protection
Act, breach of express warranty, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff has purchased an Epic Pass to ski at the Vail Resorts
owned resorts in the 2019-2020 ski season.

According to the complaint, Defendant sold Epic Passes promising
"unlimited, unrestricted skiing at its best resorts for the
2019-2020 season that will be on October 15, 2019 to April 15,
2020. However, Defendant announced on March 14, 2020 on its website
that its mountain resorts will be closed for one week in light of
the COVID-19 pandemic, its North American resorts and retail stores
will be closed for the 2019-20 ski season, and explicitly stated
that the passes are non-refundable and non-transferable to another
season.

The complaint asserts that Defendant has breached its contracts
with Plaintiff and class members and unjustly enriched itself by
retaining passholder fees of hundreds of thousands of consumers
nationwide, thereby causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of
the Class because they would not have paid Defendant's pass fees if
they had known the facts.

The Vail Corporation d/b/a VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY operates
more than 34 North American ski resorts throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig R. Valentine, Esq.
          NORTON FRICKEY, P.C.
          2301 E. Pikes Peak Ave., Suite 205
          Colorado Springs, CO 80909
          Tel: (719)634-6450
          Fax: (719)634-6807
          Email: craig@coloradolaw.com

                - and –

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1200 G Street NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Tel: (844)204-9965
          Fax: (866)734-0622
          Email: stuart@paynterlaw.com


VITOL INC: PWDI Sues Over Violation of Unfair Competition Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.;
and SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-03131 (N.D.
Cal., May 6, 2020), is brought for damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief against the Defendants arising from their
violations of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and
the California Unfair Competition Law.

The lawsuit involves agreements that are per se unlawful among
horizontal competitors--Vitol, SK Energy, and SK Trading and
certain of their employees--to restrain competition by in the spot
market for gasoline formulated for use in California and in certain
gasoline blending components used in that gasoline. Between
February 18, 2015, and December 31, 2016, the Defendants were
participants in the spot market for delivery of refined gasoline
and gasoline blending components to refineries located in the San
Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles.

The Defendants' illegal scheme commenced as a result of a
disruption in certain refining capacity that occurred at the
ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California, on February 18, 2015.
Portions of that refinery--specifically the refinery's cracking
unit--exploded in the early morning hours of February 18, 2015,
and, as a result, eliminated certain portions of that refinery's
ability to refine alkylates that are blended with gasoline in order
to boost octane ratings between February 2015 and June 2016.

Immediately upon learning of the explosion at the Torrance
refinery, the Defendants Vitol and SK Energy negotiated large
contracts to supply gasoline and gasoline blending components for
delivery in California. The largest of these contracts exceeded
more than ten million gallons. Additionally, the Defendants Vitol
and SK Energy agreed with each other to manipulate the spot market
price for refined gasoline and gasoline blending components so that
they could realize windfall profits on these contracts. The
Defendants further entered into agreements with each other to share
the profits and disguise their illegal conduct, according to the
complaint.

Plaintiff PWDI purchased millions of dollars of fuel at retail
during the Class Period. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants'
agreements violated the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act,
and they constituted unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practices in
violation of the UCL. The Plaintiff contends that it and the Class
were injured because they paid more for gasoline within the State
of California than they would have paid in a retail gasoline market
untainted by the Defendants' illegal conduct.

The Defendants are major traders in the California spot market for
gasoline and gasoline blending products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Samantha Stein, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery St. #3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 633-1908
          Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                 clebsock@hausfeld.com
                 sstein@hausfeld.com

               - and –

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                 lalbert@glancylaw.com


W&W ENERGY: Campos Seeks Overtime Pay for Tool Pushers
------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR PEREZ CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W&W Energy Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00102 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2020) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for
its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Tool Pusher, a non-exempt
hourly employee paid a per diem, from approximately August 2019
until approximately February 2020, and continues to work for
Defendant as a laborer until the present.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff generally worked over 40
hours per week throughout his employment as a tool pusher and
laborer.  Despite regularly working over 40 hours per workweek,
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff with the proper overtime
compensation of 1.5 times his regular rate of pay, which should
have included all per diem payments.

W&W Energy Services, Inc. provides services in facility projects
and construction, engineering and design, pipeline construction,
field management, tank and equipment hauling, pre-case concrete,
equipment rentals, and specialty truck hauling, among others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando a. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212)300-0375


WAL-MART STORES: Assistant Store Managers Can't Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SUNDEL QUILES, et al., v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC. d/b/a WALMART, Case No. 2:16-cv-09479-MCA-ESK
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo has denied the
Plaintiffs' request to certify a proposed classes.

