/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200527.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 106

                            Headlines

1A SMART START: Archuleta Sues Over Breach of Truth in Lending Act
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Skiadas Suit Pending
AIR CHINA: Williams Sues Over Failure to Provide Full Refunds
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Court Approves Douglas FLSA Case Settlement
AMERICAN WEB: Settles Tribal Lending Action for $141 Million

ANTHEM INC: Atzin et al. ERISA Case Wins Class Certification
ARSTRAT LLC: Aleman FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ARTIS LLC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ARTSANA USA: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
AUSTRALIA DEPT. OF DEFENCE: Faces PFAS Class Action

AUTOMATED COLLECTION: Caraballo Files Suit under FDCPA
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over PPP Loans
BANK OF AMERICA: Misleads PPP Loan Applicants, Studio 1220 Claims
BELA GROUP: State Material Files Suit in New York Superior Court
BELL & ROSS: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA

BORAL LTD: Hit With Class Action for 'Misleading Market'
BRUIN E&P PARTNERS: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Illegally Gets Credit Reports, Wolf Claims
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Dawkins Files Suit in Florida
CBD AMERICAN: Cannabis Products Contain Toxins, Davis Claims

CEPHALON INC: Benesch Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
CHATTERJEE ADVISORS: Faces Manbro Energy Suit in S.D. New York
CHINA: Thousands of Americans Sign Up to Coronavirus Class Action
CHSLD SAINTE-DOROTHEE: Faces Class Action in Quebec Super. Court
CHUBB LTD: Denies Insurance Coverage for Biz Losses, Beniak Says

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Sued Over Business-Interruption Insurance
CLEVELAND, OH: Class Action vs. Speed Cameras Restored on Appeal
CONN'S INC: Uddin Sues Over Decline in Market Value of Securities
CREATIVE RECREATIONS: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREATIVELIVE INC: Jones Asserts Breach of ADA in New York

CROWN CASTLE: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Culbertson Sues Over Exposed Applicants' Data
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Protect PUA Data, Bozin Claims
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition, Other Fees
ENERGY DRILLING: Young Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FCI OAKDALE: Inmates Seek Class Status in COVID-19 Suit
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Coates & Hille Seek Payment for COVID Losses
FRIEZE EVENTS: Shane Campbell Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
FRM SOCKS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
FROST BANK: Faces Class Action Over PPP Stimulus Loans

GAIA INC: Jones Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
GC SERVICES: Norton Seeks to Certify Class in FDCPA Suit  
GENERAL ALUMINUM: Lahnanen Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Chevrolet Corvette Cracked Wheels
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Student A Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees

GLENBROOK FARMS: West Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
GLOBAL INSTITUTE: Faces Mendez Class Suit in S.D. California
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed Over Uber IPO Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Sea Ltd. IPO Still Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Altice USA IPO Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Want Remaining Individual Actions Tossed
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Court Narrows Claims in Camping World IPO Suit
GOOD PAL CHANTELLE: Viens Sues in New York Over FLSA Violations

GOOGLE LLC: Roley Seeks to Certify Class in 'Local Guide' Suit
GSX TECHEDU: June 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HOMEADVISOR INC: Hise Suit Seeks to Certify Class
INFINITE PRODUCT: West Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action

ISLE OF PARADISE: Gonzalez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
JACK GEORGES: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
KEENER CONSTRUCTION: Vasquez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
KING & SPALDING: Estakhrian Suit Moved From California to Oregon
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP: Bryson Files Suit in South Carolina

LIBERTY OILFIELD: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LOMPOC, CA: Torres Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
MAINE: Denbow and Others File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
MAJOR LEAGUE: Fantasy Baseball Players' Class Action Dismissed
MDL 2819: Class Certified in Restasis Antitrust Suit

MICHIGAN: MNLA Files Class Action Over Executive Order 2020-42
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Former Campaign Organizer Files Class Action
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TX: Faces Powell Class Suit in Texas Dist. Ct.
MOONLIGHT PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Aleman Says
MOSAIC COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Hazardous Substances

MOUNTAIN ROSE: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
MW SERVICING: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
NATIONWIDE MOTOR: Coady et al. Seek Proper Wages for Sales Staff
NATURE'S WAY PRODUCTS: Dass Files Suit in New York
NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Glyphosate in Food Products

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Lehman Suit v. Ohr Pharma Pending
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Certifies Class of Detainees
NIXON ENGINEERING: Salaried Employees Class Certified in "Heslip"
OHIO: Fails to Prevent Spread of COVID-19 in Prisons, Smith Says

ONLINE TRADING: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Files Class Action
PENGUIN RANDOM: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE: JABZ Chandler Files Suit in Pa.
RCS CORPORATION: Weller Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Deecher et al. Seek Tuition Refund

SALLIE MAE BANK: Montesanti Files Suit in Florida
SEATTLE PACIFIC: Bolland Files Breach of Contract Suit in Wash.
SEATTLE SPORTS: Faces Kalender ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
SKILLSHARE INC: Jones Alleges Violation of Disabilities Act
SOPHIA WEBSTER: Faces West Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

SPRINT: Gorss Motels Seeks Certification of Junk Fax Class Action
STALWART GROUP: De Jesus Morales et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay
STARR INDEMNITY: Faces Ital Uomo Insurance Suit in E.D. New York
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Durbeck Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid COVID-19
TD AMERITRADE: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action

TERMINAL ISLAND, CA: Wilson Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus
TICKETMASTER: Faces Class Action Over Refund Policy Change
TIKTOK INC: Johnson Files Suit in California
TOYOTA MOTOR: Fish et al. Sue Over Fuel Tank Defect in RAV4s
UNITED STATES: Hall et al. Balk at Unfair COVID-19 Federal Aid

USC: Diaz Balks at Collection of Full Tuition Fees Amid Shut Down
VOLKSWAGEN: Settles Dieselgate Class Action with 200K Claimants
WEGMANS FOOD: Misrepresents Lowfat Yogurt Bars, Sharma Suit Says
WILCO LIFE: Faces Grundstrom Suit Over Lapsed Life Insurance Policy
WILHELMINA INT'L: Class Cert. Bid in Shanklin & Pressley Pending

WMJ FARMS INC: Cruz Files Suit in California
[*] COVID-19-Related Class Actions on the Rise
[*] Insurance Cos. Sued Over Business Interruption Claims

                            *********

1A SMART START: Archuleta Sues Over Breach of Truth in Lending Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1A Smart Start LLC.
The case is styled as Maria T Archuleta, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1A Smart Start LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00973-DJH (D. Ariz., May 19, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Truth in Lending.

