---

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

              Tuesday, May 26, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 105

                            Headlines

2U INC: Ordered to File Joint Letter Allowing Chinn Transfer to Md.
ADIENT PLC: SDNY Dismisses Securities Class Action
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Raziano et al. Seek to Certify Drivers Class
ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks to Certify Collective Action
ALTICE USA: Ct. Consolidates Wiley & Hellyer Suits Over Data Breach

AMGEN INC: Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions Ongoing
ANAND INC: Nazareno Files Suit in California
ANAPTYSBIO INC: May 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
APPLE INC: iPhone XR Has Poor Antenna, Altmann et al. Claim
APPLE ONE: Becerra-South Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Workers

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Narrows Claim in AOT Holding Suit
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Must Defend Against Peanut Farmers' Suit
AUSTIN PANG: Gonzalez Sues Over Denied Overtime, Breaks, Paystubs
AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use Ongoing
BASSIKE INC: West Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act

BAYLOR SCOTT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Kunze Says
BED BATH: June 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffin Sues Over Deceptive Health Plans
BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Perry FLSA Suit Remanded to District Court
BERKLEY NORTH PACIFIC GROUP: Sero Inc Files Suit in Oregon

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Rifat Seeks Refund on Pro-Rata Basis
CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit over Cybersecurity Incident Underway
CAPITAL ONE: Still Defends Consumer Suits Over Data Theft
CAPSTONE CREDIT: Coston Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
CARNEGIE MELLON: Pfingsten Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees

CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Asks Remediation of Radioactive Pollution
CERAGON NETWORKS: Bid for Class Cert. in Tel Aviv Suit Pending
CHRYSLER GROUP: Parties Agree With Court Class Cert. Bid is Moot
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Won't Cover COVID-19 Losses, 3 Squares Says
CLINICAL RESOURCES: Adenekan et al. Seek to Certify Collective

COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Appeals Ruling in Mays Suit to 7th Cir.
CORELOGIC INC: Feliciano Suit Over Background Checks Underway
COUNTRYSIDE CHEVROLET/BUICK/GMC: Breneisen Files Suit in Illinois
DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD LLC: Suris Files Suit in New York
DR. REDDY'S: Abraham Sues Over Carcinogen in Drug

ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation over Insulin Products
EPSON AMERICA: Faces Mondigo Suit Over Replacement Ink Scheme
FAB DOG INC: West Alleges Violation under ADA
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stock Purchase Deals
FLAVIAR INC: West Alleges Violation under ADA

GEORGIA: Gonzalez Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
GERRESHEIMER GLASS: Bradley BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Certification Ruling
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Adeptus IPO Suit Wins Initial Court OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Drop Commodities-Related Suit Granted
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Corporate Bonds Antitrust Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Objections Filed in Employment Related Class Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Reaches Settlement in Snap Inc. IPO Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Indirect Purchasers' FX Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Food for Thought Seeks Insurance Payment
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Cochran Sues Over Employee Age Discrimination
HILL'S PET: Suit Over Contaminated Dog Food Ongoing
HOME KO LLC: Reyes Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

HONEYWELL INT'L: Bid to Nix Kanefsky Class Suit Pending
HONEYWELL INT'L: Dropped From Resideo Technologies Suit
HYATT HOTELS: Faces Clark Suit Over Toxic Carbon Monoxide Exposure
ILLINOIS: Faces Koonce Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Action under Advisement

KALMID GROUP: West Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
KELLOGG CO: Court Rejects Settlement in Consumer Class Suit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Bacon FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports
LIBERTY OILFIELD: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LLOYD'S LONDON: Denies COVID-19 Losses Coverage, Station 6 Claims

LORITO BOOKS INC: West Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
LVNV FUNDING LLC: Allen Disputes Collection Call Legality
MCGRAW HILL: Belen Sues Over College Textbook Market Monopoly
MESA AIR: June 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MESA AIR: June 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

MONDELEZ INT'L: McMorrow Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
NAUTILUS INSURANCE: Denies COVID-19 Losses Coverage, Scorpio Says
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Laws Pending
NEW CHINA KING: Lin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

NEWELL BRANDS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
NIXON ENGINEERING: Heslip et al. Seek to Certify Employee Class
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Levi & Korsinsky Announce Class Action Filing
OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Allen Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing
OWNERS INSURANCE: Blue Springs Dental Care Files Suit in Missouri
PAM TRANSPORT: Independent Contractors' Suit Dismissed
PAM TRANSPORT: Settlement in Drivers' Suit Wins Initial Approval

PATELCO CREDIT: Caveney Balks at Collection of Overdraft Fees
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Case Schedule in Grower Litigation Pending
PLAID INC: Illegally Stores Consumer Data, Cottle Claims
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Davydov Suit Over Collection Letter
POSTMATES INC: Bid by Drivers Ruled as Not De Facto Class Action

RAPHA RACING: Begg Alleges Violation under ADA
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
RICOH USA: Faces Kyszenia Suit Over Defective Pentax Cameras
RORO-ROOTER SERVICES : Lax's Wage and Hour Suit Ongoing
RTI SURGICAL: Faces Securities Class Action

SEE INC: Begg Files ADA Suit in California
SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement Agreement Reached in Fresno Class Suit
SOUTHERN RESTAURANT: Wilson Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
SPRINGSTONE INC: Munoz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ST. LOUIS, MO: Frank Sues Over Arrest of Homeless Amid COVID-19

STAR GROUP: Donnenfeld Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
STARR SURPLUS: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, NOHSC Alleges
TANDEM DIABETES CARE: Matthews Files Class Suit in California
TAYLOR UNDERGROUND: Morsa Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TD BANK NA: Campagna Suit Transferred to Georgia

TDL GROUP: Latifi Class Suit Ongoing
TEXTRON INC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Class Complaint Pending
TRANS CONTINENTAL: Kohen Alleges Violation under FDCPA
TROPHY NUT: Court Certifies Hourly Workers Class in Coleman
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action

UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed
UNITED STATES: Barber Slams Garnishment Amidst Payment Suspension
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Graczyk et al. Seek Opt-In Notice Approval
W 6 RESTAURANT: Reshni Suit Challenges Policies on Gratuities
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Russell Sues for Detainees Over COVID-19 Risk

WAYNE, MI: Russell Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclasses
WORLD CLASS: McFerren Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
XP INC: Faces Securities Class Action
ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS: Hurvitz Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class


                            *********

2U INC: Ordered to File Joint Letter Allowing Chinn Transfer to Md.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNE M. CHINN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 2U, INC., CHRISTOPHER J.
PAUCEK, CATHERINE A. GRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-7479 (RA)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered the parties to file a joint
letter stating whether they consent to transferring the action to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where it may
be consolidated with Harper v. 2U, Inc., et al.,
8:19-cv-03455-TDC.

On Aug. 9, 2019, Plaintiff Chinn filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of 2U between Feb. 25,
2019 and July 30, 2019.  On Aug. 27, 2019, the Court signed a joint
stipulation and order providing that the action will be
consolidated for hearing before the Court with the action Harper,
and that the Lead Plaintiff will serve a consolidated compliant
within 60 days of entry of the Court's Order appointing lead
plaintiff and designating the lead counsel.

On Oct. 16, 2019, before the Court held a hearing on appointment of
the Lead Plaintiff and designation of the lead counsel, the
Defendants in Harper filed a motion to transfer that action to the
the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  On
Nov. 25, 2019, proposed Lead Plaintiffs Chicago Teachers and Pirani
both filed notices of non-opposition to the Defendants' motion to
transfer.  On Nov. 26, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants'
unopposed motion to transfer in Harper.  

The Court ordered the parties to file a joint letter stating
whether they consent to transferring the action to the District of
Maryland, where it may be consolidated with Harper.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jlMvHv from Leagle.com.


ADIENT PLC: SDNY Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP wrote in JD Supra that on April 2, 2020,
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action
asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
a manufacturer of automotive seating and certain of its executives.
In re Adient PLC Sec. Lit., No. 18-CV-9116 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2,
2020). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made false and
misleading statements with respect to improvements in the projected
margin of "Adient," a business spun off of its parent company, and
in a particular Adient business segment (the "Metals" segment). The
Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege an
actionable misstatement or scienter, and, noting that plaintiffs
had already voluntarily amended their complaint after defendants
filed a previous motion to dismiss, denied leave to amend.

The Court grouped the company's alleged misrepresentations into two
main categories: (1) statements about the company's projection that
Adient would have a margin expansion of 200 basis points by 2020;
and (2) statements about efforts to improve the Metals business
segment of Adient. Slip op. at 16. Plaintiffs also based their
claims on statements relating to impairment charges, Item 303 of
Regulation S-K, and Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX)
certifications. Id. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently allege any materially false or misleading statements
or omissions with respect to any of these categories of
statements.

With respect to statements regarding Adient's margin expansion and
Metals segment improvements, the Court concluded that plaintiffs
failed to show "how and why" the statements were false and
misleading when made.  The Court observed that, even crediting
confidential witness statements regarding problems in the Metals
segment, Adient's projected margin improvement relied on efforts
outside of that segment, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that
allegations of problems in the Metals segment rendered the margin
projections false or even "unreasonable" at the time they were
made.  Similarly, plaintiffs' allegation that statements of
contemporaneous facts were misleading, such as statements that
machine utilization was "improving and . . . trending in the right
direction," could not support a claim for securities fraud because,
the Court held, plaintiffs failed to allege facts suggesting that
those metrics were not in fact improving at the time.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' allegations that the company
failed to disclose material information that contradicted opinions
offered by the individual defendants, such as "we think we have a
couple hundred basis points of margin expansion we can deliver."
In dismissing those allegations, the Court concluded that
plaintiffs failed to allege that material information was omitted.
Instead, plaintiffs relied on the subjective opinions of
confidential witnesses; but these were insufficient to demonstrate
that the statements were false or misleading at the time they were
made and, moreover, did not constitute facts supporting a
conclusion that defendants did not actually hold the opinions when
made.

The Court further determined that the alleged misstatements fell
under the PSLRA's safe harbor for forward-looking statements that
are either accompanied by meaningful cautionary language or are not
shown to have been made with "actual knowledge" that they were
false or misleading. The Court first found that any "present-tense"
portion of the forward-looking statements were too vague to be
actionable, as they provided no specific information about current
circumstances and instead concerned "information related only to
its future projections." Id. at 40. The Court then determined that
plaintiffs had offered only a conclusory assertion that defendants
had actual knowledge of falsity, meaning that the forward-looking
statements qualified under the PSLRA safe harbor based on that
factor alone.  Thus, while plaintiffs argued that purported
cautionary language was not "meaningful" because the disclosures
did not mention the business unit in question, and although the
Court agreed that the disclosures "could have identified . . . more
specific risks," the Court concluded that it was ultimately
unnecessary to rule on the risk disclosures because plaintiffs
failed to show defendants' "actual knowledge" of falsity.

In addition, the Court observed that many of the alleged
misstatements were non-actionable puffery. For example, statements
about what defendants "expected" to see, "felt confident" about,
and were "comfortable" with, were "too general for a reasonable
investor to have relied on them."

The Court similarly dispensed with plaintiffs' allegations related
to impairment charges, Item 303 of Regulation S-K, and SOX
certifications. With respect to plaintiffs' allegation that the
company should have recorded an impairment in the second quarter of
2018 instead of in the fourth quarter, the Court held that
plaintiffs did not plead specific facts showing that the "failure
to take an earlier impairments charge was so clearly required by
accounting principles that the failure to take such a charge was
fraudulent," particularly given the company's actual disclosures of
ongoing poor performance. Regarding Item 303, which requires
disclosure of "known trends" that the company reasonably expects
will be material to revenues or income, the Court noted that
plaintiffs' theory failed due to plaintiffs' failure to
sufficiently plead material misstatements or omissions.  The Court
also concluded that plaintiffs' assertion that defendants "falsely
certified" SEC filings in violation of SOX failed for the same
reasons.

Further, the Court rejected both theories of scienter put forward
by plaintiffs - a "motive and opportunity" theory and a "conscious
misbehavior or recklessness" theory. Regarding the "motive and
opportunity" theory, the Court concluded that plaintiffs merely
alleged that the company's executives received incentive-based
compensation, which was insufficient to show scienter.  The Court
also determined that the "conscious misbehavior or recklessness"
theory failed because plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants
had attended meetings or received documents containing information
contradicting their public statements.

Plaintiffs also made additional scienter allegations based on the
importance of the Metals segment to the company, the "abrupt
ouster" of the CEO in 2018, and senior management's close tracking
of the segment's problems.  The Court concluded that the business
segment was not a large enough portion of the company to satisfy
the "core operations" doctrine, which some courts have found can
support an inference that senior executives had knowledge of
certain information, but "typically applies only where the
operation in question constitute[s] nearly all of a company's
business."  Regarding the CEO's departure, the Court held that
plaintiffs alleged no facts to suggest that it was "highly unusual
or suspicious." And the Court held that it was not clear how
allegations that senior management "closely tracked" the Metals
segment supported an inference of scienter, given defendants'
disclosures about problems they encountered.  Because plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to any
individual, the Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that
scienter should be imputed to the company itself. [GN]


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Raziano et al. Seek to Certify Drivers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL RAZIANO, BRIAN
TRAISTER, and CHRIS VALDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
CLASS ACTION similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case
No. 19-CV-04373 JAK (ASx) (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an order on July 13, 2020:

   1. certifying Plaintiff Class of:

      "all non-exempt transportation drivers employed by
      the Defendants at the Defendants' Irvine or Brea
      Distribution Centers in the State of California at any
      time since the four years preceding the filing of this
      Action";

   2. certifying these Subclasses:

      Unpaid Wages Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who were required to
      report to work 15 minutes prior to shift start time to
      pick their daily run at any time since the four years
      prior to January 6, 2020";

      Part-Time Drivers Unpaid Wages Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who were employed as a
      part-time transportation driver and were required to
      call into work daily to determine whether they are
      scheduled to work the following day at any time since
      the four years prior to April 13, 2020";

      Sick Leave Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who performed work for
      the Defendants within the geographic boundaries of Los
      Angeles County and/or San Diego County at any time
      since the four years prior to the filing of this
      Action";

      Security Bag Search Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who were required to
      submit to a security bag search prior to leaving the
      Defendants' distribution center and after clocking out
      at the end of a shift at any time since the four years
      prior to March 4, 2020";

      Part-Time Drivers Reporting Time Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who were employed as a part-
      time transportation driver and were required to call into
      work daily to determine whether they are scheduled to work
      the following day but were not provided work the following
      day nor paid reporting pay nor paid half the usual or
      scheduled day's work, consisting of no less than two hours
      nor more than four hours, at the employee's regular rate
      of pay";

      Unreimbursed Business Expense Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who were not reimbursed for
      business-related expenses incurred in the discharge of
      duties for the Defendants" Part-Time Drivers Reporting
      Time Subclass:

      Wage Statement Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who, within one year of the
      filing of the Complaint, received one or more itemized
      wage statements that did not include accrued sick time,
      and/or all wages due for reporting time pay, and/or the
      applicable rates of pay for time worked, and/or any
      deductions taken"; and

      Unfair Competition Law Subclass:

      "all Plaintiff Class Members who were subject to the
      Defendants' pay practices relating to failure to pay
      reporting time pay, failure to pay all wages due including
      regular and minimum wages, failure to reimburse all
      business-related expenses, and denial of the right to use
      sick leave without the threat of discipline and/or
      discharge";

   3. appointing themselves as representatives of the Plaintiff
      Class and Subclasses; and

   4. appointing their counsel of records, Cohelan Khoury &
      Singer, The Carter Law Firm, and the Phelps Law Group as
      Class Counsel for the Plaintiff Class and 5 Subclasses.

Albertson's operates a chain of grocery stores.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Marta Manus, Esq.
          OHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  mmanus@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Roger Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 245-7500
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629-2533
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: Marc@phelpslawgroup.com

ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CEASAR FLETE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY
MAINTENANCE INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, and CHRISTOPHER
BREWER, individually, Case No. 0:19-cv-61536-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
      collective action and facilitate notice to:

      "any and all non-exempt customer service/clerical
      employees of the Defendant who were not paid full and
      proper overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
      hours per week, as a result of Defendants' illegal
      "Fluctuating Workweek” as well as common policies and
      practices of: (a) manipulating employee pay from salary to
      hourly in varying weeks when it suited the Defendants to
      avoid the payment of overtime wages; (b) requiring
      employees to work "off the clock" for "on call time," and
      during what was supposed to be "meal breaks" without
      properly accounting or compensating employees for same as
      overtime hours worked"; and

   2. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff a
      list of all similarly situated "non-exempt customer
      service/clerical employees" within the last three years.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the
putative class to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.  However, the Defendants failed to pay full and proper
overtime at one and one-half their regular rate of pay for such
hours. Instead, the Defendants allegedly utilized an illegal
"Fluctuating Workweek" methodology, whereby they paid the
Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the putative class "half-time"
for all overtime hours. This practice violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the complaint says.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 W. State Road, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Telephone: 866 344-9243
          Facsimile: 954 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

ALTICE USA: Ct. Consolidates Wiley & Hellyer Suits Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the cases, BRITTANY WILEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALTICE USA, INC., Defendant; EDWARD HELLYER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALTICE USA, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 20-CV-1297
(JMF), 20-CV-1410 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.).