The Plaintiffs include Victoria J. Martin, James M. Shea, Angela
Cox, and George J. Bray, Jr.  According to a Law360 report, the
Plaintiffs are overnight assistant store managers who allege that
Walmart misclassified them as overtime exempt even though they
primarily spent their shifts stocking and shelving.  The court held
that their duties varied too much for class treatment.

A telephone status conference is set for May 28, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
before Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[CC]

WALGREEN CO: Court Denies Le's Bid to Certify Pharmacists Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARCIE LE, et al., v.
WALGREEN CO., et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

   "all persons who are and/or were employed as non-exempt
   pharmacists by Walgreens in any Walgreens' California retail
   store or express pharmacy between July 27, 2014 and the date
   of trial."

The Court said, "Given that the Plaintiffs' rest break claim does
not survive the predominance analysis, the Plaintiffs' derivative
claims are also not appropriate for class certification. In sum,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not met the burden of
demonstrating that the California Class satisfy the requirements of
[Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied
as to the derivative claims."

Walgreen is an American company that operates as the second-largest
pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS Health.[CC]

WARNER BROS: O'Connor Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL O'CONNOR, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WARNER BROS.
ANIMATION INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case
No. 20BCCV00239 (Filed March 23, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03980 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code.

Warner Bros. Animation is an American animation studio owned by
Warner Bros. Entertainment. The Studio is closely associated with
the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters.[BN]

Warner Bros. Animation Inc. is represented by:

          Emma Luevano, Esq.
          Louise Truong, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          2040 Century Park East, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 312-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
          E-mail: eyl@msk.com
                  ltt@msk.com


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces AD Sims Suit Over PPP Loan Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.D. SIMS, LLC, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals v. WINTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
WINTRUST BANK, N.A; BANK OF AMERICA CO.; BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;
RETAIL CAPITAL LLC DBA CREDIBLY; MODERN BANK MANAGEMENT, LLC;
MODERN BANK N.A.; CRB GROUP INC.; CROSS RIVER BANK, INC.; BLUEVINE
CAPITAL INC.; and; DOE LENDERS 1 to 4,975, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-02644 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants did not comply with the Small Business Administration
Regulations in distributing Paycheck Protection Program funds, in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

Instead, the Defendants either retained all of the Agent Fees, or
informed Agents that they would be paid only 50% of the mandated
fees, according to the complaint. As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered financial harm by
being deprived of the statutorily mandated compensation for the
professional services that it provided in connection to assisting
its clients in applying for and obtaining PPP loans.

As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created a $349
billion loan program referred to as the PPP for small businesses
providing funds for loans to be originated from February 15, 2020,
through June 30, 2020. The PPP was created to provide American
small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance, with a
certain percentage forgivable if utilized to retain employees and
fund payrolls.

On January 21, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
confirmed the first U.S. case of a new coronavirus known as
COVID-19. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization
declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a "public health emergency of
international concern." On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that
the spread of COVID-19 had become a pandemic. On March 13, 2020,
President Donald Trump issued the COVID-19 Emergency Declaration
applicable to the United States, which declared that the pandemic
was of "sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency
declaration for all states, territories and the District of
Columbia."

AD Sims specializes in providing financial advisory and related
consulting services to small businesses.

WFC is a financial holding company that operates chartered
community banks in Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin.
Wintrust Bank N.A. is a federally-chartered bank and a subsidiary
of WFC. Bank of America is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Art Bresnahan, Esq.
          Michael S. Popok, Esq.
          Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq.
          Hamutal G. Lieberman, Esq.
          ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & BRESNAHAN, LLC
          829 N Milwaukee Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60642
          Telephone: (312) 924-3609
          Facsimile: (312) 268-7179

               - and -

          Mark Geragos, Esq.
          Ben Meiselas, Esq.
          Matt Hoesly, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255

               - and -

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post St., Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, No. 102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834


WORLD WRESTLING: Oral Argument on Appeal Set for June 5
-------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
scheduled oral argument for June 5, 2020 on the appeal related to
the lawsuits initiated by the company's professional wrestlers.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January
30, 2015 and alleged that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or
failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain
injuries suffered by WWE's performers and seeks class action
status.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.

Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on
July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to
forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.  

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  

Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.

The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the
Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and
Osborne lawsuits in their entirety.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss.  

On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was completed by June 1,
2016.