1A Smart Start LLC provides security products. The Company offers
ignition interlock systems. 1A Smart Start serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jesse S Johnson, Esq.
   Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
   7601 N Federal Hwy., Ste. A230
   Boca Raton, FL 33487
   Tel: (561) 826-5477
   Fax: (561) 961-5684
   Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com




ACER THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Skiadas Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Acer Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit entitled, Skiadas v. Acer
Therapeutics, is pending.

On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., against the Company, Chris
Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that prior to the receipt of the Complete
Response Letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Company made material false and misleading statements or omissions
which allegedly constitute securities fraud.

On August 12, 2019, a stockholder's derivative action, Gress v.
Acer Therapeutics Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, asserting damages resulting from alleged
breach of fiduciary duties, based on the same facts at issue in the
Sell case.

On March 17, 2020, a second stockholder's derivative action, Giroux
v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting damages resulting from
alleged breach of fiduciary duties, based on the same facts at
issue in the Sell and Gress cases. No activity has occurred in
either suit thus far.

With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the Sell case is now known
as Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics.

A second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff in the
Skiadas class action lawsuit on February 28, 2020.

On May 1, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

Acer said, "The proceedings in the Gress and Giroux cases are
stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the class
action. The Company has not recorded a liability as of March 31,
2020 because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings."

Acer Therapeutics Inc. a pharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for
serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Newton, Massachusetts.


AIR CHINA: Williams Sues Over Failure to Provide Full Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AIR CHINA LIMITED, Case No. 4:20-cv-01883-RBH (D.S.C.,
May 15, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to provide full
refunds to customers whose flights were cancelled as a result of
the coronavirus pandemic.

Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, Defendant Air China has
cancelled a vast percentage of their international and United
States flights. However, Defendant has, to date, refused to issue
refunds for flights that Defendant cancelled, the Plaintiff says.
Air China's business was disrupted as a result of
government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the
coronavirus. The Defendant reduced seats by 76% between January
2020 and February 2020.

The Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with
Air China. Two of the flights on the Plaintiff's trip were
scheduled to depart from or arrive in the United States: a
departing flight from Fairfax, Virginia to Bejing, China, and a
return flight from Bejing to Fairfax. The Plaintiff's tickets were
booked through the website, Justairticket.com.

The Plaintiff's return flight was cancelled by Air China due to the
coronavirus travel restrictions while he was abroad. Upon
discovering his return flight was cancelled, the Plaintiff called
Air China. Air China informed the Plaintiff that it had cancelled a
number of flights and that the Plaintiff would have to take the
matter up with Justairticket.com. The Plaintiff then called
Justairticket.com, who only provided a partial refund to the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not received a full refund from Air
China, says the complaint.

Mr. Williams purchased tickets for himself and for six members of
his congregation for a charitable mission to the Philippines.

Air China is one of the major airlines of the People's Republic of
China and carries over 100 million domestic and international
passengers annually.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          PO Box 1483
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: 900-600-5000
          Fax: 900-600-5035
          Email: harper@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Court Approves Douglas FLSA Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KIRK DOUGLAS individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL
SECURITY SERVICES, ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES LLC, ALLIED
SECURITY HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 17-CV-6093-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Sanket J. Bulsara has ruled that:

   1. The Fair Labor Standards Act settlement satisfies the
      requirements of Cheeks and its progeny;

   2. The New York Labor Law class action settlement is
      fair, reasonable, and adequate, satisfies the
      requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure;

   3. the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an award of
      $740,000;

   4. the Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to an amount not to
      exceed $70,000 for costs and expenses, including but not
      limited to the claims administration fees;

   5. Kirk Douglas is entitled to a service payment of $20,000;
      and

   6. The Clerk is directed to enter Final Judgment consistent
      with this Order and to close this case.

Allied Universal is a privately owned facility services company
based in the United States.[CC]


AMERICAN WEB: Settles Tribal Lending Action for $141 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Berman Tabacco wrote in its Web site that on April 14, 2020, the
parties in Solomon v. American Web Loan, Inc., et al., No.
4:17-CV-145 (E.D. Va.) entered into a settlement agreement which,
if approved by the court, would provide for a total of $141 million
in relief to the class, comprised of $65 million in cash, $76
million in cancellation of certain loans as disputed debt, the exit
of Mark Curry as CEO of American Web Loan ("AWL"), as well as other
significant non-monetary benefits to the class.

The class action was brought on behalf of individuals who took out
high interest rate loans from AWL, an online lender that purports
to be an arm of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe (the "Tribe"). Plaintiffs
allege that certain individuals and entities unaffiliated with the
Tribe created AWL in a scheme designed to circumvent state and
federal law, including RICO, usury laws and other laws against
high-interest loans that carry annual interest rates as high as
726%.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that prior to taking out
their loans, they were not informed about key loan terms including
the interest rate, repayment terms, and total amount of payments
owed. The loan documents associated with plaintiffs' loans –
which were not provided to plaintiffs until after they took out
their loans – purport to be governed by the law of the Tribe (not
the law of the borrower's home state or federal law), and seek to
force all disputes into arbitration that would be governed by
tribal law only. Plaintiffs allege that this purported arbitration
language is unconscionable and unenforceable.

Berman Tabacco's team includes Kathleen M. Donovan‑Maher, Steven
J. Buttacavoli and Steven L. Groopman of the Boston office. [GN]


ANTHEM INC: Atzin et al. ERISA Case Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LACY ATZIN; MARK ANDERSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ANTHEM,
INC.; ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-06816-ODW-PLA
(C.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 25, 2017), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all persons covered under Anthem plans governed by
      Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, self-
      funded or fully insured, whose requests for microprocessor
      controlled foot-ankle prostheses have been denied during
      the applicable statute of limitations period pursuant to
      Anthem's Medical Policy on Microprocessor Controlled Lower
      Limb Prosthesis, Policy No. OR-PR.00003";

   2. appointing Mark Andersen as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Gianelli & Morris and Doyle Law, APC as Class
      Counsel.

The Court said, "Having established that the four requirements of
Rule 23(a) are met, the Plaintiffs must also establish that the
class meets one of the three criteria listed in Rule 23(b). The
Plaintiffs contend certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(1) and
23(b)(2). As the Court finds certification appropriate under Rule
23(b)(2), it does not reach the Plaintiffs' arguments under Rule
23(b)(1). The parties agree that Defendants have acted in a way
that applies uniformly to the class because Defendants have applied
OR-PR.00003 to deny claims for microprocessor controlled foot-ankle
prostheses as "investigational and not medical necessary for all
indications". This common policy can be resolved with respect to
the class as a whole through the injunctive relief the Plaintiffs
seek, namely to reevaluate and reprocess claims without using the
allegedly erroneous criteria. Accordingly, the Court finds
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) appropriate."