On April 3, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing with the
parties to address consolidation of the cases.  At the hearing, the
Parties informed the Court that they had reached an agreement as to
consolidation.  Judge Furman adopted the Parties agreement.

Accordingly, the following Related Actions are consolidated for all
pre-trial proceedings: Wiley v. Altice USA, Inc. 20-CV-1297 (Feb.
13, 2020) and Hellyer v. Altice USA, Inc. 20-CV-1410 (Feb. 18,
2020).  The Related Actions will be consolidated under the lead
docket, No. 20-CV-1297. Any new filings will be made on the lead
docket. Any dates and deadlines from No. 20-CV-1410 will continue
to apply in the lead docket.

In the event that a case that arises out of the same subject matter
of the Consolidated Action is filed in the Court or transferred
from another court, the defense counsel will promptly serve a copy
of this Order on the attorneys for the Plaintiff(s) in the newly
filed case and one or more of the parties will promptly notify the
Court so it may determine if the newly filed case should be
consolidated in the Consolidated Action.

If the Court consolidates a newly filed case with the Consolidated
Action, the Order will apply thereto.  Any objection to such
consolidation must be filed within 10 days after the date upon
which the Court orders consolidation by filing a letter motion in
accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices; any
response to such a letter motion will be filed within three
business days.  Nothing in the foregoing will be construed as a
waiver of the Defendant's right to object to consolidation of any
subsequently filed or transferred action.

Pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, service by e-mail transmission will be permitted in
addition to service via ECF notification.

The Plaintiffs will have 30 days from April 3, 2020, to file a
consolidated class action complaint in the Consolidated Action,
which will be due Monday, May 4, 2020.  Plaintiff Wiley and any
factual allegations associated with her individual circumstances
will be dismissed from the action, and additional named Plaintiffs
will be added who plaintiffs believe did not sign an arbitration
agreement with the Defendant.

The Defendant will have 40 days following the filing of the
consolidated class action complaint to answer or file any Rule 12
motion, which will be due on June 15, 2020.

If the Defendant files a Rule 12 motion, the Plaintiffs will have
40 days from such filing to respond, with such brief due on July
27, 2020.

The Defendant will have 15 days within which to reply to the
Plaintiffs' opposition, which will be due on Aug. 10, 2020.

According to Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Judge appointed William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood as
the interim lead counsel for the putative class in the Consolidated
Action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate 20-CV-1297 and
20-CV-1410 under the lead docket, 20-CV-1297, and to close
20-CV-1410.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/g3LYFl from Leagle.com.


AMGEN INC: Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend
antitrust class actions related to the sales of Sensipar(R).

On February 6, 2020, the motions in the class action lawsuits
against Amgen and various entities affiliated with Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited were transferred to the U.S.
Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware for a recommendation.


A hearing on the motions was scheduled for April 28, 2020.

The multidistrict litigation panel certified its conditional
transfer order on February 6, 2020 transferring the additional
class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, captioned MSP Recovery Claims v.
Amgen Inc., et al., to the Delaware District Court.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.


ANAND INC: Nazareno Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anand Inc. The case
is styled as Gloria Nazareno, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anand Inc and Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2020-00278363-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states as Other employment.

Anand, Inc. is located in Fremont, CA, United States and is part of
the Fast-Food & Quick-Service Restaurants Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew R Schoech, Esq.
   Schoech Law Group, PC
   4020 Lennane Dr Ste 102
   Sacramento, CA 95834
   Tel: (916) 569-1940
   Fax: (916) 569-1939
   Email: matt@norcallawfirm.com


ANAPTYSBIO INC: May 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the securities class action
lawsuit against:

AnaptysBio, Inc. (ANAB)
Class Period: 10/10/2017 - 11/7/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 26, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-anaptysbio-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission:
to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover
their share of billions of dollars from securities class action
settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for
free to gain access to information and settlement websites for
various securities class action cases so they can timely submit
their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to
be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have
a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


APPLE INC: iPhone XR Has Poor Antenna, Altmann et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ALTMANN, DANIEL AVILES, MELISSA LYNN BREVIG, JEANNINE HALL,
MERLYN JOHNSON, ALEXANDRA KELLNER, LATECIA CUSHION KNIGHT, DAVID
KREAMER, KYLE KRISTOFF, BRYAN RIVIELLO, ZACHARY SCHWARTZ, OSKAR
VILLAGOMEZ and PAMELA VOHRINGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-03102 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty
pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, fraud by omission, and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who purchased Apple's iPhone XR,
allege that the iPhone XR is equipped with a 2x2 MIMO antenna
array, an inferior antenna array compared to the 4x4 MIMO array
found in Apple's older model phones such as the iPhone XS and the
iPhone XS Max. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant failed to
disclose to consumers, who reasonably expected the latest Apple
product to have the most advanced technology, that it used an
inferior technology to the iPhone XR. Moreover the Plaintiffs
allege that the 2x2 MIMO antenna array has a defective connectivity
system, causing frequent dropped calls and no WiFi connection.

Apple, Inc. is an American technology company that designs,
develops, and sells electronics, computer software, and online
services to consumers, with principal place of business located at
1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

APPLE ONE: Becerra-South Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as APRIL BECERRA-SOUTH,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. APPLE ONE SERVICES, LTD. / HOWROYD-WRIGHT
EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, Case No.
2:18-cv-08348-CJC-FFM (C.D. Cal., Filed May 16 , 2018), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on June 1, 2020 for an order
certifying a class of:

"all current and former full-time workers employed by Howroyd -
Wright Employment Agency, Inc. in the State of California at any
time from May 16, 2014 to the present that forfeited vacation
benefits and /or failed to receive earned vacation at the time of
separation of employment."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay vacation
and failed to pay all wages at termination in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Apple One is a nationwide staffing agency.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A . Gould, Esq.
          Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 E 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669 2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544 0800
          E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com
                  Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Narrows Claim in AOT Holding Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AOT Holding AG v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Case
No. 2:19-cv-02240 (C.D. Ill., September 4, 2019), Judge Colin
Stirling Bruce on May 22, 2020, ruled that ADM's Motion to Dismiss
is granted in part and denied in part.

It is granted as to any claims premised under 7 U.S.C. Section
6c(a) and 6b(a). Claims under Section 6c(a) are dismissed with
prejudice, but claims under Section 6b(a) are dismissed without
prejudice for the reasons stated in this Order. This case is
referred to Magistrate Judge Eric Long for further proceedings in
accordance with the court's order.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on September 4, 2019,
AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class action under the U.S.
Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court in Urbana,
Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to manipulate the
benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded
on futures exchanges.

AOT alleges that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the Company's
alleged actions.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this suit in November 2019,
and that motion is awaiting decision by the court.

The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself,
in this action.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

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

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Must Defend Against Peanut Farmers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Peanut Farmers Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:19-cv-00463 (E.D. Va.), Judge Raymond A. Jackson entered a
Memorandum Opinion and Order on May 13 denying Defendants' requests
for a hearing on their Motions to Dismiss.  Further, the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are denied.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on September 5, 2019,
D&M Farms, Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land filed a putative class
action on behalf of a purported class of peanut farmers under the
U.S. federal antitrust laws in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia,
alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Golden Peanut, and another
peanut shelling company, conspired to fix the price they paid to
farmers for raw peanuts.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this suit in October 2019,
and that motion is awaiting decision by the court.

The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself,
in this action.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

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

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


AUSTIN PANG: Gonzalez Sues Over Denied Overtime, Breaks, Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Austin Pang Gloves MFG (USA) and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV16450
(Cal. Super., April 30, 2020), seeks unpaid wages and interest
thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage
rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure
to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties
for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, unfair
competition, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Austin Pang Gloves Mfg. (U.S.A.) Corp., doing business as Johnson
Wilshire Inc., supplies safety products. The Company specializes in
hand, eye, head, and foot protection, as well as hi-viz and
protective garments. Johnson Wilshire serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 2618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
      Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
             swong@aegislawfirm.com
             khaque@aegislawfirm.com

AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
utomatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to the company's violation of
the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

The complaint asserts that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act, was negligent and unjustly enriched itself in
connection with its collection, use and storage of biometric data
of employees of its clients who are residents of Illinois in
connection with certain services provided by ADP to clients in
Illinois.

The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.

ADP said, "All of these claims are still in their earliest stages
and the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss,
or range of loss, with respect to these matters. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits."

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

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


BASSIKE INC: West Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bassike, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
West, other, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bassike, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03600 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).

Bassike, Inc. is a shop selling designer clothes online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


BAYLOR SCOTT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Kunze Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Kunze, Ashley Agura, Jacqueline Beeler, Alexandra Bewley,
Vilasben Bhut, Ryan Bialaszewski, Nancy Cloud, Ryan English, Tasha
Hudson, Stephen Krivan, Tyler Lemm, Cindy Lin, Charity Mugadza,
Michelle Nickelatti, Sandeep Palikhel, Taylor Vaughn, Lara Wilhite
and Katie Ziliak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH and HEALTHTEXAS PROVIDER
NETWORK, Case No. 3:20-cv-01276-N (N.D. Tex., May 15, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for damages and other
relief arising from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiffs were and are not paid on a salary basis by the
Defendants and are, therefore, nonexempt, according to the
complaint. However, the Defendants have not and do not pay these
APPs overtime pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, as required by the FLSA. The Defendants have compensated
the Plaintiffs at straight time for their hours worked on-the-clock
regardless of the number of hours they worked in any workweek.

The Plaintiffs were employed as Advanced Practice Providers
("APPs").

BSWH is in the business of operating health care facilities,
including hospitals and clinics throughout the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David. L. Kern, Esq.
          KERN LAW FIRM, PC
          1541 North Mesa, Suite 541
          El Paso, TX 79902
          Phone: 915.542.1900
          Fax: 915.242.0000
          Email: dkern@kernlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM
          1717 N. Interstate 35, Suite 305
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Phone: 512.671.7277
          Fax: 512.238.0275
          Email: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com


BED BATH: June 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the securities class action
lawsuit against:

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)
Class Period: 10/2/2019 - 2/11/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 15, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bed-bath-amp-beyond-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission:
to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover
their share of billions of dollars from securities class action
settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for
free to gain access to information and settlement websites for
various securities class action cases so they can timely submit
their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to
be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have
a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffin Sues Over Deceptive Health Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM JAMES GRIFFIN and ASHLEY LAWLEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENEFYTT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., f/k/a HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., and
HEALTH PLAN INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00630-SGC (N.D. Ala., May 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased HII's health insurance
plans, allege that the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
marketing of their insurance plans as comprehensive health
insurance plans. In order to implement this scheme, beginning in
2013, HII recruited and conspired with distributors including
Assurance, Simple Health, Nationwide, and others to market these
limited benefit non-ACA compliant insurance policies, discount
cards, association memberships and accidental health insurance as
comprehensive health insurance. Unlike comprehensive health
insurance plans, HII's health insurance plans do not cover
pre-existing conditions, do not have networks of healthcare
providers that have agreed to their price schedules, do not provide
mental health benefits, maternity benefits, or other essential
health benefits. However, they do contain restrictive limits on
both individual benefits and the total amount of benefits provided.
These characteristics combine to leave the Plaintiffs, Class
members, and their family members owing catastrophic health
benefits at a time when they are most vulnerable.

Benefytt Technologies, Inc., formerly known as Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., is an insurance provider with its corporate
headquarters located in Tampa, Florida.

Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings Inc. is a health insurance plan
company based in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         F. Inge Johnstone, Esq.
         Matthew F. Carroll, Esq.
         JOHNSTONE CARROLL, LLC
         2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 303
         Homewood, AL 35209
         Telephone: (205) 383-1809
         Facsimile: (888) 759-3882
         E-mail: ijohnstone@johnstonecarroll.com

               - and –
         
         Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
         W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
         WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
         2001 Park Place North
         1000 Park Place Tower
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 488-1200
         Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
         E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                 tbrown@whatleykallas.com

               - and –

         Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
         WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
         101 Federal Street, 19th Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 573-5118
         Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
         E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Perry FLSA Suit Remanded to District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the case,
DEANA PERRY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL,
INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-20423, with
instructions that the district court enters its reasons for
dismissal.

Perry filed suit against BergHOFF alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  BergHOFF is a Florida corporation
that manufactures and distributes kitchen-related products.  It
hires sales agents to help sell its products in various states.
Each sales agent is required to enter into a contract with BergHOFF
that contains a forum selection clause mandating that all legal
disputes are to be filed in Pasco County, Florida.  Perry worked as
a sales agent for BergHOFF from April to October 2018.  As a sales
agent, Perry's job duties involved setting up booths in different
Sam's Clubs throughout the country and performing product
demonstrations.

According to Perry, she and other sales agents were often paid less
than minimum wage because their commissions were reduced for
product returns and they were required to pay for their own
supplies and job-related expenses such as hotel stays.  Perry also
alleges that she and other sales agents were denied meal and rest
breaks, were required to attend unpaid mandatory meetings, and
regularly worked over forty hours per week. On these and other
similar grounds, Perry filed suit against BergHOFF alleging
violations of the FLSA.  Although her suit was never certified as a
class action, she obtained the written consent of several other
sales agents to join as Plaintiffs.

In response, BergHOFF moved to dismiss on grounds of forum non
conveniens or alternatively, to transfer the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  In its motion to dismiss, BergHOFF cited
to the forum selection clause in Perry's contract that stated that
any dispute between Perry and BergHOFF arising under the Agreement
will be submitted in accordance with the laws of the State of
Florida and that any litigation will take place in New Port Richey,
Pasco County, Florida.  The district court granted BergHOFF's
motion concluding that venue of the lawsuit is required to be in
the state courts of Pasco County, Florida.  It dismissed the suit
without prejudice so that it might be re-filed in the appropriate
state court in Pasco County, Florida, if the Plaintiff chooses to
do so.

Perry filed the appeal.  On appeal, Perry argues that the district
court erred in dismissing her suit because her claims do not arise
under her contract with BergHOFF, they arise under the FLSA.  She
further argues that, regardless of whether the forum selection
clause was valid, the district court erred in dismissing her suit
without addressing and balancing the relevant principles and
factors of the forum non conveniens doctrine.

In support of her argument that her claims do not arise under her
contract with BergHOFF, but instead arise only under the FLSA,
Perry cites to Chebotnikov v. LimoLink, Incorporated, a district
court case out of Massachusetts.  The Fifth Circuit holds that that
case is not controlling in the insant case, but even it if was, it
fails to support her argument.  In Chebotnikov, the district court
held that because the FLSA claims at issue were distinct from the
plaintiff's employment contract, the forum selection clause
contained therein did not apply.  In so holding, the district court
noted that its determination was guided by an analysis of whether
the plaintiff's FLSA claims were "dependent on any provision of the
employment agreement.  The district court concluded that they were
not.

In the instant case, however, Perry's FLSA claims are dependent on
numerous provisions of her employment contract.  Perry's FLSA
claims of being paid less than minimum wage and not being paid for
overtime involve her allegations that BergHOFF failed to reimburse
her for supplies and expenses, refused to allow her to take rest
and meal breaks while performing her job duties, required her to
attend unpaid meetings, and improperly docked her commission.
Thus, it is clear that Perry's FLSA claims are dependent on
provisions of her employment agreement.  Consequently, she would
not be entitled to relief under Chebotnikov if that case controlled
here—which it does not.  Moreover, Perry has failed to point to
controlling Fifth Circuit precedent that supports her argument that
the forum selection clause at issue here should not apply.

Perry's next argument is that the district court abused its
discretion in failing to consider the relevant factors in granting
BergHOFF's motion to dismiss.  Although there is no general rule
requiring district courts to provide written explanations for their
orders, the Fifth Circuit has held that it is an abuse of
discretion for a district court where, in ruling on a motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens, it fails to address and balance
the relevant principles and factors of the doctrine.

The Fifth Circuit remanded with instructions that the district
court enters its reasons for dismissal.  After entry of such
reasons, the case will be returned to the panel, which retains
jurisdiction during the pendency of the limited remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Q0Dzn7 from Leagle.com.