On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to
dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham
lawsuit based on the Court’s memorandum of decision on the
motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion
for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to
dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso
lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham
lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion
in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.

On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for
lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of
all of the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was granted on March 28, 2018.
The Company also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
against the Windham defendants.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts.

This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges,
among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among
other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various
state Worker's Compensation laws. This lawsuit also alleges that
the booking contracts and other agreements between the plaintiffs
and the Company are unconscionable and should be declared void,
entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the
Company’s use of their intellectual property.

The lawsuit alleges claims for violation of RICO, unjust
enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon. The Company and
Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on October 19, 2016.  

On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved
to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis
case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the
Windham case.

The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that
within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended
pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.

The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended
complaint failed to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer.

On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response
that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and
dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and
award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel because
the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court's September
29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants.

The plaintiffs have attempted to appeal these decisions. On
November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the appeals,
except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis case, for
being filed untimely.

On April 4, 2019, the Second Circuit issued an order referring the
Company's motions to dismiss to the panel that will determine the
merits of the appeals.

The plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019.
The Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees' brief on October
7, 2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on October
28, 2019. On April 8, 2020, the Second Circuit scheduled oral
argument for June 5, 2020.

World Wrestling Entertainment said, "The Company believes all
claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various
lawsuits were prompted by the same plaintiffs’ lawyer and that
all are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend
itself against the attempt to appeal these decisions vigorously."

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York remains
pending.

In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal Group S.A. ("Artal"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions
were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in June 2019.


A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29, 2019, naming
as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's current
officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its affiliates.

A second consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2019. The operative complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018
secondary offering of the Company's common stock by certain of its
shareholders.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts. The
complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and with respect to the secondary offering, under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the
class members. The Company believes that the action is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend it.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019.

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

WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits.


YUNJI INC: Chen and Hoomissen Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
Yunji Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suits
entitled, Chen v. Yunji Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06403 and
Hoomissen v. Yunji Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06479, have been
consolidated.

Starting in November 2019, the company and certain of its officers
and directors and others have been named as defendants in putative
securities class actions captioned Chen v. Yunji Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-06403 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, filed on November 12, 2019) (the "Chen Case"); Van
Hoomissen v. Yunji Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06479 (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed on
November 15, 2019) (the "Hoomissen Case"); Axel Lindholm v. Yunji
Inc. et al., Case No. 21635/2020E (Bronx County Supreme Court of
the State of New York, filed on January 31, 2020) (the "Lindholm
Case"), and Christopher Guilford v. Yunji, et al., Case No.
23095/2020E (Bronx County Supreme Court of the State of New York,
filed on March 3, 2020) (the "Guilford Case").

The actions allege that defendants made misstatements and omissions
in connection with the company's initial public offering in May
2019 in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

On February 3, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York consolidated the two federal court lawsuits
(the Chen Case and the Hoomissen Case) under the caption In Re
Yunji Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-06403-LDH (the
"Federal Court Action"), and appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel of the Federal Court Action.

On March 19, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Federal
Court Action. The Lindholm Case, the Guilford Case and the Federal
Court Action otherwise remain in their preliminary stages.

Yunji Inc. is the pioneer of a unique membership-based social
e-commerce business, the largest of its kind in China (measured in
gross merchandise value). The main drivers behind the company's
success are a highly-engaged user base, superior social shopping
experience, and well-curated products offered at attractive
prices.


ZTO EXPRESS: Bid for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint in Nurlybayev v. ZTO
Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 1:17-cv-06130, is pending.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants") have been
named as defendants in Nurlybayev v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et
al., 1:17-cv-06130 (S.D.N.Y., filed on August 14, 2017) (the "New
York Action").

On October 16, 2017, three sets of purported shareholders filed
motions to appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs of the purported
plaintiff class and appoint their designated counsel as lead
counsel.

On November 13, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On January
8, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On February 20, 2018, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 17,
2019, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to dismiss.

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint, which the Company and the Underwriter Defendants
opposed.

That motion remains pending.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in the People's Republic of China.
The company offers delivery services for e-commerce and traditional
merchants, and other express service users. As of December 31,
2018, it operated a fleet of approximately 4,500 self-owned trucks.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered
in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:

     -- Primary elements in responding to a lead
     -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
     -- Developing effective screening criteria
     -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
        contact
     -- Minimize lead loss
     -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets

Benefits:

     -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
     -- Maximize the size of your class
     -- Reduce acquisition cost per client

Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.

Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV


                            *********

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 ***