The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action asserting that
the Defendants have a practice of wrongfully denying coverage for
microprocessor controlled lower limb prostheses, including
foot-ankle prostheses, based on the coverage guideline
OR-PR.00003.

Anthem is a provider of health insurance in the United States.[CC]

ARSTRAT LLC: Aleman FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as INDIANA ALEMAN, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ARSTRAT, LLC, Case No.
0:20-cv-60105-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
      class compromised of:

      "[1] all persons with Florida addresses [2] that were sent
      a letter from Defendant [3] in an attempt to collect a
      debt [4] during the 12-months preceding the commencement
      of this action [5] whereby said letter states “If you
      notify this office in writing within 30 days after
      receiving this notice that the debt or any portion thereof
      is disputed, this office will: obtain verification of the
      debt or obtain a copy of a judgment against you and mail
      you a copy of such judgment or verification";

   2. appointing Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi, PLLC as class
      representative for the FDCPA Class; and

   3. appointing Thomas J. Patti and Jibrael S. Hindi as class
      counsel.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FDCPA
because the form collection letter which the Defendant mailed to
her and the class members fails to provide (either within the
Collection Letter, or via a separate writing within five days
thereof) with, among other things, "a statement that unless the
consumer, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, disputes the
validity of the debt, or any portion thereof.

ARstrat provides pre-litigation and account litigation services for
successful resolutions.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-907-1136
          Facsimile: 855-529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

ARTIS LLC: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artis LLC. The case
is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Artis LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03797 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 15, 2020).

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

Artis is a research and development company located in Herndon,
Virginia. The Company provides services and creates products for
defense and commercial markets using extremely high-speed sensing
and parallel processing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARTSANA USA: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artsana USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Artsana USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03785 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Artsana USA Inc., also known as Chicco, was founded in 1958 by an
inventor and developer of pharmaceutical devices. Chicco has grown
into a global brand with a presence in 120 countries, offering
everything from baby gear to nursing, toys, apparel, shoes, and
baby care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


AUSTRALIA DEPT. OF DEFENCE: Faces PFAS Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Defence Connect Australia reports that national plaintiff firm
Shine Lawyers has launched a multi-site class action to be filed
against the Department of Defence, alleging that more than 40,000
residents across Australia have been exposed to toxic chemicals
used on military bases.

National plaintiff firm Shine Lawyers has filed a class action on
behalf of residents of Richmond, Wagga Wagga (NSW), Wodonga
(Victoria), Darwin (NT), Townsville (Queensland), Edinburgh (SA)
and Bullsbrook (WA) who have allegedly been exposed to poisonous
chemicals found in fire-fighting foam used by military personnel.

The chemicals have, Shine said, "permeated land and water supplies,
food sources, and bloodstreams, with cataclysmic consequences".

The multi-site class action has been filed to compensate residents
for significant drops in property prices, the firm said. According
to research - conducted both independently and by Shine - PFAS
chemicals "amass and persist in the environment and the PFAS levels
in these towns are of serious concern".

Shine special counsel Joshua Aylward said that the action is being
launched for tens of thousands of victims exposed to PFAS "as a
result of government negligence".

"In some instances, property owners have seen the value of their
land decrease by more than 50 per cent. We're fighting to
adequately compensate these property owners so they are not stuck
living on contaminated land," he said.  

"Every aspect of residents' lives is impacted by this
contamination. These toxins are permeating the environment around
them, with high levels found in rivers and creeks, livestock,
crops, drinking water, and in people's blood. Property prices are
plummeting as a result of this contamination."

Exposure to these toxic chemicals, Aylward continued, has been
linked to birth defects, some cancers, liver changes, raised
cholesterol levels and heart disease among others.

"For Shine Lawyers and the people affected by PFAS, this action is
about continuing to hold the government accountable for failing
residents and putting their lives at risk," he proclaimed.  

"We will vigorously prosecute this case to protect property owners
and to ensure that they cannot be further harmed by this dangerous
and toxic chemical."

The action being brought is an open class action, the firm noted,
meaning that residents affected are automatically involved unless
they elect to opt out of the action at a later date.

Lead applicant of the class action, Reannan Haswell – who moved
to Bullsbrook ten years ago with her partner Beaux Tilley – said
that the pair holds serious concerns for the safety of their family
and value of their property.

"We moved here in 2010 with our family expecting to set up a better
life here and now we've lost our hope of that happening in
Bullsbrook," she said.

"Now we're in a position where we're afraid to let our children
drink or bathe from our water supply, and we're trapped on property
with little or no value as a result of our exposure to PFAS,"
Tilley added.

"We can't grow our property to suit our growing family's needs. We
can't even renovate, we can't even put in a pool."

This latest class action comes after Shine and Dentons reached an
in-principal agreement with the Australian government on behalf of
the communities in Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine in late
February, relating to the contamination of areas surrounding
Defence bases. Shine Lawyers represented Oakey and Katherine, while
Dentons represented Williamtown during the settlements.

"We're encouraged by Shine Lawyers' success in the Oakey/Katherine
class action and want to see the government held to account for its
role in contaminating our town," said Tilley. [GN]


AUTOMATED COLLECTION: Caraballo Files Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Automated Collection
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Josefina Caraballo, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Automated
Collection Services, Inc. and Conn's, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00430 (M.D. Tenn., May 20, 2020).

The docket of the case states that the lawsuit is filed pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Automated Collection Services Inc (ACSI) is a debt collection
agency located in Nashville, Tennessee. Phone, address and details
about the agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
   Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC (Austin, TX Office)
   106 E Sixth Street, Suite 913
   Austin, TX 78701
   Tel: (512) 322-3912
   Fax: (561) 961-5684
   Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over PPP Loans
--------------------------------------------------
Clyde Hughes and Sommer Brokaw, writing for UPI, report that a Los
Angeles consumer firm filed separate class-action lawsuits against
four banks connected with the Paycheck Protection Program, arguing
its small business owners were passed over in the loan process for
larger companies.

Stalwart Law Group argued in the lawsuits, filed in U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles on April 19, that its clients were denied
loans because of a "rigged" process that penalized small
businesses. Bank of America, JPMorgan, US Bank and Wells Fargo were
named singularly in separate suits.

Congress dedicated $349 billion in emergency funds to small
businesses to help keep employees on payrolls in a program that
began April 3. The fund, though, ran out of money April 20, leaving
many small businesses without a chance to apply for stimulus
money.

The law firm said in its class-action suits that the banks shuffled
the loans to accommodate bigger companies instead of on a
first-come, first-served basis, leaving 90 percent of small
businesses that applied for the loans empty-handed.