BERKLEY NORTH PACIFIC GROUP: Sero Inc Files Suit in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkley North Pacific
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Sero, Inc. dba Beast, an Oregon
Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Berkley North Pacific Group, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, Berkley Insurance Company, a Delaware Corporation, W.
R. Berkley Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Continental
Western Insurance Company, an Iowa Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00776-YY (D. Ore., May 13, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over Diversity-Contract Dispute.

Berkley North Pacific Group is a regional, commercial insurance
provider that specializes in property casualty insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Steven C. Berman, Esq.
   Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter
   209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
   Portland, OR 97204
   Tel: (503) 227-1600
   Fax: (503) 227-6840
   Email: sberman@stollberne.com


CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Rifat Seeks Refund on Pro-Rata Basis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Rifat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04421-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2020), seeks
refunds of the amount the Plaintiff and other members of the
proposed classes are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other
damages, 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
crisis.

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes 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 Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs for services that the Defendant is no
longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary
reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and
members of the Classes for their loss, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff currently enrolled as a full-time student in the
Defendant's undergraduate program, studying pre-veterinary science
at its San Luis Obispo campus.

The California State University System is the nation's largest
higher education system, consisting of 23 campuses throughout the
State of California.[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
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John C. Bohren
          BOHREN LAW
          501 W. Broadway Suite 800
          San Diego CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 433-2803


CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit over Cybersecurity Incident Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
pending in the multi-district litigation panel in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

The Company and certain officers have also been named as defendants
in a putative class action pending in the MDL alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements
and alleged omissions in securities filings relating to our
information security standards and practices.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from July
23, 2015 to July 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
costs and other relief.

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

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CAPITAL ONE: Still Defends Consumer Suits Over Data Theft
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has
been named as a defendant in approximately 73 putative consumer
class action cases (61 in U.S. federal courts and 12 in Canadian
courts) alleging harm from a cybersecurity incident and seeking
various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief.

The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.


The U.S. consumer class actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a multi-district litigation ("MDL") panel in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CAPSTONE CREDIT: Coston Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capstone Credit &
Collections, LLC. The case is styled as Clifford Coston,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Capstone Credit & Collections, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01076-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 8,
2020).

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

Capstone Credit & Collections, LLC is a debt collection agency
located in Lutz, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


CARNEGIE MELLON: Pfingsten Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abigale Pfingsten, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00716 (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of all
people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic
semester at CMU, 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 the services for which their
fees paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 11, 2020, CMU, via letter from University President Farnam
Jahanian, announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
beginning Monday, March 16 (the first day back from Spring Break)
all classes for the remainder of the Spring 2020 Semester would be
held remotely. CMU has not held any in-person classes since March
6, 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 its facilities, the Defendant has not
delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that she and the putative class contracted and paid
for, Ms. Pfingsten contends. She asserts that the online learning
options being offered to CMU 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. She adds that the remote learning options are in no way
the equivalent of the in-person education that she and the putative
class members contracted and paid for.

Nonetheless, Ms. Pfingsten notes, CMU has not refunded any tuition
for the Spring 2020 semester. And while CMU has offered refunds of
some mandatory fees, it has not committed to refunding all
mandatory fees, she adds.

The Plaintiff argues that she and the putative class are 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 the Defendant 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.

Ms. Pfingsten is an undergraduate student at CMU pursuing a
Bachelor's Degree in Statistics and Data Science, and a Bachelor's
Degree in International Relations.

CMU is one of the country's most preeminent universities, with an
enrollment of approximately 15,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Tetlow, Esq.
          TETLOW LAW, P.C.
          310 Grant Street, Suite 700
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412)248-9600
          Facsimile: (412)248-9601
          Email: jason@tetlowlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          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

               - and -

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


CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Asks Remediation of Radioactive Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, L.M., G.M., B.M., E.M., and M.M.,
minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian,
Ursula McGlone; Julia Dunham, K.D. and C.D., minor children by and
through their parent and natural guardian, Julia Dunham; Adam
Rider, Brittani Rider, M.R., C.R., L.R. and L.R., minor children by
and through their parent and natural guardian, Brittani Rider, Ohio
residents, on behalf of themselves individually and all others
similarly situated v. CENTRUS ENERGY CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
individually and as successor-in interest to USEC Incorporated,
UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION, URANIUM DISPOSITION SERVICES,
LLC, BWXT CONVERSION SERVICES, LLC, MID-AMERICA CONVERSION
SERVICES, BECHTEL JACOBS COMPANY, LLC, LATA/PARALLAX PORTSMOUTH,
LLC, FLUOR-BWXT PORTSMOUTH, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02467-EAS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, May 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and others seeking remediation of the radioactive and metal
contamination found on their property.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are individuals, who have suffered
economic losses, property losses, and non-economic damages as the
result of the Defendants' toxic and radioactive releases. The
Plaintiffs allege that they and Class Members have all suffered in
common an array of damages from the Defendants' emissions of
radioactive material. They add that by releasing this mixed waste
stream, the Defendants violated their permit, standards,
regulations, conditions, requirements, and prohibitions under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

In Pike County, Ohio, sits the 3,777-acre Portsmouth Site, which
has accommodated uranium enrichments operation by the Defendants.
What the populace did not know was that the operations at the
Portsmouth Site expelled air laden with radioactive material and
other harmful constituents, and other surface water and groundwater
releases, according to the complaint. Winds have carried the
radioactive materials and other harmful constituents throughout the
area in such concentrations that radioactive materials and other
constituents can be found deposited in soils and buildings in and
around Piketon, Ohio.

On May 13, 2019, Zahn's Corner Middle School in Piketon was
suddenly closed due to health concerns because enriched uranium was
detected inside the building. Neptunium- 237 was also detected by
an air monitor next to the school. The school is approximately two
miles from the Portsmouth Site and serves more than 300 students.
This incident was the first notification to the community about
radioactive materials migrating into populated areas from the
Portsmouth Site.

Releases of radioactive material from the Portsmouth Site exceed
levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactive materials
permissible in unrestricted (general public) areas, the Plaintiffs
assert. They add that in addition to radioactive material, the
Defendants have caused the Portsmouth Site to release harmful
constituents directly into the environment and which directly
impact humans, both on-site and off-site, and including both
hazardous and non-hazardous constituents.

The Plaintiffs say that their environmental sampling and scientific
testing of properties near the Portsmouth Site reveal the presence
of radioactive, harmful, and toxic materials consistent with those
expected to be found near a site, such as the Portsmouth Site,
where uranium enrichment operations are conducted. Tests reveal the
presence of these radioactive, harmful, and toxic materials in
residences near the Portsmouth Site, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs live two to four miles from the Portsmouth Site.
They live within the zone of impact.

Centrus Energy Corp., formerly USEC Incorporated, is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mark Underwood, Esq.
          UNDERWOOD LAW OFFICE
          923 Third Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Phone: (304) 209-4387
          Email: markunderwood@underwoodlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Jason Leasure, Esq.
          VITAL & VITAL, L.C.
          536 Fifth Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Phone: (304) 525-0320
          Email: jleasure@vitallc.com

               - and -

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
          Victor Cobb, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 399-0009
          Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
                 swussow@sch-llc.com
                 vcobb@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Stuart H. Smith, Esq.
          STUART H. SMITH, LLC
          508 St. Philip Street
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Phone: (504) 566-1558
          Email: ssmith@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Phone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
          Email: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
                 drbarneywv@gmail.com


CERAGON NETWORKS: Bid for Class Cert. in Tel Aviv Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that company is currently
awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss a request
for approval of a purported class action before with the District
Court of Tel-Aviv.

On January 5, 2015, a motion to approve a purported class action,
naming the Company, its CEO, Mr. Ira Palti and its directors as
defendants, was filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic
Department), on behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including
those who purchased shares during the period following the
Company's follow on public offering in July 2014.

The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges
breaches of duties by the Company and its management on account of
false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and
public statements, during the period between July and October 2014.


The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to the
follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading
guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third
quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate
of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the
Company at the time of such presentation.

Although the plaintiff admits that, in accordance with the actual
results for the third quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as
far as revenues were concerned, the actual rate of gross profit
turned out to be much lower than the one anticipated. Plaintiff
argues that at the time such guidance was presented by the
defendants, they already knew, or should have known, that it was
incorrect.

The plaintiff seeks specified compensatory damages in a sum of up
to $75,000,000, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Motion was served to the Company on January 6, 2015 and the
Company filed its response on June 21, 2015. On October 22, 2015,
the plaintiff filed a request for discovery of specific documents.
The Company filed its response to the plaintiffs' request for
discovery on January 25, 2016, and the plaintiffs submitted their
response on February 24, 2016.

On June 8, 2016, the District Court partially accepted the
plaintiff's request for discovery and ordered the Company to
disclose some of the requested documents. The Company's request to
appeal this decision was denied by the Supreme Court on October 25,
2016, and the Company disclosed the required documents to the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed their reply to the Company's
response to the Motion on April 2, 2017.

In May 2017 the Company filed two requests: the first, requesting
to dismiss the Plaintiff’s response to the Company's defense, or,
alternatively, to allow the Company to respond to it; the second,
to first hear the Company's claims with regards to the legal
question of the governing law. A preliminary hearing was held on
May 22, 2017, where the court set dates for response to the
Company's above-mentioned requests and for evidence hearings.

On July 17, 2017, the court allowed the Company to respond to the
plaintiff’s response and on July 29, 2017 the Court denied the
Company's second request. The Company filed its response to the
plaintiff's response on September 18, 2017.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a request to summon the
company's Chairman of the Board, Mr. Yehuda Zisapel, and the
company's CEO, Mr. Palti, to the upcoming evidence hearing.

The Company filed its response to this request on October 26, 2017;
and the plaintiff filed its reply to Company's response.

The first evidence hearing took place on November 2, 2017. During
this hearing the Company agreed to consider summoning to the second
evidence hearing one of the above-mentioned Company's officers, and
on November 8, 2017, the Company advised the court that it agrees
that Mr. Palti will be summoned to the next evidence hearing. The
second and final evidence hearing took place on January 8, 2018.

The Plaintiff submitted his summaries on March 21, 2018. The
Company and its officers submitted their summaries on June 12,
2018; The Plaintiff submitted his reply summaries on September 5,
2018.

On October 4, 2018, an interim decision regarding dual listed
companies, which corresponds with the Company's arguments in this
case, was rendered by the Supreme Court of Israel.

This Supreme Court's decision upholds two recent rulings of the
District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), which determined
that all securities litigation regarding dual listed companies
should be determined only in accordance with US law.

One of these District Court rulings dismissed a motion to approve a
class action, on the sole basis that the motion relied on Israeli
law. The Israeli Supreme Court issued its final ruling in that case
on October 16th, 2018 and repeated its principle decision to accept
the District Court' rulings regarding application of US law to
claims regarding dual listed companies.

In light of the above decision, on October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff
requested from District Court to add a plea to his summaries. The
District Court has approved and gave the Company the right to
reply, and the Company's response was submitted on December 4,
2018. Plaintiff's reply was submitted on December 26, 2018.

On April 14, 2019, the court rendered a decision resolving that
according to the Supreme Court's ruling, examination of the legal
questions on which the Motion was based should be determined under
U.S. law.

Therefore, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend its Motion
within 45 days, so that it would include an expert opinion
regarding U.S. law, and an argument regarding U.S. law
implementation in the specific circumstances. The court also
decided that the amendment of the Motion is subject to the
plaintiff's payment of 40,000 NIS to the Company.

On September 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended Motion, which
includes an expert opinion regarding U.S. Federal law. The Amended
Motion also includes lengthy arguments that were added on top of
the original Motion, specifically, in reference to discovery
proceedings and evidence hearings that were held as part of the
original Motion.

On December 30, 2019, the Company submitted a motion to dismiss the
Amended Motion. The Company alleged that the Amended Motion
includes new causes of action, and specifically that the addition
of legal causes of action according to U.S. Federal law, cannot be
filed due to the specific statute of limitations in the matter
according to U.S. Federal law.

On January 20, 2020, the plaintiff filed its response. The Company
responded to plaintiff's response on February 20, 2020.

The Company is currently awaiting the Court's decision in its
motion to dismiss the Amended Motion.

Ceragon said, "The Company believes that it has strong arguments to
support dismissal of the Amended Motion, and that the District
Court should accept the Company’s motion to dismiss. Furthermore,
the Company believes that it has a strong defense against the
allegations referred to in the Motion and that the District Court
should deny it."

Ceragon Networks Ltd. provides wireless backhaul solutions that
enable cellular operators and other wireless service providers to
deliver voice and data services worldwide. The Company was formerly
known as Giganet Ltd.  and changed its name to Ceragon Networks
Ltd.  in September 2000. Ceragon Networks Ltd. was founded in 1996
and is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Parties Agree With Court Class Cert. Bid is Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT TOMASSINI,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CHRYSLER
GROUP LLC (n/k/a FCA US LLC), Case No. 3:14-cv-01226-MAD-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), filed a joint submission to advise the Court of their
agreement that:

   1. the pending motion for class certification is moot because
      it was filed by Thomas Hromowyk and this Court has entered
      summary judgment against him; and

   2. the pending Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of
      Plaintiff's Experts filed by FCA US LLC is moot because it
      is directed to the expert's testimony of class
      certification issues.

Chrysler is an automobile manufacturer in the United States,
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520

               - and -

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT
          KEACH, III, PC
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: 518 434 1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Ste. 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste. 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290

               - and -

          Daniel C. Calvert, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan J. Pope, Esq.
          99 Corporate Drive
          Binghamton, NY 13902
          Telephone: (607) 723-9511
          E-mail: apope@cglawoffices.com

               - and -

          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          Stephen D. Aunoy, Esq.
          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000

          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tazar@thompsoncoburn.com
                  srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Won't Cover COVID-19 Losses, 3 Squares Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3 SQUARES LLC, D/B/A 3 SQUARES DINER, and YUSHO LLC, D/B/A JAM
RESTAURANT v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-02690 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated insureds that have been
denied their contractual rights under common policy forms due to
the Defendant's decision not to provide coverage for losses
stemming from COVID-19 crisis, including Business Income, Extra
Expense coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a
civil authority.

The Defendant's decision not to provide insurance coverage gives
rise to the Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' right to
seek declaratory judgment establishing that they are entitled to
receive the benefit of the insurance coverage they purchased and
for indemnification of the business losses they have sustained, the
complaint says.

The Plaintiffs contend that they made premium payments expecting in
their time of need The Cincinnati Insurance Company would make good
on its contractual obligations under the policy it wrote and
issued.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the
COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. On March 20, 2020, Governor Jay
Robert Pritzker issued a Closure Order prohibiting the public from
accessing the Plaintiffs' restaurants, thereby causing the
necessary suspension of their operations and triggering the Civil
Authority coverage under the Policy.

3 Squares is the owner and operator of 3 Squares Diner located at
1020 W. Lawrence Ave., in Chicago, Illinois. Yusho is the owner and
operator of Jam Restaurant located at 2853 N. Kedzie Ave., in
Chicago, Illinois.

CIC is an insurance company engaged in the business of selling
insurance contracts to commercial entities, such as the Plaintiffs,
in Illinois and elsewhere. CIC is incorporated in the State of Ohio
and maintains its principal place of business in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
          Gina A. Deboni, Esq.
          David A. Neiman, Esq.
          ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
          321 N. Clark St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 458-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 458-1004
          E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
                  gad@rblaw.net
                  dneiman@rblaw.net

               - and -

          Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq.
          Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
          Stuart Scott, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Tor, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP
          1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          E-mail: ndicello@spanglaw.com
                  dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
                  jtor@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Rutter, Esq.
          RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC
          One Summit Office Park, Suite 650
          4700 Rockside Road
          Cleveland, IL 44131
          Telephone: (216) 642-1425
          E-mail: brutter@IllinoisInsuranceLawyer.com


CLINICAL RESOURCES: Adenekan et al. Seek to Certify Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as OLUWASEUN "SEUN" ADENEKAN,
DONNA EDMONDS, DONNA MILLER, TISHA APPLINE, Individually and on
behalf of similarly situated employees v. CLINICAL RESOURCES, LLC,
and JENNIFER SCULLY, Individually, Case No. 3:19-cv-00436-PLR-DCP
(E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a putative collective of opt-in
      plaintiffs;

   2. requiring Defendants through expedited discovery to
      provide information necessary to facilitate the collective
      pursuit of all the Plaintiffs' claims; and

   3. authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to notify putative
      class members of their right collectively to adjudicate
      their similar claims against the Defendants.