The lawsuit said that this application sleight of hand was done
unbeknownst to the small business owners while the banks collected
nearly $6 billion in fees for the reshuffling.

"Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and
these businesses and their employees have been hit hard by the
COVID-19 pandemic," Stalwart lead plaintiff attorney Dylan Ruga
said in a statement. "Once again, we see big banks prioritize
corporate greed at the expense of its small business customers."

Amid the lawsuits, there has also been backlash against large
chains taking up a large chunk of funds. Shake Shack, a large
restaurant chain, among more than a dozen companies with hundreds
of millions in annual revenues, said on April 19 it will give a $10
million PPP loan back to the government.

Shake Shack CEO Randy Garutti and founder Danny Meyer said in a
statement on LinkedIn on April 19 the loan was open to businesses
with no more than 500 employees per location and the burger chain
has roughly 45 employees per restaurant.

They added that they thought applying for the funding was their
"best chance" to avoid layoffs and furloughs of employees, but they
didn't realize the funds would be used up so fast. And since they
were able to get separate additional capital on April 17 "through
an equity transition in the public markets," they've decided to
return the loan so restaurants "who need it most can get it now."

Congress is at a stalemate in deciding whether to refill the
program, with Republicans wanting to put $250 billion more into it,
while Democrats want funds for hospitals and local governments, as
well. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Misleads PPP Loan Applicants, Studio 1220 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STUDIO 1220, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION and INTRALINKS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-03081-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the California Business &
Professions Code and fraudulent concealment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated entities who submitted Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) loan applications to the Defendants, allege that the
Defendants are engaged in unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business
acts and practices regarding their advertisement, offer,
processing, approval and funding of PPP loan applications. The
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants secretly prioritized PPP loan
applications of greater than $150,000 before processing
applications equal to or less than $150,000, which is contrary to
their advertisement that they would process, approve and fund PPP
loan applications in the amounts of equal to or less than $150,000
fairly and on a first-come, first-served basis, according to U.S.
Treasury guidance. The Defendants' wrongful conduct caused
irreparable harm to countless small businesses and workers who
actually needed the temporary funding of the PPP loans to make
payroll, retain their employees, and stay afloat during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Studio 1220, Inc. is a women's clothing store with its principal
executive office in San Diego, California.

Bank of America, National Association is a financial services
provider, with its principal place of business located in
Charlotte, North Carolina. It is licensed to do business in the
State of California.

Intralinks, Inc., is a cloud-based financial technology provider,
with its principal place of business located in New York, New York.
It is licensed to do business in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
         KEEGAN & BAKER LLP
         2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
         Carlsbad, CA 92008
         Telephone: (760) 929-9303
         Facsimile: (760) 929-9260
         E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

BELA GROUP: State Material Files Suit in New York Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BELA GROUP LLC, et
al. The case is styled as State Material Mason Supply, on behalf of
itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund
beneficiaries of Lien Law T v. BELA GROUP LLC, LMJ MANAGEMENT &
CONSTRUCTION, INC., DURANTE RENTALS, LLC, WESTCHESTER FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALBERT CHWEDCZUK AND JOHN, Case No. 624317/2019
(N.Y. Sup., Suffolk Cty., May 16, 2020).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED OTHER REAL PROPERTY".

BELA Group is an independent and vibrant organization dedicated to
the development of Infrastructure Solutions and Consultancy
Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall M., Stern, Esq.
          17 Cardiff Court
          Huntington Station, NY 11746
          Phone: (631) 427-0101

The Defendants are represented by:

          ANDREW D. PRESBERG, P.C.
          100 Corporate Plaza
          Islandia, NY 11749
          Phone: (631) 232-4444


BELL & ROSS: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bell & Ross Inc. The
case is styled as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Bell & Ross Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03775
(S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Bell & Ross was founded in 1992 by Bruno Belamich and Carlos
Rosillo, and is focusing on aviator and diving watches. Today, its
manufacturing is based in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BORAL LTD: Hit With Class Action for 'Misleading Market'
--------------------------------------------------------
Darren Gray, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the trustee of a superannuation fund that invested $177,300 in
Boral shares is leading a shareholder class action against the
building products giant over financial irregularities uncovered in
its US windows business last year.

Fresh details of the class action have been revealed in a statement
of claim filed in the Federal Court which accuses Boral of making a
series of false or misleading, or deceptive representations to the
market.

It argues the market was not given a proper picture of the state
and performance of Boral's US windows business prior to a shock
announcement about the financial irregularities last December.

Boral told the ASX on December 5 last year that it had identified
"financial irregularities in its North American Windows business"
that involved "misreporting" in relation to inventory levels, raw
material and labour costs at its US windows plants.

It said the irregularities appeared to relate to the period between
September 2018 and October 2019, and that it estimated the
irregularities would have a one-off impact on EBITDA (earnings
before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) "in the order
of $US20 million to $US30 million".

The next day Boral shares were dumped by investors, falling 6.3 per
cent to close at $4.61.

The superannuation fund trustee, known as CJMcG Pty Ltd, bought
three significant parcels of Boral shares in 2018, at prices of
$6.39, $6.555 and $5.375 per share. The trustee is being
represented by the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

The statement of claim alleges that in September 2017 Boral had
represented to the market that the acquisition of "Headwaters" in
the US, which included the US window operations, was a "compelling
acquisition opportunity". It also alleges that Boral indicated to
investors that "it had undertaken rigorous due diligence" in
respect of the acquisition.

"In the period from September 15, 2017 to December 5, 2019, Boral
did not withdraw, qualify or correct the due diligence
representations," the document alleges.

But the statement of claim alleges that Boral's due diligence
representations "were false or misleading or deceptive", because it
had not undertaken rigorous due diligence of the US windows
business.

The statement of claim says that by October 2017 an internal audit
of the windows business had identified "many issues and control
gaps, such that Windows could not reasonably be described as
maintaining good systems of internal control".

And it claims that by no later than September 15, 2017, or
alternatively the beginning of November 2017, "there was a material
risk that the results being reported by Windows were inaccurate
and/or misleading".

Contacted by The Age and the Herald, a Boral spokesperson said: "We
intend to vigorously defend the claim."

In February this year, Boral told the market that the financial
irregularities in its North American Windows business had
overstated pre-tax earnings by $24.4 million ($36.5 million) (sic)
between March 2018 and October 2019.

And it said finance personnel in the North American Windows
business had "manipulated accounts and financial statements
primarily to artificially inflate the overall profitability and
health" of the business. [GN]


BRUIN E&P PARTNERS: Blasi Files Suit in North Dakota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bruin E&P Partners,
LLC.  The case is styled as David A Blasi and Paula J Blasi, as
trustee of the Blasi living Trust, on behalf of herself and a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Bruin E&P Partners,
LLC and Bruin E&P Operating, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00085-ARS (D.N.D., May 20, 2020).

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

Bruin E&P Partners, LLC operates as an exploration and production
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
   Montgomery & Pender, P.C.
   5630 34th Avenue So., Ste 120
   Fargo, ND 58104
   Tel: (701) 281-8001
   Email: mike@mplawnd.com


CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Illegally Gets Credit Reports, Wolf Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janis Wolf, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP, Case No.
2:20-cv-00957-DLR (D. Ariz., May 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of
consumers whose credit reports the Defendant obtained, without a
legitimate purpose or consent, prior to obtaining a judgment
against a consumer, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On September 13, 2019, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's
credit report via a "hard inquiry," according to the complaint.
This resulted in a decrease in the Plaintiff's credit rating. On
October 28, 2019, the Defendant again obtained the Plaintiff's
credit report via a "hard inquiry." This second inquiry resulted in
a decrease in the Plaintiff's credit rating. A hard inquiry reduces
a consumer's credit score, remains on credit reports for two years,
and often contains confidential and personal information. A hard
inquiry also appears on credit reports to any inquiring party. Each
hard inquiry appears as a separate inquiry.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's deliberate practice of
obtaining consumers' credit reports, a practice commonly referred
to as a "hard inquiry," was undertaken for improper and unlawful
purposes (e.g., evaluating a consumer's collectability in potential
collection lawsuit), invaded consumers' privacy rights, and damaged
their credit scores and reputations. The Defendant acted unlawfully
when it twice obtained the Plaintiff's credit report in 2019. The
Defendant acted willfully in obtaining the Plaintiff's credit
report on both occasions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a consumer, who resides in Arizona.

CHDB is an Arizona limited liability partnership with its principal
place of business in Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
          Ashley C. Hill, Esq.
          Jesse Vassallo Lopez, Esq.
          DESSAULES LAW GROUP
          5353 North 16th Street, Suite 110
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602.274.5400
          Fax: 602.274.5401
          Email: jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com
                 ahill@dessauleslaw.com
                 jvassallo@dessauleslaw.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Dawkins Files Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC.  The case is styled as Victoria Dawkins, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:20-cv-60998-RAR (S.D., Fla., May 20, 2020).

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

Carrington is a holding company whose primary businesses include
asset management, mortgages, real estate transactions and real
estate logistics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
   Bailey & Glasser, LLP
   1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 463-2101
   Fax: (202) 463-2103
   Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com



CBD AMERICAN: Cannabis Products Contain Toxins, Davis Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL S. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBD AMERICAN SHAMAN, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60897-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2020) arises from the
false claims made by Defendant's website with respect to "No Heavy
Metals or Insecticides" of its cannabidiol ("CBD") products in
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff purchased several CBD products directly from
Defendant's website between December 5, 2019 and January 14, 2020.
Plaintiff would not have purchased these products but for
Defendant's advertisement as Plaintiff was looking for products
that were all natural without any potentially harmful chemicals,
substances, or elements.

After using these products for a period of time, Plaintiff became
curious about the "No Heavy Metals or Insecticides" claim and
decided to send several of the unopened products to the same lab
utilized by Defendant -- ProVerde Laboratories -- for verification
of Defendant's claims. Plaintiff did this because he wanted to
ensure that the products he purchased met the claims on Defendant's
website/on the products themselves.

Plaintiff recently received the test results back from ProVerde
Laboratories -- the same laboratory that Defendant touts on its
website as supporting its "No Heavy Metals or Insecticides" claim
-- and was shocked to learn that Defendant’s claims are false.  

Defendant breached these written warranties because its CBD
products did in fact contain heavy metals, insecticides, and/or
other contaminants.

CBD American Shaman, LLC is an American company that markets and
sells various products derived from a cannabis compound called
cannabidiol ("CBD") found in all cannabis plants. These products
include, but are not limited to, CBD oils, CBD topicals, CBD
gummies, CBD capsules pills, CBD edibles, CBD tea, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
          DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
          3111 N. University Drive Suite 301
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 603-1340
          Email: DDesouza@desouzalaw.com

CEPHALON INC: Benesch Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that since the enactment of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the FCC has long held
that persons who knowingly and voluntarily release their telephone
numbers have provided prior express consent to be called. But what
about faxes? Despite conventional belief, faxes are still a popular
way of communicating and advertising products or services,
particularly with respect to healthcare and pharmaceutical
products. But the fax provisions of the TCPA are a little bit
different that the provisions dealing with telephone calls.

To summarize (and overly-simplify) the fax provisions, the TCPA
generally prohibits sending unsolicited fax advertisements unless
the sender has an established business relationship with the
recipient. Even when unsolicited fax advertisements may be sent,
the faxes must have "opt-out" language that meets some particular
requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions may result in
liability of up to $1,500 per fax sent in violation of the statute.
These damages can quickly rack up even when one person files suit,
and can be particularly crippling in class action litigation.

In contrast, solicited faxes are not subject to these same
requirements. A fax is deemed solicited when recipients give their
"prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise,"
for the fax. As a best practice, consent should always be obtained
in writing. But that's not always possible as a practical matter.
Fortunately, a recent decision by the Third Circuit emphasizes a
commonsense approach in determining when a fax is solicited.
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 18-3609, 2020
U.S. App. LEXIS 9782 (3d Cir. March 30, 2020).

In Physicians Healthcare, a doctor of the plaintiff-healthcare
group met with the representatives of the defendant-pharmaceutical
provider to discuss various pharmaceutical drugs. In the meeting,
the doctor provided his business card to the defendant's
representatives, and the business card contained his fax number.
The defendant then sent several fax advertisements to the
plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued, claiming that the faxes were unsolicited under
the TCPA, and that even if they were solicited, the faxes failed to
comply with the solicited fax rules. Boiled down, the issue was
whether the doctor's act of providing his business card with his
fax number gave the defendant "prior express invitation or
permission" to send the faxes; i.e., whether that act made the
faxes solicited.

The district court answered "yes," entering summary judgment in
favor of the defendant. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Third
Circuit noted that it is well established that a consumer's
"voluntary provision" of a telephone number constitutes "prior
express consent" to receive telephone calls at that number. While
the portion of the TCPA dealing with faxes is phrased a little
differently, instead requiring "prior express invitation or
permission," the Third Circuit held that there was no functional
difference between these expressions -- what mattered is that the
doctor knowingly and voluntarily provided his business card to the
defendant for the purpose of communication, and that the business
card contained the faxes. And boom. The faxes were therefore
solicited.