Clinical Resources, owned and operated by Health Care
professionals, places experienced personnel in permanent, temporary
and interim positions in hospitals, skilled nursing and assisted
living facilities, nationwide.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          Alex J. Cramer, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 383-1053
          E-mail: jesse@NLGattorneys.com
                  alex@NLGattorneys.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Appeals Ruling in Mays Suit to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Thomas J. Dart filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Anthony Mays, et al. v. Thomas Dart, Case No.
1:20-cv-02134, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Thomas J. Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought as a class action complaint representative petition for
habeas corpus on behalf of the class of persons, who are detained
in the Cook County Jail and are facing unreasonable and unnecessary
risks of exposure to the coronavirus, possible serious respiratory
illness, and death.

A rapidly escalating public health disaster is unfolding behind the
walls of the Cook County Jail, the Plaintiffs allege. In the 11
days since March 23, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19, the
disease caused by a deadly coronavirus for which there is no
vaccine and no cure, has risen from one to at least 167. A total of
46 corrections staff are also known to have COVID-19. These numbers
will continue to rise dramatically because of the circumstances
alleged in this complaint, the Plaintiffs aver.

The Jail, which is operated under the supervision of Defendant
Thomas Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County, has failed in its
constitutional responsibility to the persons detained there to
provide reasonable protection against the further spread of this
deadly disease, the Plaintiffs contend. They note that social
distancing within the Jail is currently impossible because the Jail
is a crowded, congregate environment in which some 4,700
individuals are detained, in dual cell or dorm quarters. The
Plaintiffs insist that the Jail has repeatedly failed and continues
to fail to separate persons known to have been exposed to COVID-19
from other detainees.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Mays, et al. v. Thomas
Dart, Case No. 20-1792, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by May 26, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before June 22, 2020,
      for Thomas J. Dart.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ANTHONY MAYS and JUDIA JACKSON, as next friend
of KENNETH FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, are represented by:

          Alexa Van Brunt, Esq.
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          375 E. Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 503-1336
          Email: a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu

Defendant-Appellant THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff, Cook County, Illinois,
is represented by:

          Gretchen Harris Sperry, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 N. Franklin Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3521
          Email: gsperry@hinshawlaw.com


CORELOGIC INC: Feliciano Suit Over Background Checks Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to Defend against the case, Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v.
CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC.

In March, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who oversees the case,
entered a scheduling order directing the parties to proceed as
follows:

     1. The class notice shall be mailed out on or before March 20,
2020.

     2. A final pretrial conference shall be held on September 9,
2020, at 2:30 p.m. Trial shall begin on September 14, 2020, at
10:00 a.m.

     3. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be fully briefed prior
to the start of the trial.

A Final Pretrial Conference is set for September 9, 2020 at 2:30
p.m. before Judge Hellerstein. Jury Trial set for September 14,
2020 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Hellerstein.

In July 2017, Rental Property Solutions, LLC ("RPS") was named as a
defendant in Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent,
LLC, a putative class action lawsuit in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed.

On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports
issued during the period of July 2015 to the present.

In July 2019, the District Court issued an order certifying a class
of approximately 2,000 consumers.

The company filed a petition for review of the certification order
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied in
November 2019.

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


COUNTRYSIDE CHEVROLET/BUICK/GMC: Breneisen Files Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Countryside
Chevrolet/Buick/GMC, Inc. The case is styled as Kelly M. Breneisen
and Daniel Breneisen, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Countryside Chevrolet/Buick/GMC,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02867 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2020).

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

Countryside Chevrolet Buick GMC dealership offers new & used cars,
trucks, and SUVs at the best prices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 x116
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -
  
   Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD LLC: Suris Files Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deadline Hollywood,
Llc. The case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deadline Hollywood, LLC
doing business as: Deadline and Penske Business Media, Llc,
Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03700 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2020).

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

Deadline, also known as Deadline Hollywood or Deadline.com and
previously known as news blog Deadline Hollywood Daily, is an
online magazine founded by Nikki Finke in 2006. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell Segal, Esq.
   Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C.
   1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 415-0100
   Fax: (516) 706-6631
   Email: msegal@segallegal.com



DR. REDDY'S: Abraham Sues Over Carcinogen in Drug
-------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Abraham and Freda Smith, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05355, (D.N.J., April 30, 2020),
seeks equitable relief, damages and restitution for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
concealment, fraud and conversion and for violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection
Act.

Dr. Reddy's manufactured ranitidine-based over-the-counter and
prescription medications that contain dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity,
the complaint asserts. Ranitidine is an over-the-counter and
prescription medication that is designed to decrease the amount of
acid created by the stomach and the treatment of heartburn
associated with indigestion and sour stomach.

Abraham and Smith were both prescribed and consumed ranitidine
medications. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      Email: aobergfell@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: (925) 407-2700
      Email: swestcot@bursor.com


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation over Insulin Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend several class action suits related to the company's
insulin products.

The company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as
defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re.
Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey relating to insulin pricing seeking damages under various
state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act).

Separately, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are
named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v.
Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages
under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act.

In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery
Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal
RICO Act and certain state laws.

Also in the same court, the company, along with Sanofi, Novo
Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a
purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et
al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the
New Jersey RICO Act and anti-trust law.

That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United
Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions
in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., for
alleged violations of the federal RICO Act.

The Minnesota Attorney General's Office has initiated litigation
against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota v.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, violations of various Minnesota
state consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO Act.

Additionally, the Kentucky Attorney General's Office filed a
complaint against the company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk,
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al., in Kentucky
state court, alleging violations of the Kentucky consumer
protection law, false advertising, and unjust enrichment.

Harris County in Texas filed a complaint against us, Sanofi, Novo
Nordisk, Express Scripts, CVS, Optum, and Aetna, County of Harris
Texas v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al., in federal court in the Southern
District of Texas, alleging violations of the federal RICO Act,
federal and state anti-trust law, and the state deceptive trade
practices-consumer protection act. Harris County also alleges
common law claims such as, fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil
conspiracy.

This lawsuit relates to the company's insulin products as well as
Trulicity.

Eli Lilly said, "We believe all of these claims are without merit
and are defending against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


EPSON AMERICA: Faces Mondigo Suit Over Replacement Ink Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Mondigo, Felix Rabinovich, Richard Famiglietti, Jesse
Gordon, Gregory Szot, Martin Dignard, and Michael Kovach,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EPSON AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04400 (C.D. Cal., May 15,
2020), seeks redress on behalf of all persons and entities, who
purchased a printer from Epson, and suffered harm as result of
Epson's anti-competitive, unfair, fraudulent, and oppressive and
illegal conduct, in violation of the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act.

The ink cartridges in the Defendant's inkjet printers require
periodic replacement. Replacement ink cartridges for Epson printers
are manufactured by Epson, as well as third-party manufacturers. In
an effort to improperly and illegally quash competition from
third-party ink cartridge manufacturers, Epson engaged, and
continues to engage, in a systematic campaign of disabling Epson
printers when non-Epson, replacement ink cartridges are installed,
the Plaintiffs allege.

To carry out this scheme, Epson designed and delivered software
and/or firmware Updates to Epson printers that purposely disabled
those printers with non-Epson printer cartridges installed,
according to the complaint. For many users, these software Updates
effectively ruined their printers. For others, the Updates forced
them to purchase Epson ink cartridges, which are significantly more
expensive than third-party cartridges. There is nothing inherently
wrong with third-party ink cartridges that causes them to fail or
that precludes their use in Epson printers. Third-party ink
cartridges function without issue on Epson printers that do not
have the Updates installed.

The Plaintiffs contend that Epson never informed Epson printer
owners that the Updates would prevent their printers from working
if they had third-party ink cartridges installed. To the contrary,
the Epson Software License informs consumers that the software
and/or firmware Updates will improve the printers and fix known
issues, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased and own Epson Printers.

Epson is a global company that manufactures various technology
products, including inkjet printers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          117 East Colorado Blvd., Ste. 600
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Phone: 619-762-1910
          Fax: 412-231-0246
          Email: ekim@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kipela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-322-9243
          Fax: 412-231-0246
          Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com


FAB DOG INC: West Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------
Fab Dog Incorporated is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fab Dog Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03596 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).

Fab Dog Inc is an apparel & fashion company based out of 155 W 71st
St APT 1a, New York, New York, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com




FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stock Purchase Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself in lawsuits, including a consolidated
class action, related to Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreements.

A consolidated putative class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action
Litigations") and two non-class action lawsuits, Arrowood Indemnity
Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, filed by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders against the company, Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as the company's conservator, and
Freddie Mac are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

The lawsuits challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company's
senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.

Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in all three lawsuits on
November 1, 2017 alleging that the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented
pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the
shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive
dividends.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs in the class action seek to represent several classes of
preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie
Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012
amendments. On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims except for their claims for breach of an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On May 21, 2018, a plaintiff in a non-class action case, Angel v.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed a complaint for
declaratory relief and compensatory damages against Fannie Mae
(including certain members of its Board of Directors), Freddie Mac
(including certain members of its Board of Directors) and FHFA, as
conservator, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

Plaintiff in that case asserts claims for breach of contract,
breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and
aiding and abetting the federal government in avoiding an alleged
implicit guarantee of dividend payments.

On March 6, 2019, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and on March 18, 2019, plaintiff moved to alter or amend the
judgment and to file an amended complaint. On May 24, 2019, the
court denied this motion.

On April 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal
questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are
currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation.

Federal National Mortgage Association provides liquidity and
stability support services for the mortgage market in the United
States. The Company was founded in 1938 and is based in Washington,
the District of Columbia.

FLAVIAR INC: West Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------
Flaviar, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Flaviar, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03598 (S.D.
N.Y., May 8, 2020).

Flaviar, Inc. retails alcoholic products. The Company offers hand
selected whiskies, vodkas, and other alcoholic beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com



GEORGIA: Gonzalez Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kris Kline, Warden of
the Central Arizona Florence. The case is styled as Maria Guadalupe
Lucero-Gonzalez, Claudia Romero-Lorenzo, Tracy Ann Peuplie, James
Tyler Ciecierski and Marvin Lee Enos, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Kris Kline,
Warden of the Central Arizona Florence, in their official
capacities, David Gonzales, U.S. Marshal for the District of
Arizona, in their official capacities, Donald W Washington,
Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, in their official capacities
and Michael Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in
their official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02001-CAP
(N.D. Ga., May 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner:
Prison Condition asserting Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Defendants are government representatives exercising their
duties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Benjamin C Calleros, Esq.
   Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ
   2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000
   Phoenix, AZ 85012
   Tel: (602) 351-8174
   Email: bcalleros@perkinscoie.com

     - and –

   Emma A Andersson, Esq.
   ACLU - New York, NY
   125 Broad St., 18th Fl.
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 284-7365
   Fax: (212) 549-2654
   Email: eandersson@aclu.org

     - and –

   Jean-Jacques Cabou, Esq.
   Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ
   2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000
   Phoenix, AZ 85012
   Tel: (602) 351-8000
   Fax: (602) 648-7000
   Email: jcabou@perkinscoie.com

     - and –

   Margo Rose Casselman, Esq.
   Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ
   2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000
   Phoenix, AZ 85012
   Tel: (602) 351-8159
   Fax: (602) 648-7161
   Email: mcasselman@perkinscoie.com

     - and –

   Matthew Robert Koerner, Esq.
   Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ
   2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000
   Phoenix, AZ 85012
   Tel: (602) 351-8000
   Fax: (602) 648-7000
   Email: mkoerner@perkinscoie.com

     - and –

   Christine Keeyeh Wee, Esq.
   ACLU - Phoenix, AZ
   P.O. Box 17148
   Phoenix, AZ 85011
   Tel: (602) 650-1854
   Email: cwee@acluaz.org

     - and –

   Jared G Keenan, Esq.
   ACLU - Phoenix, AZ
   P.O. Box 17148
   Phoenix, AZ 85011
   Tel: (602) 650-1854
   Email: jkeenan@acluaz.org

The Defendants are represented by:

   Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq.
   Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC
   3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300
   Chandler, AZ 85226
   Tel: (480) 420-1600
   Email: dstruck@strucklove.com

     - and –

   Jacob Brady Lee, Esq.
   Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC
   3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300
   Chandler, AZ 85226
   Tel: (480) 420-1641
   Fax: (480) 420-1696
   Email: JLee@strucklove.com

     - and –

   Nicholas Daniel Acedo
   Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC
   3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300
   Chandler, AZ 85226
   Tel: (480) 420-1600
   Email: NAcedo@strucklove.com

     - and –

   Rachel Love, Esq.
   Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC
   3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300
   Chandler, AZ 85226
   Tel: (480) 420-1600
   Fax: (480) 420-1696
   Email: RLove@strucklove.com

The Defendants Gonzalez, Washington and Carvajal are represented
by:

   William Charles Staes, Esq.
   US Attorneys Office-Phoenix, AZ
   2 Renaissance Square
   40 N Central Ave., Ste. 1800
   Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408
   Tel: (602) 514-7659
   Email: william.staes@usdoj.gov



GERRESHEIMER GLASS: Bradley BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXSIA BRADLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GERRESHEIMER
GLASS, INC., Case No. 2020-CH-03460, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 4, 2020.

The Northern District of Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02700 to the proceeding.

Ms. Bradley alleges that Gerresheimer failed to obtain a written
release from her and the Class before it collected, used, and
stored their biometric identifiers and biometric information in
violation to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. She
asserts that she was employed by Gerresheimer in Illinois through
2019.

Gerresheimer is a Delaware Corporation that manufactures products
for the healthcare industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355.7590
          Facsimile: 630 778.0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlaw.com
                  mara@fishlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melissa A. Siebert, Esq.
          Erin Bolan Hines, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
          E-mail: masiebert@shb.com
                  ehines@shb.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court's August 14, 2018
grant of class certification.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of  the company's
(Group Inc.'s) public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the
firm's conflict of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have moved for
summary judgment.

On April 7, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Adeptus IPO Suit Wins Initial Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas has preliminarily approved a
settlement among the parties in the class action suit related to
Adeptus Health Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO).

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain
former directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as
well as Adeptus' sponsor. As to the underwriters, the consolidated
complaint, filed on November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million
June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May 2015
secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary
equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity
offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock
in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock
in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $185 million, and all the shares of common stock
in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On January 9, 2020, the court preliminarily approved a settlement
among the parties.

The firm has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution
to the settlement.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit related to 1MDB remains pending.

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company (Group Inc.) and certain former
officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s
disclosures concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages.

The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28,
2019, which the defendants moved to dismiss on January 9, 2020.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Drop Commodities-Related Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the class action suit
related to the alleged violations of antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act by Goldman Sachs International (GSI).

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all
claims.

Plaintiffs have been granted leave to replead.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Corporate Bonds Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company (Group
Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have been named as
defendants in a class action suit related to the secondary market
sale of odd-lot corporate bonds.

The company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are
among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action
relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed
on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust law in
connection with alleged anti-competitive conduct by the defendants
in the secondary market for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary
damages, including treble and punitive damages and restitution.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Objections Filed in Employment Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
class action suit alleging employee discrimination, submitted
objections to the Magistrate Judge's order granting in part a
motion to compel arbitration.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the company
(Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of
compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.

The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.

The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.
     
On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.

On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court
granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members
who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co.
in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes.

On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order and defendants submitted conditional
objections in the event that the district judge overturns any
portion of the Magistrate Judge's order.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Reaches Settlement in Snap Inc. IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties to the
federal action related to Snap Inc.' initial public offering of
securities have reached a settlement in principle, subject to
documentation and court approval.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial
public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.

GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $970 million.

The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily
dismissed from the district court action on September 18, 2018. In
the district court action, defendants moved for summary judgment on
December 19, 2019, following the court's November 20, 2019 order
approving plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

The state court actions have been stayed.

On January 17, 2020, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that would resolve all actions, subject to documentation and court
approval.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Indirect Purchasers' FX Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the
class action suit filed on behalf of putative indirect purchasers
of foreign exchange instruments, reached a settlement in principle,
subject to documentation and court approval.

The Company ("Group Inc.") and its principal U.S. broker-dealer,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among the defendants named
in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016 on behalf
of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.

On August 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
amended complaint generally alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the
foreign currency exchange markets, asserting claims under various
state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking
treble damages in an unspecified amount.

In February 2020, the parties reached a settlement in principle,
subject to documentation and court approval. The firm has reserved
the full amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that its affiliates continue
to defend a putative class action lawsuit in Canada related to the
sales of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. securities.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.
(GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named
as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in
the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the
defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's
auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule
144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and
the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal
amount of senior notes.

The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a
class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.

Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied
on November 30, 2017.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Food for Thought Seeks Insurance Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD FOR THOUGHT CATERERS CORP., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC. AND SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03418 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020) alleges that Defendants
have wrongfully denied Plaintiff's and Class members' insurance
claims arising from the interruption of Plaintiff's and Class
members' businesses brought by the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated Class members obtained
insurance policies from the Defendants that included business
interruption coverage to protect from losses caused by situations
like COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the coverages provided by the Defendants' Spectrum Business
Owners Policy, which is currently in full effect, is business
interruption insurance, which, generally, would indemnify Plaintiff
for lost income and profits in the event that its business was shut
down. The interruption of Plaintiff’s and other Class members’
businesses was not caused by any of the exclusions set forth in the
applicable Policy. These suspensions and losses triggered Business
Income coverage under Plaintiff's Policy and the policies of other
Class members.

As a result of Hartford's breaches of the Policy and other Class
members' policies, Plaintiff and the other Class members have
sustained substantial damages for which Hartford is liable, in an
amount to be established at trial.

Food for Thought operates a full-service catering business serving
the New York City area.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a Hartford,
Connecticut-based company that owns subsidiaries, directly and
indirectly, that issue, among other things, property insurance.

Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Hartford
Financial and is duly qualified and licensed to issue insurance in
the State of New York and other states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Email: ogiskan@gslawny.com

                    - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Rd.
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
          Email: mboni@bonizack.com
                 jsnyder@bonizack.com
                 jsindoni@bonizack.com

                    - and -

          Howard I. Langer, Esq.
          Peter E. Leckman, Esq.
          LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER P.C.
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          Email: hlanger@langergrogan.com
                 ndiver@langergrogan.com
                 pleckman@langergrogan.com

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Cochran Sues Over Employee Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL COCHRAN, on behalf of himself individually and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; HP
ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; HP, Inc.; DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC;
and PERSPECTA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01235 (D. Colo., May 1, 2020) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff on behalf of all those similarly situated employees
as a result of Defendants' discrimination against them on the basis
of age.

The Defendants adversely altered the terms and conditions of
Plaintiffs' employment, denied Plaintiffs the opportunities that
other employees outside their protected class received, and
terminated their employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 and Colorado Fair Employment Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, Hewlett-Packard repeatedly
discriminated against Mr. Cochran by denying him career advancement
opportunities that were granted to younger employees.  For
instance, on two occasions, Mr. Cochran attempted to participate in
HP's TechFluence, career advancement program.  Both times, Mr.
Cochran was denied the opportunity to participate in this program.
Mr. Cochran reasonably believes that Defendants denied him an
opportunity to participate in TechFluence because of his age. On
Mr. Cochran's information and belief, younger employees were
allowed to participate in this program. During one of the
information meetings for TechFluence program, Mr. Cochran was the
oldest person attending the meeting.

Hewlett-Packard Company is an American multinational information
technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
          Marisol Jimenez Gaytan, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          c/o Hogue & Belong, APC 170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-4720
          Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                 tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
                 mjimenez@hoguebelonglaw.com

HILL'S PET: Suit Over Contaminated Dog Food Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Hill's Pet Nutrition
(Hill's) continues to defend class action suits related to its
voluntary recall of canned dog food products.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, Hill's Pet Nutrition
(Hill's) announced a voluntary recall, which was subsequently
expanded, of select canned dog food products due to potentially
elevated levels of Vitamin D resulting from a supplier error.

In the United States, the voluntary recall was conducted in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Following the announcement of the voluntary recall, and as of March
31, 2020, Hill's and/or the Company have been named as defendants
in 37 putative class action lawsuits, one putative class action
filed on behalf of a European Union class and one individual
action, all related to the voluntary recall and filed in various
jurisdictions in the United States.

In addition, two putative class actions related to the voluntary
recall have been filed in Canada.

Eight of the putative class actions lawsuits in the United States
and one of the putative class action lawsuits in Canada have been
voluntarily dismissed.

Hill's is entitled to indemnification from the supplier related to
the voluntary recall.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


HOME KO LLC: Reyes Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Teresa Reyes, and Yasmina Farah, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Home KO, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; Courey International (U.S.A.) Inc., a
for profit Florida corporation, and; Alan Courey, individually,
Case No. 1:20-cv-22037-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2020), is brought
to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were required to be paid for hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek, at the statutory premium rate of 1.5 time
regular hourly rate, according to the complaint. The Defendants,
however, does not keep accurate time-keeping records for hours
worked by the Plaintiffs or any other similarly situated, covered
employees as a means to avoid the payment of overtime hours by
capping the hours worked log at 40 hours per week even though
employees routinely worked more than 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs worked as a sales representative and as a buyer
representative for the Defendants.

The Defendants is a home improvement company operating under the
names Home KO, LLC and Courey International (U.S.A.) Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: 305-665-9211
          Fax: 305-328-4842
          Email: afs@laborlawfla.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Bid to Nix Kanefsky Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit initiated by David Kanefsky, is
pending.

On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting
for Bendix asbestos claims.

An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on
February 7, 2020, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Honeywell said, "We believe the claims have no merit."

Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Dropped From Resideo Technologies Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
putative class action suit entitled, In re Resideo Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, have filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and did not name the company as a defendant,
thus the company is no longer party to this matter.

On January 7, 2020, The Gabelli Asset Fund and certain related
parties filed a putative class action complaint against Resideo and
Honeywell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 related to Resideo's spinoff from Honeywell in October 2018.


On January 27, 2020, this putative class action was consolidated
with certain previously-filed actions asserting claims relating to
substantially the same matters into a single class action under the
title In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation.  

The company believes the allegations against Honeywell regarding
the Resideo spinoff have no merit.

On April 10, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and did not name Honeywell.

Accordingly, Honeywell is no longer party to this matter.

Honeywell said, "However, it is possible that Honeywell could be
named as a defendant in the future."

Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


HYATT HOTELS: Faces Clark Suit Over Toxic Carbon Monoxide Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND E. CLARK, and BETTYJUNE CLARK, Plaintiffs, v. HYATT HOTELS
CORPORATION, HYATT PLACE FRANCHISING, LLC, NOBLE INVESTMENT GROUP,
LLC, NF II BOULDER OP CO, LLC, HP BOULDER LLC, and INTERSTATE
HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01236 (D.
Colo., May 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
the harm they caused to Plaintiffs and members of the putative
Class after a faulty boiler and ventilation system spewed toxic
carbon monoxide ("CO") gas throughout the Hyatt Place Boulder /
Pearl Street Hotel, poisoning hundreds of unknowing guests.

The Plaintiffs and the other hotel guests between November 10-18,
2018 -- i.e., members of the putative class -- put their trust in
Defendants when they stayed at the Hyatt Place Boulder / Pearl
Street Hotel in Boulder, Colorado. But Defendants failed to provide
their guests with appropriate safety measures during their stays,
and then failed to inform them of the dangers to which they were
exposed.

As a result of being poisoned, the Plaintiffs and presumably
numerous other guests staying at the Hotel that week, have suffered
severe cognitive, emotional, and physical injuries and impairments
including but not limited to: a. Cognitive deficits including but
not limited to difficulties with math, memory, processing speed,
reading, and word-finding; b. Emotional difficulties including
depression, anxiety, and frustration at the inability to do
everyday tasks; c. Visual disturbances; d. Fatigue and exhaustion;
e. Sleep disturbances; f. Pain; and g. Other physical injuries.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a Chicago, Illinois-based multinational
hospitality company that owns, manages, and franchises luxury
hotels, resorts, and vacation properties, collectively comprising
the "Hyatt Hotels group."

Hyatt Place Franchising, LLC owned, operated, or controlled,
directly or through its subsidiaries, the Hyatt Place Boulder /
Pearl Street Hotel.

Noble Investment Group, LLC owned, operated, or controlled,
directly or through its subsidiaries, the Hyatt Place Boulder /
Pearl Street Hotel.

NF II Boulder Op Co, LLC owned, operated, or controlled, directly
or through its subsidiaries, the Hyatt Place Boulder / Pearl Street
Hotel.

HP Boulder, LLC owned, operated, or controlled, directly or through
its subsidiaries, the Hyatt Place Boulder / Pearl Street Hotel.

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc.  owned, operated, or controlled,
directly or through its subsidiaries, the Hyatt Place Boulder /
Pearl Street Hotel.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyson E. Logan, Esq.
          THE SPENCE LAW FIRM, LLC
          15 S. Jackson Street, P.O. Box 548
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 733-7290
          Email: logan@spencelaywers.com

ILLINOIS: Faces Koonce Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Governor Jay
Robert Pritzker. The case is captioned as Raymond E. Koonce, in his
individual capacity, and on behalf of all citizens of the State of
Illinois, similarly situated v. Jay Robert Pritzker, in his
official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, Case No.
3:20-cv-03117-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., May 4, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Judge Sue E. Myerscough. The lawsuit
alleges violation of civil rights-related laws.

Jay Robert Pritzker is an American businessman and politician
serving as the 43rd Governor of Illinois.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Action under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court in
Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, heard oral
argument on a motion to dismiss and took the matter under
advisement.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.

The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.

The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of
the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to
the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.

The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2017, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2017.

On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the motion
to dismiss and took the matter under advisement.

Johnson Controls said, "Although the Company believes it has
substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to
predict the outcome of this action."

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

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


KALMID GROUP: West Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Kalmid Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kalmid Group, Inc. doing business as: Cloverleaf Farm,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03597-ER (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).

Kalmid Group, Inc. (trade name Barclay Crocker) is in the
Toiletries, Cosmetics, and Perfumes business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com




KELLOGG CO: Court Rejects Settlement in Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California has denied a motion to
approve a class action settlement.

In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the
Northern District of California relating to statements made on
packaging for certain products.

In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding
certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the
parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in
dispute.

In October 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to the Court to
approve a settlement between Kellogg and the class. During 2019,
the Company concluded that the contingency related to the
unfavorable ruling was probable and estimable, resulting in a
liability being recorded.

In February 2020, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to approve
the settlement. This litigation, including any potential
settlement, is not expected to have a material impact on the
Company’s consolidated financial statements.  

The Company will continue to evaluate the likelihood of potential
outcomes as the litigation continues.

Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan.


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Bacon FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD BACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01924-ELR-JKL (N.D. Ga., May 4, 2020), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff contends that LexisNexis' failure to timely gather
updated information is a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b)
because LexisNexis has not implemented reasonable procedures to
ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the
consumer reports that it furnished regarding the Plaintiff and the
putative class members pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On January 25, 2016, there was a default judgment entered against
the Plaintiff in Kingsport, Tennessee. The judgment was entered in
error, and quickly vacated and set aside on February 25, 2016. The
case was later settled and dismissed with prejudice. LexisNexis,
however, has failed to update its records, continues to maintain
inaccurate information in the Plaintiff's file, and continues to
report the tax liens and judgment have not been satisfied or
vacated, says the complaint.

LexisNexis is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and
maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. As part of this
process, LexisNexis uses a largely automated and systematic
procedure to gather and report derogatory public records in credit
reports, such as tax liens and judgments. However, LexisNexis
allegedly does not have adequate procedures to gather updated
information about when the tax lien or judgment is released,
satisfied, vacated or otherwise removed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: 612-594-5999
          Facsimile: 612-584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          M. Shane Perry, Esq.
          COLLUM & PERRY
          109 W Statesville Avenue
          Mooresville, NC 28115
          Telephone: 704-663-4187
          Facsimile: 704-663-4178
          E-mail: shane@collumperry.com


LIBERTY OILFIELD: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of this  publicly-traded
company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

LBRT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/liberty-oilfield-services-inc-loss-form?prid=6090&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc. (LBRT)

LBRT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the documents issued in connection
with the Company's January 2018 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/liberty-oilfield-services-inc-loss-form?prid=6090&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) there was an oversupply in
the hydraulic fracturing services market; (2) the Company's pricing
power was weak; (3) Liberty's services were not increasing and its
competition was not decreasing; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
[GN]


LLOYD'S LONDON: Denies COVID-19 Losses Coverage, Station 6 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STATION 6, L.L.C. v. LLOYD'S LONDON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01371-SSV-MBN
(E.D. La., May 4, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated arising from the Defendant's refusal
to cover the Plaintiff's loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant denied insurance claims
for business losses resulting from the order of civil authorities
to cease all business operations to prevent the spread of
COVID-19.

According to the complaint, by letter dated April 16, 2020, the
Defendant issued reservation of rights letters asserting that
Plaintiff's loss was likely excluded from coverage under the
all-risk Policy.

The Plaintiff contends that it has suffered and will continue to
suffer a direct physical loss of and damage to its property. Its
ongoing losses include Business Interruption, Extra Expense, Civil
Authority, and Extended Business Income.

On March 11, 2020 World Health Organization Director General Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. On
March 23, 2020, Governor John Bel Edwards entered a "Stay At Home"
Order restricting public access to non-essential businesses and
limiting restaurants to take out only.

Station 6 operates a restaurant in Metairie, Louisiana.

Lloyd's is an insurance and reinsurance market located in London,
United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          Brian D. Katz, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          Joseph E. "Jed" Cain, Esq.
          John S. Creevy, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
                  bkatz@hhklawfirm.com
                  sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com
                  jcain@hhklawfirm.com
                  jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Dilberto, Esq.
          DILBERTO LAW FIRM
          3636 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 210
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 828-1600
          E-mail: Robert@GetRJD.com


LORITO BOOKS INC: West Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorito Books, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
West, other, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lorito Books, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03591 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).

Lorito Books, Inc. offers Spanish children's books and audiobook
sets from domestic and foreign publishers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


LVNV FUNDING LLC: Allen Disputes Collection Call Legality
---------------------------------------------------------
Danny Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00822 (S.D. Cal., April
30, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

LVNV Funding are debt collectors who were assigned to collect an
obligation that defaulted. Allen claims that LVNV called him up to
collect said debt but failed to inform him during the call that
they were debt collectors and the purpose of the call was to
collect said debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCGRAW HILL: Belen Sues Over College Textbook Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Belen, individually and as representatives of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McGraw Hill, LLC, Pearson
Education, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc. and Educational Publishers
Enforcement Group, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05394 (D. N.J., April
30, 2020), seeks a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants
from continuing anticompetitive effects and damages pursuant to
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Defendants are publishers and book retailers who are alleged of
monopolizing the collegiate textbook market and in the process
eliminate all substitute products and retail competitors, including
the significant secondary market for course materials.

Belen was a student who enrolled in courses using Inclusive Access
and purchased course materials through Inclusive Access directly
from Publisher Defendants McGraw-Hill and Pearson including those
through Inclusive Access from an on-campus bookstore. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph DePalma, Esq.
     Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
             scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

             - and -

     Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
     Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 314-7980, 519-8306
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
            sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com


MESA AIR: June 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the securities class action
lawsuit against:

Mesa Air Group, Inc. (MESA)
Class Period: securities issued in connection with its August 2018
initial public stock offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 1, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-mesa-air-group-incorporated-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission:
to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover
their share of billions of dollars from securities class action
settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for
free to gain access to information and settlement websites for
various securities class action cases so they can timely submit
their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to
be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have
a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


MESA AIR: June 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of this  publicly-traded
company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

MESA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mesa-air-group-incorporated-loss-form?prid=6090&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Mesa Air Group Incorporated (MESA)

MESA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the documents issued in connection with Mesa
Air Group's August 2018 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mesa-air-group-incorporated-loss-form?prid=6090&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) Mesa Air Group's operational
performance was poor and below industry standards; (2) Mesa Air
Group had a shortage of qualified mechanics and maintenance
personnel; (3) Mesa Air Group had an inadequate number of spare
aircraft and parts; (4) Mesa Air Group did not have a strong track
record of reliable performance; (5) then-existing "risks" had
already materialized; (6) Mesa Air Group knew of undisclosed
adverse trends and uncertainties at the time of the initial public
offering; and (7) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
[GN]


MONDELEZ INT'L: McMorrow Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PATRICK MCMORROW, MARCO
OHLIN, and MELODY DIGREGORIO, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. MONDELEZ
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-02327-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on September 21, 2020 for an
order:

   1. certifying these Classes:

      California Class:

      "all persons in California who, on or after November 16,
       2013 purchased for household use and not for resale or
       distribution, belVita products bearing the phrase
       "NUTRITIOUS STEADY ENERGY," "NUTRITIOUS SUSTAINED ENERGY"
       or "NUTRITIOUS MORNING ENERGY"; and

       New York Class:

       "all persons in New York who, on or after January 2, 2015
       purchased for household use and not for resale or
       distribution, belVita products bearing the phrase
       "NUTRITIOUS STEADY ENERGY," "NUTRITIOUS SUSTAINED
       ENERGY," or "NUTRITIOUS MORNING ENERGY";

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel.

Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage company based in Chicago, Illinois which employs
approximately 83,000 individuals around the world.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Point Loma Blvd. No. 309
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

NAUTILUS INSURANCE: Denies COVID-19 Losses Coverage, Scorpio Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCORPIO RISING, INC. DBA BOURBON PUB PARADE v. NAUTILUS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01372-SSV-KWR (E.D. La., May 4, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated arising from the Defendant's refusal to cover the
Plaintiff's loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff operates a nightclub established in 1974, which is
located in a heart of the French Quarter. The Plaintiff's business
was open 365 days of the year, with the capacity to hold 482 guests
(Upstairs 190, downstairs 200 and balcony 92).

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
pandemic. On March 23, 2020, Governor John Bel Edwards entered a
"Stay At Home" Order restricting public access to non-essential
businesses and limiting restaurants to take out only. New Orleans
Mayor LaToya Cantrell issued an order to the Plaintiff and others
to cease all business operations to prevent the spread of
COVID-19.

According to the complaint, by letter dated April 2, 2020, the
Defendant issued a reservation of right letter asserting that the
Plaintiff's loss was excluded from coverage under the all-risk
Policy on erroneous grounds claiming that the Plaintiff's premises
had not suffered direct physical loss or damage for purposes or
that coverage and that no surrounding property had suffered direct
physical loss or damages for purposes of the Civil Authority
coverage.

The Plaintiff contends that it has suffered and will continue to
suffer a direct physical loss of and damage to its property. The
Plaintiff adds that its ongoing losses include Business
Interruption, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Extended Business
Income.

The Defendant provides excess and surplus lines commercial property
and casualty insurance coverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          Brian D. Katz, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          Joseph E. "Jed" Cain, Esq.
          John S. Creevy, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
                  bkatz@hhklawfirm.com
                  sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com
                  jcain@hhklawfirm.com
                  jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Dilberto, Esq.
          DILBERTO LAW FIRM
          3636 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 210
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 828-1600
          E-mail: Robert@GetRJD.com


NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, In RE Navient Corporation
Securities Litigation.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018
under the caption In RE Navient Corporation Securities Litigation,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018.

In December 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and discovery is on-going.

The Company continues to deny the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Laws Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class action suits over alleged violations of consumer
protection laws.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal
consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 ("CFPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various other state
consumer protection laws.

In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the
"CFPB") and Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the
State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient
Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging
violations of certain Federal and State consumer protection
statutes, including the CFPA, FCRA, FDCPA and various state
consumer protection laws.

In October 2017, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania initiated a civil action against Navient Corporation
and Navient Solutions, LLC, containing similar alleged violations
of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

Additionally, in 2018 the Attorneys General for the States of
California and Mississippi initiated similar actions against the
Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various
state and federal consumer protection laws.

The company refera to the Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington,
California, and Mississippi Attorneys General collectively as the
"State Attorneys General."

In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed
by nongovernmental parties or, in the future, may be filed by
additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages
or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and
the State Attorneys General.

Navient said, "As the Company has previously stated, we believe the
suits improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new,
unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively only against
one servicer, and that the allegations are false. We therefore have
denied these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against
the allegations in each of these cases."

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NEW CHINA KING: Lin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ming Hui Lin, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NEW CHINA KING ZHENG INC d/b/a New China King; FANG
RONG ZHENG, Case No. 3:20-cv-00687 (D. Conn., May 16, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
at least the Connecticut minimum wage for each hour worked,
according to the complaint. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff and others their lawful overtime
compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
Deliveryman for New China King.

NEW CHINA KING ZHENG INC., doing business as New China King, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324
          Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


NEWELL BRANDS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
class action suit entitled, In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities
Litigation, have taken an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit from a trial court's order dismissing
the complaint.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated case. The operative complaint
alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among
other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

On January 10, 2020, the court in In re Newell Brands Inc.
Securities Litigation entered a dismissal with prejudice after
granting the Company's motion to dismiss.

On February 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NIXON ENGINEERING: Heslip et al. Seek to Certify Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILL HESLIP, DAVID SANDERS,
MARCUS DAVIS, STEVEN MITCHELL and WENDY WISE, Each Individually and
on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. NIXON ENGINEERING, LLC,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01327-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. granting an unopposed motion regarding conditional
      certification and notice to collective action class
      members on behalf of:

      "all salaried employees who worked on roadway projects as
      foremen/dispatchers, supervisors, controllers, crew
      leaders or safety officers for Nixon Engineering, LLC
      since November 12, 2016, excluding any such employees who
      began working for Nixon Engineering on or after July 21,
      2019."

   2. directing the Defendant to produce a list of the members
      of the proposed collective, including names, last known
      addresses, and, to the extent Defendant has such
      information, mobile phone numbers and email addresses, in
      an electronic, editable format within 10 days of the
      Court's Order on this Unopposed Motion; and

   3. providing a period of 60 days following the Defendant's
      production of the list of collective members, to allow
      collective members to receive notice and file consents to
      join this lawsuit.

Nixon is a traffic control and maintenance company.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ramon D. Bissmeyer, Esq.
          Elizabeth Voss, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          Comerica Bank Tower
          1717 Main Street, Suite 4200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-462-6400
          Facsimile: 214-462-6401
          E-mail: rbissmeyer@dykema.com
                  evoss@dykema.com

NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Levi & Korsinsky Announce Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of this  publicly-traded
company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

NCLH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings-ltd-loss-form?prid=6090&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NCLH)

NCLH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 20,
2020 - March 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 11, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings-ltd-loss-form?prid=6090&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company was employing sales tactics of providing customers with
unproven and/or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice
customers to purchase cruises, thus endangering the lives of both
their customers and crew members; and (2) as a result, Defendants'
statements regarding the Company's business and operations were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
[GN]


OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Olin, K.A. Steel
Chemicals continues to defend several class action suits related to
the sale of caustic soda.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin) and
other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six
purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26,
2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs
and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who
purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates
at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.  

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals and other caustic soda producers were
also named as defendants in two purported class action civil
lawsuits filed July 25 and 29, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York on behalf of the respective named
plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and
entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. indirectly from
distributors at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.

The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.,
Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. The lawsuits allege the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of
caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and
allocate caustic soda customers. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages and injunctive relief.

Olin said, "We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will
continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. Any
losses related to this matter are not currently estimable because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, but, if resolved
unfavorably to Olin, could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations."

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

Olin Corporation, incorporated on August 13, 1892, is a
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, and ammunition.
The Company operates through three segments: Chlor Alkali Products
and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester. The company is based in Clayton
Missouri.


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Allen Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRMA ALLEN and BARTLEY M.
MULLEN, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00281-NBF (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have
      attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior of any
      store owned or operated by Defendant within the United
      States and have, or will have, experienced access barriers
      in interior paths of travel";

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   3. appointing R. Bruce Carlson, Esq., and Elizabeth Pollock-
      Avery, Esq. of Carlson Lynch, LLP, as Class Counsel.

Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount retail stores
founded in 1982.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  eavery@carlsonlynch.com

ORION GROUP: Securities Class Suit in Houston Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Orion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that  the company continues
to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The Company and one former and two current officers are named
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on April 11, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, seeking unstated compensatory damages under the
federal securities laws allegedly arising from materially false and
misleading statements during the period of March 13, 2018 to March
18, 2019.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the current and
former officers caused the Company to overstate goodwill in certain
periods; overstate accounts receivable; that the company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting related to
goodwill impairment testing and accounts receivable; and that as a
result certain adjustments to goodwill and accounts receivable
materially impacted the company's financial statements, which in
turn caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated
during the class period.

The Company has responded to the complaint, considers all of these
allegations without merit and is vigorously contesting the
allegations.

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

Orion Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty construction
company in the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors in
the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Caribbean
Basin. It operates in two segments, Marine and Concrete. The
company was formerly known as Orion Marine Group, Inc. and changed
its name to Orion Group Holdings, Inc. in May 2016. Orion Group
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


OWNERS INSURANCE: Blue Springs Dental Care Files Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Owners Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Blue Springs Dental Care LLC, Green
Hills Dental Care KC LLC, Highland Dental Care Clinic LLC and
Kearney Dental LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Owners Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00383-SRB (W.D. Mo., May 13, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over Diversity-Breach of Contract.

The Company offers car, life, home, business, and casualty
insurance services. Owners Insurance serves customers throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KCMO
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7110
   Fax: (816) 714-7101
   Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

     - and -

   Bradley Wilders, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KCMO
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7126
   Fax: (816) 714-7101
   Email: wilders@stuevesiegel.com

     - and -

   Christopher Curtis Shank, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KCMO
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7100
   Fax: (816) 714-7101
   Email: shank@stuevesiegel.com

     - and -

   J. Kent Emison, Esq.
   Langdon & Emison
   911 Main Street
   P.O. Box 220
   Lexington, MO 64067
   Tel: (660) 259-6175
   Fax: (660) 259-4571
   Email: kemison@langdonemison.com

     - and -

   John J. Schirger, Esq.
   Miller Schirger, LLC
   4520 Main St., Ste. 1570
   Kansas City, MO 64111
   Tel: (816) 561-6500
   Fax: (816) 561-6501
   Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com

     - and -

   Joseph M Feierabend, Esq.
   Miller Schirger, LLC
   4520 Main St., Ste. 1570
   Kansas City, MO 64111
   Tel: (816) 561-6500
   Fax: (816) 561-6501
   Email: jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

     - and -

   Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
   Miller Schirger, LLC
   4520 Main St., Ste. 1570
   Kansas City, MO 64111
   Tel: (816) 561-6500
   Fax: (816) 561-6510
   Email: mlytle@millerschirger.com




PAM TRANSPORT: Independent Contractors' Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas has
dismissed the collective- and class-action lawsuit filed against
the company by plaintiffs, who were independent contractors.

The dismissal of this lawsuit resulted when the Company and
plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement for approximately
$421,000, plus legal fees.

The lawsuit was filed May 29, 2019, by plaintiffs, who were
independent contractors alleging violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Law.

The plaintiffs, through their attorneys, alleged "misclassification
as independent contractors, payment on the basis of miles without
regard to the number of hours worked, improper deductions, and
failure to pay minimum wage."

The District Court entered the Dismissal order on March 31, 2020.

P.A.M. said, "Legal reserve accruals in excess of the amount
outlined in the settlement agreement were reversed during the
quarter ended March 31, 2020, resulting in a reduction in accrued
expenses and other liabilities in the Company's consolidated
balance sheets."

P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc., is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a truckload
transportation and logistics company. The company is based in
Tontitown, Arkansas.


PAM TRANSPORT: Settlement in Drivers' Suit Wins Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas has granted
preliminary approval of a settlement reached with class action
plaintiffs.

The company is a defendant in a collective-and-class action lawsuit
which was filed on December 9, 2016, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

The plaintiffs, who include current and former employee drivers who
worked for the Company during the period of December 9, 2013,
through December 31, 2019, allege violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Law including "failure
to pay minimum wage during orientation, failure to pay minimum wage
to team drivers after initial orientation, failure to pay minimum
wage to solo-drivers after initial orientation, failure to pay for
compensable travel time, Comdata card fees, unlawful deductions,
and breach of contract."

The plaintiffs are seeking actual and liquidated damages to include
court costs and legal fees.

On February 18, 2020, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas granted preliminary approval of a
$16.5 million settlement reached with the plaintiffs. The
settlement is subject to final approval by the court.

P.A.M. said, "As of March 31, 2020, the preliminary settlement
amount of $16.5 million is reserved in accrued expenses and other
liabilities in the Company's consolidated balance sheets.
Management has determined that any losses under this claim will not
be covered by existing insurance policies."

P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc., is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a truckload
transportation and logistics company. The company is based in
Tontitown, Arkansas.


PATELCO CREDIT: Caveney Balks at Collection of Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLA A. CAVENEY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 4:20-cv-03028-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2020) alleges that
Defendant wrongfully and without authorization, unilaterally and
without warning, withdrew money from Plaintiff and the Class
Members' share accounts when it was not authorized by contract,
regulations, or equities to do so.

The Defendant falsely claimed that the funds it unilaterally took
from Plaintiff's account were properly assessed overdraft fees (a
fee for a transaction item that was advanced and paid by Defendant
on behalf of Plaintiff) or Non-Sufficient Funds ("NSF") fees (a fee
for a transaction that was returned unpaid). However, Defendant was
not authorized to assess or collect these supposed overdraft fees
or NSF fees.

The class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief due to, inter alia, Defendant's policy and
practice of unlawfully assessing and unilaterally collecting
overdraft fees and NSF fees as set forth herein, in violation of
its contract(s) with Plaintiff and the class, as well as
regulations, statutes, and equities.

Patelco Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union with its
headquarters located in Dublin, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 dcw@mccunewright.com

                          - and -

          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
          Email: ejk@mccunewright.com

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Case Schedule in Grower Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that a case schedule is
pending in the purported class action suit entitled, n re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
(PPC) and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma,
alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition
for grower services and depress the price paid to growers.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages.

The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed
consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").

The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court
initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it
considered and granted only certain other defendants' motions
challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending
motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018.

In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the plaintiffs
from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC
because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the
confirmation order relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008
and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars
any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December
28, 2009.

On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction.

On January 6, 2020, the Court held a motion hearing and denied the
pending Rule 12 motion and lifted the stay on discovery.

A status conference was held on April 6, 2020 and a case schedule
is pending.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PLAID INC: Illegally Stores Consumer Data, Cottle Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES COTTLE and FREDERICK SCHOENEMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAID INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03056 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the
Stored Communications Act, the California Business and Professions
Code, Article I, Section I of the California Constitution, the
Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, the California Civil Code, and the
California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who used the Defendant's financial
technology apps, allege that the Defendant used its apps to acquire
the Plaintiffs' and other users' banking login credentials and then
use those credentials to harvest vast amounts of private
transaction history and other financial data, all without consent.
Consumers are induced to hand over their private bank login
credentials to the Defendant by making it appear those credentials
are being communicated directly to consumers' banks. Consumers are
informed the connection is private and secure, and their banking
credentials will never be made accessible to the app. However, in
reality, the login screen is created by, controlled by, and
connected to Plaid. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant has
unfairly benefited from the personal information of millions of
Americans and wrongfully intruded upon their private financial
affairs.

Plaid, Inc. is a financial technology company with its principal
place of business at 85 Second Street, Suite 400, San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Shawn M. Kennedy, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Bret D. Hembd, Esq.
          HERRERA PURDY LLP
          4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 936-0900
          Facsimile: (855) 969-2050
          E-mail: skennedy@herrerapurdy.com
                  apurdy@herrerapurdy.com
                  bhembd@herrerapurdy.com

               - and –
          
          Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Esq.
          Laura E. Seidl, Esq.
          HERRERA PURDY LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 422-4700
          Facsimile: (855) 969-2050
          E-mail: nherrera@herrerapurdy.com
                  lseidl@herrerapurdy.com

               - and –
         
          Rachel Geman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com

               - and –
          
          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Melissa Gardner, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
                  mgardner@lchb.com

               - and –
          
          Madeline M. Gomez, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 313-9965
          E-mail: mgomez@lchb.com

               - and –
          
          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Russell Herman, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  rherman@burnscharest.com

               - and –
          
          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          5290 Denver Tech Center Parkway, Suite 150
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (720) 630-2092
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com

               - and –
          
          C. Jacob Gower, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 799-2845
          Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
          E-mail: jgower@burnscharest.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Davydov Suit Over Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Davydov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02024-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2020), brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and a class of New York consumers under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act seeking damages and declaratory relief.

Some time prior to May 7, 2019, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. by the Plaintiff. HSBC contracted
with PRA to collect the alleged debt.

According to the complaint, on May 7, 2019, PRA sent the Plaintiff
a collection letter regarding the alleged debt currently owed to
PRA. The Plaintiff contends that the Letter violated the FDCPA by
omitting material information creating a false and misleading
representation of the status and falsely representing the
character, amount or legal status of the alleged debt.

PRA is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 705-8706
          Facsimile: (718) 705-8705


POSTMATES INC: Bid by Drivers Ruled as Not De Facto Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner of WestLaw News reported that a federal judge in
Los Angeles has denied Postmates Inc's bid to block more than
10,000 delivery workers from pursuing claims that they were
misclassified as independent contractors in individual arbitration,
saying the company had not shown that it amounted to a "de facto
class action."

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez said that the 10,356 workers
who are all represented by Keller Lenkner are not seeking to
represent other Postmates workers, and rejected the company's claim
that the arbitrations were effectively an end run by the workers'
lawyers around class-action waivers the workers had signed.  [GN]



RAPHA RACING: Begg Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Rapha Racing LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Bruce
Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rapha Racing LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03175
(N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020).