The plaintiff alternatively argued that even if the faxes were
solicited, they did not comply with the FCC's solicited fax rules.
Frankly, it's odd that plaintiffs continue to talk about the former
"solicited fax" rules, because those rules were held invalid back
in 2018 and the FCC formally eliminated them in 2019. So, the Third
Circuit made short work of that spurious argument as well, and
affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant. Defense win!

The outcome of Physicians Healthcare is a commonsense outcome for
what it means to provide consent (or to be "solicited" in the
TCPA-fax lingo) for a communication. But companies that engage in
fax advertising -- or engage third-party vendors for fax
advertising -- should always try to follow best practices to avoid
litigation in the first place, including careful consideration to
where faxes are sent, the contents of the fax, and (if applicable)
the type of consent or permission necessary, relative to the TCPA's
requirements to ensure compliance. [GN]


CHATTERJEE ADVISORS: Faces Manbro Energy Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chatterjee Advisors,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Manbro Energy Corporation,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Chatterjee Advisors, LLC, Chatterjee Fund Management, LP,
Chatterjee Management Company doing business as: The Chatterjee
Group, Purnendu Chatterjee, Case No. 1:20-cv-03773-LGS (S.D.N.Y.,
May 15, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

The Chatterjee Group is a firm, with investments and operations
spanning several continents and industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joon Hyun Kim, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 225-2823
          Fax: (212) 225-3999
          Email: jkim@cgsh.com


CHINA: Thousands of Americans Sign Up to Coronavirus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that thousands of Americans have reportedly signed
onto a class action lawsuit in the US state of Florida which seeks
compensation from the Chinese Government for COVID-19 damages, as
Western politicians increasingly call for accountability.

According to a statement from the Miami-based Berman Law Group, the
lawsuit "seeks billions of dollars in compensatory damages for
those who have suffered personal injuries, wrongful deaths,
property damage and other damages due to China's failure to contain
the COVID-19 virus, despite their ability to have stopped the
spread of the virus in its early stages".

The firm said it "looks forward to fighting for the rights of
people and businesses across Florida and the rest of the country,
who are now becoming sick or caring for loved ones, dealing with
financial calamity, and navigating this new world of panic and
social distancing and isolation".

The US has by far the world's largest number of confirmed
coronavirus cases, with more than 740,000 infections and more than
41,000 deaths.

A separate class action lodged on behalf of Las Vegas businesses is
seeking billions of dollars in damages on behalf of five local
businesses.

The lawsuit claims that China's Government should have shared more
information about the virus but intimidated doctors, scientists,
journalists and lawyers while allowing the COVID-19 respiratory
illness to spread.

The Chinese Government has repeatedly denied suppressing
information in the early days of the crisis, saying it immediately
reported the outbreak to the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Experts say that China's rigid controls on information,
bureaucratic hurdles and a reluctance to send bad news up the chain
of command muffled early warnings.

Authorities shamed eight doctors for "rumour-mongering" in a
national television broadcast on January 2.

An investigation by the Associated Press showed that the head of
China's National Health Commission, Ma Xiaowei, described a "severe
and complex" situation, which he compared to the 2003 SARS
outbreak, during a confidential teleconference with provincial
health officials on January 14.

It was not until January 20, however, that President Xi Jinping
warned the public of a likely epidemic.

"Our lawsuit addresses those who have been physically injured from
exposure to the virus . . . [and] also addresses the commercial
activity China has engaged in around the 'wet markets' trade," the
Voice of America quoted a Berman Law Group spokesperson as saying,
adding that more than 5,000 Americans had joined the class action
by late March.

It has been argued that the virus originated at Huanan Seafood
Wholesale Market in the city of Wuhan.

But Yale University law professor Stephen L Carter said that
regardless of alleged culpability, as a nation state, China was
immune from being sued.

British think tank, German newspaper call for compensation

A report released earlier in April by the Henry Jackson Society, a
conservative British think tank, argued that the G7 nations could
sue China for 3.2 trillion pounds ($6.3 trillion).

It claimed that Australia could file for more than $58 billion in
damages.

The former boss of Britain's intelligence agency MI6, John Sawers,
also said China's Government should be held responsible for the
pandemic, given its early efforts to cover up the crisis.

"There is deep anger in America at what they see as having been
inflicted on us all by China and China is evading a good deal of
responsibility for the origin of the virus, for failing to deal
with it initially," Mr Sawers told the BBC.

"Intelligence is about acquiring information which has been
concealed from you by other states and other actors, there was a
brief period in December and January when the Chinese were indeed
concealing this from the West."

The German tabloid Bild, which is the most-read newspaper in
Europe, published an "invoice" for China requesting 24 billion
euros ($41 billion) for lost tourism revenue in March and April, 50
billion euros ($86 billion) for small business, and a further 149
billion euros ($255 billion) if German GDP falls by 4.2 per cent in
2020 as projected.

In an "open letter" to Mr Xi, the newspaper wrote that "your
Government and your scientists had to know long ago that
corona[virus] is highly infectious, but you left the world in the
dark about it".

"Your top experts didn't respond when Western researchers asked to
know what was going on in Wuhan."

Calls for financial compensation come as Western governments
increasingly demand accountability from Beijing.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne over the weekend voiced her support
for an inquiry into the origins of coronavirus, which she said
should not be conducted by WHO, and called upon China to allow
transparency in the process.

Her comments came after Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said he
thought there would be a "reset about the way in which the world
interacts with China".

"We do want more transparency," he said.

President Donald Trump has also been stepping up his criticism of
China, saying its Government should face consequences if it was
"knowingly responsible" for the pandemic.

"It could have been stopped in China before it started and it
wasn't, and the whole world is suffering because of it," Mr Trump
told a daily White House briefing.

He has referenced a theory that the virus was accidentally leaked
from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although the overwhelming
weight of scientific research so far points to the coronavirus
originally stemming from animals.

The Trump administration and senior Australian ministers have also
been overtly critical of the WHO's management of the crisis.

Mr Trump said the US would withdraw funding from the UN agency for
being too "China-centric". [GN]


CHSLD SAINTE-DOROTHEE: Faces Class Action in Quebec Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the surviving son of a COVID-19 victim is
attempting to launch a class-action lawsuit against a Laval
seniors' home which is among the hardest hit long-term care
residences in the province.

The lawsuit also targets the regional health authority, CISSS de
Laval, which oversees the CHSLD Sainte-Dorothee. As of April 20,
the facility is reporting 164 cases of COVID-19 and 67 deaths.

Anna Jose Marquet died at the age of 94 on April 3 after she
contracted the disease as a resident of the CHSLD and now her son,
Jean-Pierre Daubois, is alleging employees of the facility were
forced to work even if they were showing tell-tale signs of a
COVID-19 infection.