Rapha Racing LLC is located in Bentonville, AR, United States and
is part of the Sporting Goods Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
   11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that
the company continues to defend four class action suits over
employee no-solicitation and no-hiring policies in all Burger King
franchisees.

On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW) and Burger King Corporation
("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and
no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all
Burger King franchisees are required to sign.

Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or
herself and other members of the class.

On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On April 27, 2020, BKC
filed a motion opposing the motion for leave to amend.

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RICOH USA: Faces Kyszenia Suit Over Defective Pentax Cameras
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Kyszenia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ricoh USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02215 (E.D.N.Y., May
17, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendant's
defective Pentax cameras.

The defective Pentax cameras allegedly suffer from "exposure
problems," also known as a "black picture problem" or an "aperture
problem," causing the photographed image to be almost completely
dark so the imaged photograph is barely visible. These cameras, and
others, manufactured by Pentax contain a design defect and/or
manufacturing flaw which render a large percentage of them unfit
for taking photographs, and render any accessories purchased with
the camera, such as a lens or case, similarly useless, the
Plaintiff avers.

The problems the Plaintiff experienced, along with thousands of
other consumers, are chronicled at "Pentax K50 Dark Photos" through
a Google search, according to the complaint. The problems with the
Plaintiff's camera did not occur until the camera was out of
warranty. Each of the three Pentax K models produces black pictures
as the result of aperture issues. The problem renders the cameras
virtually useless and, as a result, any attachments or accessories
purchased along with the cameras are also useless. Thousands of
consumers have complained to Pentax about these problems to no
avail.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant breached its duty by,
among other things, defectively designing, manufacturing, testing,
inspecting and distributing the defective Pentax cameras. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant unreasonably failed to provide
appropriate and adequate warnings and instructions about its
defective Pentax cameras, and this failure was a proximate cause of
the harm for which damages are sought. The Defendant knew, or in
the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the
defective Pentax cameras had exposure problems rendering them unfit
to take photographs. Based on this knowledge, the Defendant had a
duty to disclose to the Plaintiff, and class members, the defective
nature of the defective Pentax cameras, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's camera within her district
and/or State for personal use.

Ricoh USA, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells cameras, under the Pentax brand, including Pentax K-30,
Pentax K-50 and Pentax K-70.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Christopher Colt North, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy., Suite D
          Yorktown, VA 23692
          Phone: (757) 873-1010
          Fax: (757) 873-8375
          Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com


RORO-ROOTER SERVICES : Lax's Wage and Hour Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Roto-Rooter Services
Company ("RRSC") continues to defend a class action suit initiated
by Alfred Lax.

Alfred Lax, a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company
("RRSC"), was hired in RRSC's Menlo Park branch in 2007.

On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in Santa
Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide or
compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.  

Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as
all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.  

He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be
maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory
damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated
rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel
time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed
expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgement
interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.  

The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652.

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

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


RTI SURGICAL: Faces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on April 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased RTI
Surgical Holdings ("RTI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RTIX)
securities during the period from March 7, 2016 through March 16,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

RTI shareholders may, no later than May 22, 2020, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased
shares of RTI and would like to learn more about these claims or if
you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas,
Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online at
https://www.rmclasslaw.com/case/rtix

The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that the Company inappropriately recognized revenues, including
with its other equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers.

The truth emerged, according to the Complaint, on Mar. 17, 2020
when the Company announced it would not timely file its 2019 annual
report. Defendants blamed the delay on an ongoing investigation
into "the Company's revenue recognition practices involving the
timing of revenue recognition with respect to certain contractual
arrangements, primarily with OEM customers." This news drove the
price of RTI Surgical shares sharply lower on Mar. 17, 2020.

Recent developments have strengthened investors' securities fraud
claims. On Mar. 20, 2020, the Company announced the termination of
Johannes W. Louw, RTI Surgical's former interim CFO, who headed the
Company's financial planning and analysis.

Most recently, on Apr. 9, 2020, the company announced it will
restate all previously audited financial statements for 2014 --
2018, and its unaudited financial statements for the quarterly
periods for 2016 -- 2018 and the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2019.
The Company explained, in effect, it recognized revenue prematurely
by shipping products to customers earlier than agreed upon. The
Company further noted that on some "occasions the goods were
delivered early without obtaining the customers' affirmative
approval." Additionally, the Company divulged that in July 2017, an
adjustment was improperly made to a product return provision in the
Direct Division.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 22,
2020, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com.   For more information about class action
cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit
our website.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.

CONTACT:

RM LAW, P.C.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
484-324-6800
844-291-9299
rm@maniskas.com [GN]


SEE INC: Begg Files ADA Suit in California
------------------------------------------
See, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Bruce Begg,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. See, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03176 (N.D. Cal., May 8,
2020).

SEE offers fashionable yet affordable prescription and
non-prescription eyeglasses and sunglasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
   11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement Agreement Reached in Fresno Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that parties in the class
action suit pending before the Superior Court in Fresno County,
have executed a settlement agreement pending Court approval.

On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery team members filed
suit, now venued in Superior Court in Fresno County, California,
alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis
under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed
or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures
relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures,
meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law.

The Complaint sought damages in the form of civil penalties and
plaintiffs’ attorneys' fees.

The parties have executed a settlement agreement pending Court
approval, which includes the settlement and release of certain
additional related claims that are contained in a consolidated
complaint currently pending in San Diego County Superior Court.

Sleep Number said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending this
matter in the event the Court does not approve the settlement."

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SOUTHERN RESTAURANT: Wilson Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MERINDA WILSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN RESTAURANT OPERATIONS, LLC and SOUTHERN
RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01929-WMR (N.D. Ga., May
4, 2020), us brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and other damages.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have a common plan,
policy and practice of compensating their tipped employees under a
tip-credit compensation program in which they were to be paid a
sub-minimum wage hourly rate of pay with their tips to be credited
toward the applicable FLSA minimum wage rate.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are current and former
tipped employees (servers) of the Defendants.

The Defendants have owned and operated franchised Steak N' Shake
restaurants in Georgia and other states in the Southeastern United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          246 Sycamore Street
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: 678 780.4880
          Facsimile: 478 575.2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, 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) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com


SPRINGSTONE INC: Munoz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Munoz, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SPRINGSTONE, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01719 (S.D. Tex.,
May 15, 2020), is brought to recover all unpaid wages and other
damages owed to her under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant violated the FLSA and state law by knowingly and
willfully permitting her to perform work during her meal breaks
while subjecting her to an automatic 30-minute deduction from their
wages, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant had notice that the
Plaintiff expected to be paid for her work on an hourly basis. The
Defendant received the value of the Plaintiff's work during the
automatically deducted 30-minute period without compensating her
for her services. The Defendant willfully, deliberately, and
voluntarily failed to pay the Plaintiff compensation for all of the
work she performed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from July 2018 to November
2019 as a mental health technician.

The Defendant operates a chain of behavioral health facilities
across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: Frank Sues Over Arrest of Homeless Amid COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------------
RANATA FRANK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00597-SEP (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2020) is a civil rights action
brought by the Plaintiff and other persons who are experiencing
homeless in the City of St. Louis and who face arrest or citation
for not leaving the Market Street encampments after the city issued
an order to "close" tent encampments in the public parks between
Market and Chestnut Streets in downtown amid COVID-19.

According to the complaint, the City itself has admitted that it
does not have enough shelter beds. On April 30, Amy Bickford,
representing the Department of Human Services, told the St. Louis
City Continuum of Care that "the City knows the need is greater
than the capacity," and reported that 98 people were currently on
the waiting list for new shelter beds.

Unhoused individuals in St. Louis have no choice but to seek
shelter in public spaces because the City of St. Louis has
inadequate shelter space. Nevertheless, the City has ordered people
living in parks along Market Street to vacate the premises, under
threat of punishment.

Plaintiff and members of the proposed class bring this action for
injunctive relief to avoid being deprived of their freedom from
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Bonacorsi, Esq.
          Lee R. Camp, Esq.
          Maureen G. Hanlon, Esq.
          Jacki J. Langum, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 361-8834
          Facsimile: (314) 925-1307

STAR GROUP: Donnenfeld Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Star Group, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court in the class
action suit entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil
Action Number 2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, has granted final approval of
the class action settlement, certified the class for settlement
purposes only and dismissed the action with prejudice.  

On April 18, 2017, a civil action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M.
Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number
2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc.

By amended complaint filed on August 15, 2017, the Plaintiff
alleged he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his
protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserted
various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation
of the New York General Business Law and fraudulent inducement.

The Plaintiff also sought to have a class certified of similarly
situated Petro customers who entered into protected price plan
contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits. The
Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and other damages in
unspecified amounts.  

On September 15, 2017, Petro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of
action.  On September 12, 2018, the district court granted in part
and denied in part Petro's motion to dismiss.  

The district court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent
inducement, but declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining
claims.  

The district court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt
to replead his fraudulent inducement claim.  

On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint attempted to replead a
fraudulent inducement claim and was otherwise substantially similar
or identical to the prior complaint.  

On November 13, 2018, Petro moved to dismiss the fraudulent
inducement and unjust enrichment claims in the second amended
complaint.  

On January 31, 2019, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice.


On February 22, 2019, counsel for Petro and the Plaintiff
participated in a mediation which, after arms-length negotiations,
resulted in a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation,
subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery, negotiation of
a final settlement agreement and court approval.  

In an order dated March 27, 2019, the district court stayed all
discovery deadlines in light of the pending settlement.  

On October 4, 2019, upon consent of all parties, Judge Roslynn R.
Mauskopf assigned the action to Magistrate Judge Steve I. Locke for
final disposition.  

On March 26, 2020, the court granted final approval of the class
action settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes only
and dismissed the action with prejudice.  

On March 26, 2020, the court also granted Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for fees, expenses and named plaintiff service award.  

Star Group said, "The settlement is not an admission of liability
or breach to any customers by Petro and the Company continues to
believe the allegations lack merit.  If the settlement is not
completed for any reason, the Company will continue to vigorously
defend the action; in that case, we cannot assess the potential
outcome or materiality of this matter."

Star Group, L.P., formerly Star Gas Partners, L.P., incorporated on
October 16, 1995, is a service energy provider. The Company is a
home heating oil and propane distributor and services provider. The
Company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel to customers on a
delivery only basis. The Company installs, maintains and repairs
heating and air conditioning equipment, and provides these services
outside its customer base, including service contracts for natural
gas and other heating systems. The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


STARR SURPLUS: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, NOHSC Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ORLEANS HAMBURGER & SEAFOOD COMPANY v. STARR SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01370-NJB-KWR (E.D. La., May 4,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated against the Defendant for denying claims under
the Plaintiffs' All-Risk Insurance Policy, which includes losses
due to Business Interruption, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and
Extended Business Income resulting from COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of
its loss and made a claim under the all-risk Policy. By letters
dated March 26, 2020, and April 17, 2020, the Defendant issued
reservation of rights letters asserting that the Plaintiff's loss
was likely excluded from coverage under the all-risk Policy. The
Plaintiff contends that it has suffered and will continue to suffer
a direct physical loss of and damage to its property.

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
pandemic. On March 23, 2020, Governor John Bel Edwards entered a
"Stay At Home" Order restricting public access to non-essential
businesses and limiting restaurants to take out only.

NOHSC has ten restaurant locations in New Orleans and surrounding
areas.

Starr offers insurance services. The Company provides property,
casualty, accident, health, aviation, marine, and energy insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          Brian D. Katz, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          Joseph E. "Jed" Cain, Esq.
          John S. Creevy, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
                  bkatz@hhklawfirm.com
                  sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com
                  jcain@hhklawfirm.com
                  jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Dilberto, Esq.
          DILBERTO LAW FIRM
          3636 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 210
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 828-1600
          E-mail: Robert@GetRJD.com


TANDEM DIABETES CARE: Matthews Files Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tandem Diabetes Care,
Inc. The case is styled as Stephanie Matthews, on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Tandem Diabetes
Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 34-2020-00278316-CU-BT-GDS (Cal.
Super., Ct., May 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the case type as Business Tort.

Tandem Diabetes Care develops insulin pumps & other products and
services that bring innovation, convenience & style to diabetes
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric A Grover, Esq.
   Keller Grover LLP
   1965 Market St
   San Francisco, CA 94103
   Tel: (415) 543-1305
   Fax: (415) 543-7861
   Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com




TAYLOR UNDERGROUND: Morsa Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Morsa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TAYLOR UNDERGROUND, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-01035 (C.D.
Cal., May 15, 2020), seeks to recover pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act the unpaid overtime wages and other damages the
Defendant owes to the Plaintiff and other workers like him.

The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked in excess of 8 hours
in a day and 40 hours in a week; but the Defendant did not pay him
proper overtime pay for all of these hours. He contends that the
Defendant failed to properly pay him the correct overtime premium
for all the hours he worked in excess of 8 or 12 in a day in
violation of the FLSA and California law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Foreman from August
2017 to January 2020.

Taylor Underground is an underground pipeline and utilities
contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Phone: 713 999 5228
          Fax: 713 999 1187
          Email: matt@parmet.law


TD BANK NA: Campagna Suit Transferred to Georgia
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Natalie Campagna, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD Bank NA, Defendant,
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Georgia (Columbus) on May 8, 202, and assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00094-CDL.

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

TD Bank, N.A. provides banking services. The Company offers online
banking, mortgages, loans, insurance, and investment management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward A Webb
   1900 The Exchange SE STE 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: eadamwebb@hotmail.com

     - and -

   Franklin G Lemond, Jr
   The Webb Law Group
   1900 The Exchange SE STE 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: flemond@webbllc.com

     - and -

   Jerry A Buchanan, Esq.
   PO Box 2848
   Columbus, GA 31902
   Tel: (706) 323-2848
   Email: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com

     - and -

   Matthew C Klase, Esq.
   Webb Klase & Lemond LLC
   1900 THE EXCHANGE SE STE 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: matt@webbllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
   7 World Trade Center
   250 Greenwich ST
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 230-8800
   Fax: (212) 230-8888

     - and -

   Noah E Levine
   7 World Trade Center
   250 Greenwich ST
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 230-8800
   Fax: (212) 230-8888

     - and -

   Scott Neal Sherman, Esq.
   201 17th ST NW, Ste 1700
   Atlanta, GA 30363
   Tel: (404) 322-6231
   Fax: (404) 322-6338
   Email: scott.sherman@nelsonmullins.com



TDL GROUP: Latifi Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that
The TDL Group Corp. ("TDL") continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Samir Latifi.

In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL
Group Corp. ("TDL") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by
Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition
Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring
clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons
franchisees are required to sign.

The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself
and other members of the class.

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

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


TEXTRON INC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Class Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended April 4, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re Textron Inc.
Securities Litigation, is pending.

On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

The suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. On November
12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund
("IWA") as the sole lead plaintiff in the case.

On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now
entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation.

On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

Textron said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit."

Textron Inc. is one of the world's best known multi-industry
companies, recognized for its powerful brands such as Bell, Cessna,
Beechcraft, E-Z-GO, Arctic Cat and many more. The company leverages
its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance
businesses to provide customers with innovative products and
services. The company is bases in Providence, Rhode Island.

TRANS CONTINENTAL: Kohen Alleges Violation under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Continental
Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Blima Kohen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03700 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2020).

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

Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. is a debt collection
company located in White Plains, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

      - and -

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Ste 5th Floor
   Garden City, NY 11530
   (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com


TROPHY NUT: Court Certifies Hourly Workers Class in Coleman
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Todd Coleman, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Trophy Nut
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-374 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Thomas
M. Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification.

The Defendants assert the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the
employees included in the collective definition are similarly
situated.  They further assert that he and the members of the
collective would differ in the time they spent on preliminary
activity and whether such time was subject to a de minimis
defense.

The Plaintiffs have moved the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 26(b), 37(a), and 83(b) and Section 16(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for an order: conditionally
certifying the case as a collective action; approving their
proposed notices and methods of disseminating notice; ordering the
Defendants to provide name and contact information for all the
potential class members within 14 days of the Court's order; and
authorizing a 90-day opt-in period.

There is a two-tiered process for notice to an FLSA class: first a
conditional certification stage, followed by a decertification
stage after the close of discovery.  In the conditional
certification stage, a plaintiff's burden is to show the existence
of other employees who appear to be similarly-situated in both
their job duties and the employer's treatment of their entitlement
to overtime pay.   This determination is distinct from the merits
of the named plaintiffs' claims. In the conditional certification
stage, a liberal standard for measuring similarly-situated
employees is used.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff and the other non-exempt hourly
workers like him worked in and around raw and cooked food.  The
pre-shift sanitation process the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant
required would therefore be necessary, integral, indispensable, and
intrinsic to their job duties.  It is also alleged that the
Defendant has a class-wide policy of not paying the Plaintiff and
those like him for this allegedly compensable work.  Likewise, the
submitted evidence shows that it was not administratively
impossible for the Defendant to accurately record this unpaid
compensable work.  And, the Plaintiff and the putative class worked
overtime hours that were unpaid as a result of the Defendant's
alleged class-wide violations.