His lawyer, Martin Menard, filed the class-action request in Quebec
Superior Court on April 20.

The request accuses both the long-term residence and the CISSS de
Laval of failing to offer employees adequate protective equipment
and neglecting to quarantine residents who were symptomatic.

Residents were "treated in a faulty, negligent and unsafe manner"
as of March 13, the suit alleges.

None of these allegations have been proven in court nor has the
court decided whether the class-action can move forward. An attempt
to reach Sainte-Dorothee's administration for comment on April 20
was not successful.

CBC also requested a comment from CISSS de Laval but did not hear
back.

The class-action request is claiming $1 million in exemplary
damages, but also tens of thousands of dollars for each deceased or
living resident, including those who did not catch the
coronavirus.

The facility has the capacity to house 285 residents. The case
could end up seeking several million dollars in damages.

The union representing workers at Sainte-Dorothee has said a nurse
was forced to go to work with symptoms, then later found out she
had tested positive for the disease.

How Quebec's nursing homes became ground zero for COVID-19
And others have made similar allegations. Among them is Sylvie
Morin who told CBC in early April that she was told to work while
symptomatic because she had tested negative in late March.

She told stories of other staff members who reported symptoms but
were not sent home right away.  She also said there was a shortage
of personal protective equipment to the point that nurses were
buying their own.

Quebec's workplace health and safety board, known as CNESST,
reviewed the situation and intervened at the CHSLD after complaints
were filed.

The daughter of a woman who died at CHSLD Herron in Dorval
requested approval of her class-action lawsuit which claims at
least $2 million in damages to be divided among residents.

with files from Radio-Canada [GN]


CHUBB LTD: Denies Insurance Coverage for Biz Losses, Beniak Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BENIAK ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a BENITO RISTORANTE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
CHUBB LTD, and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05536-KM-JBC (D.N.J., May 5, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' breach of contract.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
similarly-situated policyholders who paid premiums to the
Defendants in exchange for an all-risk commercial property
insurance policy that included lost business income and extra
expense coverage, alleges that the Defendants refused to comply
with their contractual obligation to pay for business income losses
and other covered expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and Class
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to
stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.

According to the complaint, Chubb's insurance policies issued to
Plaintiff and the Class members are all risk commercial property
policies that cover loss or damage to the covered premises
resulting from all risks other than those expressly excluded.
Therefore, the Defendants should not have denied their business
interruption coverage claim because the efficient proximate cause
of Plaintiff's, and other Class members' losses, were precautionary
measures taken by the government to prevent the spread of COVID-19
in the future, not because coronavirus was found in or on
Plaintiff's and Class members' insured property.

Beniak Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Benito Ristorante, is a
restaurant operator with its principal place of business in Union,
New Jersey.

Chubb Ltd. is an insurance company with its principal place of
business in Zurich, Switzerland.

Indemnity Insurance Company of North America is a subsidiary of
insurance company Chubb Ltd., with its principal place of business
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

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

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

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

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

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Sued Over Business-Interruption Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Trattner, writing for CityBeat, reports that most small
business owners purchase business-interruption insurance to cover
the loss of income as a result of events like wildfires,
hurricanes, burst pipes or even power surges. But as many
restaurant owners have sadly discovered recently, loss of income as
a result of COVID-19 is not one of those events -- at least
according to insurance companies.

Many policies contain virus-exclusion clauses, which specifically
dismiss losses as a result of pandemics like coronavirus, Ebola and
SARS. But even carriers who sold insurance policies that do not
explicitly contain virus-exclusion clauses are denying these
business-interruption claims out of hand.

As an insurance litigation attorney who also happens to operate
restaurants, Robert Rutter felt that he was uniquely situated to
help his fellow hospitality colleagues. His firm, Rutter & Russin,
filed a class-action lawsuit in state court against insurance
companies refusing to pay out such claims. His suit is one of a
handful now making the rounds in state and federal court.

"After the shut-down occurred, I started getting inundated with
questions and phone calls," Rutter recalls. "We undertook a pretty
big dive looking into policies. I have here 60 different forms from
hundreds of clients."

Rutter, who runs Cleveland businesses like FWD, Magnolia, Flip Side
and 3 Palms, says that the suit is starting with "low-hanging
fruit," policies from carriers like Cincinnati Insurance, Western
Reserve Group and State Farm that do not contain virus-exclusion
clauses. On behalf of local plaintiffs -- both hospitality and
otherwise -- the firm is hoping to help aggrieved policy holders.

"These companies have this product called business interruption
insurance, which, on its face to the most unsophisticated business
person, seems like this is exactly what you've been paying for," he
argues. "This is the only way these companies will survive. PPP is
totally irrelevant -- if you can get."

Rutter says that while not technically binding, the ruling would
have a tremendous impact on the holders of similarly written
policies.

"The first case will dictate what will happen," he says. "If we
prevail against Cincinnati, there's really no reason we wouldn't
prevail against policies that are similar."

Craig Lyndall of Lyndall Insurance in Chagrin Falls has also been
fielding telephone calls from distressed restaurant owners. As the
agent, he's compelled to deliver the bad news that no, the carriers
will not be covering loss of income as a result of
coronavirus-related shutdowns.

"I am very sympathetic," he says. "I wish there was coverage for
it, because the worst part of my job is when people buy coverage
and I have to say, no, that's not covered and here's why."

From his side of the negotiating table, Lyndall says it's simply a
matter of actuarial science.

"If it was fire, wind, water . . . those are the things we're
covering for," he explains. "When insurance companies underwrite
these coverages based around, OK, well, if something like this
happens in a region and we've got x number of clients who are
impacted by it, we can cover it. But a national shutdown due to a
virus with no actual physical loss . . ."

That's not to say that individual policy holders could not demand
and pay for such coverage -- some do -- it's just not going to be
the small restaurant owners, he notes, as such coverage would be
extremely expensive.

"I don't blame them for fighting their asses off and trying to get
it, I really don't," he adds. "They're fighting for their
livelihood and I would do the same if was in their position."

If you do find yourself in a similar spot, Rutter urges you to
contact an attorney, because if you do not and the outcome proves
advantageous to policy holders, you could be left out.

"The dangerous thing is this: if you do not file a claim now -- and
I'm talking about, like you maybe have another week to file,
because once you are alerted of a claim you have a duty to report
it -- if you don't do that, you're out of the box. You'll be out."

While bills to nullify such virus exclusion clauses wind their way
through state and federal legislature, Rutter will be waging a
simultaneous battle in state court -- and he recommends restaurant
owners to follow along.