Judge Rose holds that the Plaintiff has satisfied his "fairly
lenient" burden at the first "notice" stage of conditional
certification.  He has made the "modest factual showing" through
pleadings and sworn declarations, tethered to the Defendant's
admissions and video submission, that his position is similar, even
if not identical, to the positions held by the putative class
members.  He has shown that they were subjected to a single
decision, policy, or plan.

The Plaintiff has also shown that his claims, and the claims of the
putative collective, are "unified by common theories of defendant's
statutory violations."  Because all of the class members are
directly involved in the processing, packaging, and handling of
food for human consumption, they all have a "common theory" of the
Defendant's FLSA violation.  

As for the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiffs' allegations
provide no basis to conclude that donning and doffing work took
more than a 'de minimis' amount of time, at this stage in the
proceedings, however, it is well settled that no merits-based
inquiry is appropriate.  It includes inquiry into the de minimis
nature of any alleged violations.

Judge Rose also finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and
Consent to Join form is accurate and informative.  Both the
proposed Notice and Consent to Join form advises putative
collective members of the pending litigation, describes the legal
and factual bases of the Plaintiffs' claims, informs collective
members of the right to opt in and that participation in the
lawsuit is voluntary, and provides instructions on how to opt in.

In order to accurately, efficiently, and quickly facilitate the
Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Join form, Judge Rose
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice.

She conditionally certified under Section 216(b) the FLSA
collective consisting of all former and current hourly employees of
the Defendant who engaged in foot bath disinfecting, donning,
doffing, handwashing, hand sanitizing, and/or related travel and
who worked 40 or more hours in any workweek from Nov. 22, 2016 to
the conclusion of the matter.

The Notice will be sent by United States mail and email.  

The Parties will jointly submit within 14 days a proposed Notice
informing such present and former employees of the pendency of the
collective action and permitting them to opt into the case by
signing and submitting a Consent to Join Form.

The Defendant will provide within 14 days a Roster of such present
and former employees that includes their full names, their dates of
employment, and their last known home addresses and personal email
addresses;

The Notice, in the form approved by the Court, will be sent to such
present and former employees within 30 days using the home and
email addresses listed in the Roster.

The Defendant will provide a Declaration that the produced Roster
fully complies with the Order.

Finally, duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event
new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are
found for one or more of such present or former employees.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/t5CgWb from Leagle.com.

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd. (TUFN).

Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

TUFN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=6050&wire=1

TUFN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with Tufin's April 2019 initial
public offering

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 5, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=6050&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (2) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (3) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com/[GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KIMBERLY TOKAR, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED COLLECTION
BUREAU, INC., Case No. 20‐CV‐686 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's request to stay further
proceedings on the motion for class certification.

On May 1, 2020,, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable
management services to creditors.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Barber Slams Garnishment Amidst Payment Suspension
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Barber, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elisabeth Devos, in her official
capacity as United States Secretary of Education and the United
States Department of Education, Defendants, Case 20-cv-01137 (D.C.,
April 30, 2020), seek to enjoin the Department of Education to
comply immediately with the wage garnishment suspension directive
of the CARES Act.

On March 27, 2020, the US Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES). The Department of
Education announced that it would stop involuntary collection
activity, including wage garnishments, for certain borrowers of
federal student loans.

Barber is a 59 year-old home health aide who claims that the
Department of Education has garnished her wages multiple times
despite of the guidelines of the CARES Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel A. Zibel, Esq.
     Eric Rothschild, Esq.
     Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
     NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
     1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 734-7495
     Email: dan@defendstudents.org
            eric@defendstudents.org
            alex@defendstudents.org

            - and -

     Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
     Persis Yu, Esq.
     NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
     7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 542-8010
     Email: srossman@nclc.org
            pyu@nclc.org


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Graczyk et al. Seek Opt-In Notice Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RODNEY GRACZYK, DON DAVIS and
JERRY RIDDLE, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and PS SPLICING, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00889-ABJ (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
approve a notice to be sent to similarly-situated employees.

The motion is brough under the "opt-in" mechanism for collective
actions provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act and District of
Columbia Minimum Wage Act.

Verizon is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate. PS Splicing LLC is a telecommunications company.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520

               - and -

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836

               - and -

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
             FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, N.Y. 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281

W 6 RESTAURANT: Reshni Suit Challenges Policies on Gratuities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Reshni, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. W. 6 RESTAURANT GROUP, LTD., ROBERT GEORGE, COREY MAY, JOE
ORAVEC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01075 (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2020),
challenges the Defendants' policies and practices on gratuities
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio's overtime
compensation statute.

When the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server, she and
her co-servers were subjected to similar policies involving
gratuities, according to the complaint. All servers were required
to pool their tips. Out of that pool, the Defendants pocketed 3% of
gross sales, 1% went to the bartenders, and 1% to the bussers.

The Defendants' pay practices satisfied neither the "tip credit"
nor "service charge" (or any other) exemptions of federal and state
wage-and-hour laws, the Plaintiff contends. She alleges that the
practice constituted misappropriation of tips belonging to their
employees, deprived employees of minimum wages and overtime pay,
and artificially reduced their "regular rate of pay" when overtime
pay was due. By structuring its tip-pooling protocols in this
fashion, she adds, the Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard
for whether the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the members
of the Ohio Class were being denied proper minimum wages and
overtime pay under federal and state law.

The Plaintiff worked as a cocktail waitress and server at the
Defendants' Barley House restaurant in Cleveland.

The Defendants collectively control the operations of the Barley
House restaurants from their principal place of business located in
Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          Allen C. Tittle, Esq.
          TITTLE & PERLMUTER
          2012 W. 25th Street, Suite 716
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-285-9991
          Fax: 888-604-9299
          Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel J, Myers, Esq.
          MYERS LAW, LLC
          600 East Granger Road, Second Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44131
          Phone: (216) 236-8202
          Fax: (216) 674-1696
          Email: DMyers@MyersLawLLC.com


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Russell Sues for Detainees Over COVID-19 Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES RUSSELL, CHRISTOPHER HUBBARD, HARRY WHITE, CARL SMELLEY,
CALDERONE PEARSON, SHANE CARLINE, and COURTNEY WHITE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAYNE COUNTY,
MICHIGAN; BENNY NAPOLEON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Wayne County; DANIEL PFANNES, in his official capacity as the
Undersheriff for the Wayne County Sheriff's Office; ROBERT DUNLAP,
in his official capacity as Chief of Jails and Court Operations;
JAMES E. DAVIS, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Jail
Operations, Case No. 2:20-cv-11094-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 4,
2020), is brought under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
alleging that the Defendants is blatantly disregarding the obvious
risks of illness and death and needlessly exposing detainees to a
serious risk of contracting COVID-19.

According to the complaint, hundreds of individuals caged inside
the Wayne County Jail facilities--overwhelmingly Black, poor, and
medically vulnerable--are prohibited from meaningfully protecting
themselves against this global pandemic. As COVID-19 continues to
gain a powerful foothold in the Wayne County Jail, incarcerated
people are at significant risk of becoming infected and ultimately
dying. Because of the actions and inactions of Wayne County's
correctional facilities and the officials responsible for
detainees' health and safety, individuals locked inside this jail
are engaged in a fight for recognition of their humanity and for
their very survival during this perilous and extraordinary time.

COVID-19 has already reached the Wayne County Jail. The disease has
killed 2 contracted Jail physicians and 2 deputies. As of April 24,
2020, 177 employees and 13 detainees at the Wayne County Sheriff's
Office have contracted the disease. The outbreak within the jail
poses a grave risk of harm and death that is ongoing, the
Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs are all current Wayne County Jail detainees.

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ashley A. Carter, Esq.
          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
          NATIONAL OFFICE
          1220 L Street NW, Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 728-9557
          E-mail: tharvey@advancementproject.org
                  acarter@advancementproject.org
                  mnemeth@advancementproject.org

               - and -

          Allison L. Kriger, Esq.
          LARENE & KRIGER, P.L.C.
          645 Griswold Street, Suite 1717
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 967-0100
          E-mail: allison.kriger@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          A. Dami Animashaun, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6126
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org
                  dami@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Martin L. Saad, Esq.
          Sheena R. Thomas, Esq.
          Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
          Christopher N. Moran, Esq.
          Emily J. Wilson, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          600 Massachusetts Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          E-mail: MLSaad@Venable.com
                  SRThomas@Venable.com
                  KJAnderson@Venable.com
                  CNMoran@Venable.com
                  EJWilson@Venable.com

               - and -

          Desiree M. Ferguson, Esq.
          Amanda Alexander, Esq.
          DETROIT JUSTICE CENTER
          1420 Washington Blvd., Suite 301
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 736 -5957
          E-mail: dferguson@detroitjustice.org
                  aalexander@detroitjustice.org


WAYNE, MI: Russell Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES RUSSELL; CHRISTOPHER
HUBBARD; HARRY WHITE; CARL SMELLEY; SHANE CARLINE; and COURTNEY
WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; BENNY NAPOLEON, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Oakland County; DANIEL PFANNES, in his official
capacity as the Undersheriff for the Wayne County Sheriff's Office;
ROBERT DUNLAP, in his official capacity as Chief of Jails and Court
Operations; JAMES E. DAVIS, in his official capacity as Deputy
Chief of Jail Operations, Case No. 2:20-cv-11094-MAG-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying one class with three subclasses as follows:

      Jail Class:

      "all current and future persons detained at the Wayne
      County Jail during the course of the COVID-19
      pandemic";

      Pre-trial Subclass:

      "all members of the Jail Class who have not yet been
      convicted of the offense for which they are currently
      held in the Jail";

      Post-conviction Subclass:

      "all members of the Jail Class who have been sentenced
      to serve time in the Jail or who are otherwise in the
      Jail as the result of an offense for which they have
      already been convicted"; and

      Medically Vulnerable Subclass:  

      "all members of the Jail Class who are also over the age
      of fifty, or who, regardless of age, experience an
      underlying medical condition that places them at
      particular risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19,
      including but not limited to (a) lung disease, including
      asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g.
      bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions
      associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart
      disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive
      heart failure, and coronary artery disease; (c)
      chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis
      and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other
      endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension;
      (g) compromised immune systems (such as from cancer,
      HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as
      a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune
      disease); (h) blood disorders (including sickle cell
      disease); (i) inherited metabolic disorders;
      (j) history of stroke; (k) a developmental disability;
      and/or (l) a current or recent (last two weeks)
      pregnancy";

   2. appointing Charles Russell, Christopher Hubbard,
      Harry White, Carl Smelley, CalDerone Pearson, Shane
      Carline, and Courtney White as Class Representatives
      for the Jail Class;

   3. appointing Christopher Hubbard and Shane Carline as
      Class Representatives for the Pre-trial Class;

   4. appointing Harry White, CalDerone Pearson, and
      Courtney White as Class Representatives for the Post-
      conviction Class; and

   5. appointing Charles Russell, Christopher Hubbard, Harry
      White, Carl Smelley, and Courtney White as Class
      Representatives for the Medically Vulnerable Class;
      and

   6. appointing their attorneys as class counsel pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

The case is about the Defendants' failure to protect the people
detained under their custody in the Wayne County Jail from the
novel coronavirus and its resulting disease, COVID-19.

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ashley A. Carter, Esq.
          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE
          1220 L Street NW, Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 728-9557
          E-mail: tharvey@advancementproject.org
                  acarter@advancementproject.org
                   mnemeth@advancementproject.org

               - and -

          Allison L. Kriger, Esq.
          LARENE & KRIGER, P.L.C.
          645 Griswold Street, Suite 1717
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 967-0100
          E-mail: allison.kriger@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          A. Dami Animashaun, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6126
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org
                  dami@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Martin L. Saad, Esq.
          Sheena R. Thomas, Esq.
          Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
          Christopher N. Moran, Esq.
          Emily J. Wilson, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          600 Massachusetts Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          E-mail: MLSaad@Venable.com
                  SRThomas@Venable.com
                  KJAnderson@Venable.com
                  CNMoran@Venable.com
                  EJWilson@Venable.com

               - and -

          Desiree M. Ferguson, Esq.
          Amanda Alexander, Esq.
          DETROIT JUSTICE CENTER
          1420 Washington Blvd., Suite 301
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 736 -5957
          E-mail: dferguson@detroitjustice.org
                  aalexander@detroitjustice.org

WORLD CLASS: McFerren Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
John McFerren and Wenonia Caddle, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WORLD CLASS DISTRIBUTION, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02912 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2020), is brought for damages
and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the
Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and biometric information without
obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data
retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs left the Defendant's employ in February 2017 and was
"clocking in" using their facial geometry during their tenure of
employment with the Defendant. Despite BIPA having been the law for
more than a decade, the Defendant never adequately informed the
Plaintiffs or the Class of its biometric collection practices,
never obtained the requisite written consent from the Plaintiffs or
the Class regarding its biometric practices, and never provided any
data retention or destruction policies to the Plaintiffs or the
Class, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Illinois, who worked
for the Defendant.

World Class Distribution, Inc., is a California corporation and
doing business in Grundy County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 726-1092
          Email: keith@keoghlaw.com
                 tkuyper@keoghlaw.com


XP INC: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the securities class action
lawsuit against:

XP Inc. (XP)
Class Period: shares issued in connection with its December 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 21, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-xp-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission:
to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover
their share of billions of dollars from securities class action
settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for
free to gain access to information and settlement websites for
various securities class action cases so they can timely submit
their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to
be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have
a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS: Hurvitz Suit Transferred to N.D. Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Todd Hurvitz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zoom Video
Communications, Inc, Facebook and LinkedIn Corporation, Defendants,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03400 to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 13, 202, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03400.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other.
filed over Diversity-Personal Injury.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) is an American
communications technology company headquartered in San Jose,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David B Owens, Esq.
   Loevy and Loevy
   311 North Aberdeen Street 3rd Floor
   Chicago, IL 60607
   Tel: (312) 243-5900
   Fax: (312) 243-5902
   Email: david@loevy.com

     - and -

   Christina N Hoffman, Esq.
   Miller Advocacy Group
   1303 Avocado Avenue Suite 230
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-9734
   Fax: (949) 706-9734
   Email: choffman@milleradvocacy.com

     - and -

   Marci Lerner Miller, Esq.
   Miller Advocacy Group PC
   1303 Avocado Ave., Suite 230
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (714) 299-7157
   Email: marci@milleradvocacy.com

     - and -

   Michael I. Kanovitz, Esq.
   Loevy and Loevy
   311 North Aberdeen Street 3rd Floor
   Chicago, IL 60607
   Tel: (312) 243-5900
   Fax: (312) 243-5902
   Email: mike@loevy.com

     - and -

   Scott R. Drury, Esq.
   Loevy and Loevy
   311 N. Aberdeen 3rd FL
   Chicago, IL 60607
   Tel: (312) 243-5900
   Email: drury@loevy.com

The Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc is represented by:

   Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
   Cooley LLP
   101 California Street, 5th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
   Tel: (415) 693-2000
   Fax: (415) 693-2222
   Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com

     - and -

   Danielle C Pierre, Esq.
   Cooley LLP
   101 California Street 5th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 693-2000
   Fax: (415) 693-2222
   Email: dpierre@cooley.com

     - and -

   Evan George Slovak, Esq.
   Cooley LLP
   101 California Street
   5th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 693-2156
   Email: eslovak@cooley.com

     - and -

   Joseph D Mornin, Esq.
   Cooley LLP
   101 California Street 5th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 693-2000
   Fax: (415) 693-2222
   Email: jmornin@cooley.com

     - and –

   Kathleen Roberta Hartnett, Esq.
   Cooley LLP
   101 California Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 693-2000
   Fax: (415) 693-2222
   Email: khartnett@cooley.com

     - and -

   Travis LeBlanc, Esq.
   Keker & Van Nest, LLP
   710 Sansome Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: tleblanc@kvn.com

The Defendant Facebook is represented by:

   Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
   Covington & Burling LLP
   3000 El Camino Real
   5 Palo Alto Square
   Palo Alto, CA 94306
   Tel: (650) 632-4700
   Email: ehenn@cov.com

     - and -

   Ashley Margaret Simonsen, Esq.
   Covington and Burling LLP
   1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (424) 332-4800
   Fax: (424) 332-4749
   Email: asimonsen@cov.com





[^] 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 ***