"This is precedent setting; we're trying to get coverage for
everybody in as fast amount of time as possible," he says. "If you
are a restaurateur or in the hospitality industry at all, you
should have an alert on the cases that have been filed here, in
Chicago and in California because that is what's going to dictate
what happens."

And if they prove unsuccessful, he adds, we can kiss a large number
of our favorite restaurants goodbye.

"You cannot open restaurants with social distancing guidelines and
survive," he argues. "It's impossible. It will never work. When
June or July hits, after they've worked through their PPP, there
will be a tremendous amount of closures, like half the industry."
[GN]


CLEVELAND, OH: Class Action vs. Speed Cameras Restored on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank D. Celebrezze, writing for TheNewspaper.com, reports that a
motorist who sued Cleveland, Ohio, over the unlawful use of
privately operated speed cameras is finally going to have her day
in court. The state Court of Appeals mid-April 2020 restored
Allyson Eighmey's class action lawsuit, allowing it finally to be
tested on the merits in a courtroom after nearly seven years
battling with the city over minor procedural points that were
ultimately decided in Eighmey's favor by the state Supreme Court.

Eighmey originally made a simple argument: Cleveland's speed camera
ordinance requires the use of signs to notify motorists in
locations where the automated ticketing machines are in use.
Cleveland's for-profit vendor Xerox was mailing out tickets in 2013
to the owners of vehicles photographed by cameras stationed in
unmarked vans.

Several months after Eighmey filed the suit, 78 percent of
Cleveland voters passed a ballot measure outlawing both speed
cameras and red light cameras. Nonetheless, the city has thrown
every possible legal obstacle against the suit to avoid having to
send refunds to the 36,179 motorists who were ticketed in violation
of the law. Cleveland almost succeeded, having the state Court of
Appeals toss the case in 2017 on technical grounds (view ruling).
The high court, however, vacated the ruling. Suitably chastened,
the three-judge appellate panel on April 16 overturned the trial
court's ruling in Cleveland's favor.

"The trial court erred in concluding that Eighmey lacked standing
to assert her unjust enrichment claim against Cleveland," Judge
Frank D. Celebrezze Jr wrote for the three-judge panel. "Because
Eighmey paid a penalty for a ticket that was invalidly issued, she
has standing to assert her unjust enrichment claim against
Cleveland."

The city will have a hard time beating the case on the merits,
because it has already conceded the main point of contention.

"Cleveland does not dispute that the mobile speed units failed to
comply with Cleveland Codified Ordinances 413.031," Judge
Celebrezze wrote. "Eighmey sufficiently demonstrated the existence
of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the tickets
were valid based on Cleveland's failure to comply with Cleveland
Codified Ordinances 413.031."

The case is Eighmey v. Cleveland (Court of Appeals, State of Ohio,
4/16/2020). [GN]


CONN'S INC: Uddin Sues Over Decline in Market Value of Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Uddin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CONN'S INC., NORMAN L. MILLER, and GEORGE L. BCHARA,
Case No. 4:20-cv-01705 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2020), is brought to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising from the precipitous decline in the market
value of the Company's securities.

On December 10, 2019, before the market opened, Conn's reported its
third quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein,
the Company reported retail revenues of $280.3 million, compared to
$284.1 million in the prior year period. Conn's attributed the
revenue decline to a decrease in same store sales, which "reflects
underwriting adjustments made during the three months ended October
31, 2019." On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.85 per
share, or over 33%, to close at $13.65 per share on December 10,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Conn's was experiencing an increase in first
payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) that, as a
result, Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its
provision for bad debts; (3) that the Company made certain
underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for
new customers and online applicants; (4) that, as a result, the
Company's same-store sales would be adversely impacted; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Conn's securities during the Class Period.

Conn's is a specialty retailer that sells branded durable consumer
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


CREATIVE RECREATIONS: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Recreations,
Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Creative Recreations, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03789 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Creative Recreation is a California-based shoe company that focuses
on the needs of men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CREATIVELIVE INC: Jones Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
CreativeLive, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CreativeLive, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02251 (E.D. N.Y., May 19, 2020).

CreativeLIVE Inc. provides educational services. The Company
operates a massive online open course (MOOC) platform that brings
live, online classrooms to creative entrepreneurs. creativeLIVE
primarily operates in the United States and serves customers
globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



CROWN CASTLE: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Crown Castle International Corporation ("Crown
Castle" or the "Company") (NYSE:  CCI) and certain of its officers.
  The class action, filed in United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-02943, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Crown Castle securities between February 26, 2018, and February 26,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Crown Castle securities
during the class period, you have until April 27, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlawfirm.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Crown Castle purports to own, operate and lease more than 40,000
cell towers and more than 75,000 route miles of fiber supporting
small cells and fiber solutions across every major U.S. market.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Crown Castle's internal control over financial
reporting and disclosures controls and procedures were ineffective
and materially weak; (ii) Crown Castle's financial accounting and
reporting was not in accordance with GAAP; (iii) Crown Castle's net
income, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted funds from operations were
inflated; (iv) Crown Castle would need to restate its financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, and
unaudited financial information for the quarterly and year-to-date
periods in the year ended December 31, 2018 and for the first three
quarters in the year ended December 31, 2019; and (v) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 26, 2020, Crown Castle disclosed that its historical
accounting practice with respect to recognizing servicing revenues
from its tower installation services "was not acceptable under
GAAP."  The Company advised investors that it would restate its
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017
and for the first three quarters in the year ended December 31,
2019.

On this news, Crown Castle's stock price fell $14.29 per share, or
8.78%, to close at $148.40 per share on February 27, 2020, damaging
investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlawfirm.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]


DELOITTE CONSULTING: Culbertson Sues Over Exposed Applicants' Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CULBERTSON, WILLIAM GIBSON, TIMOTHY SYLVESTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03962
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who applied to the federal Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, allege that their personally
identifiable information (PII) were exposed as a result of the
Defendant's failure to enforce appropriate security measures on the
web-based portals that it designed and maintained to assist various
state agencies, including the Ohio Department of Job and Family
Services (ODJFS), the Illinois Department of Employment Security
(IDES), and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE),
to administer the applications for the federal PUA program.

Officials from ODJFS, IDES, and CDL publicly confirmed in May 2020
that Deloitte's web-based portals allowed public access to
applicants' PII, including Social Security numbers, thereby
exposing sensitive private data of an unknown number of people who
had recently filed for unemployment benefits to unauthorized
persons. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
actions and omissions in failing to protect applicants' PII, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have been placed at a substantial risk
of harm in the form of credit fraud or identity theft and will
likely incur additional damages in order to prevent and mitigate
credit fraud or identity theft.

Deloitte Consulting LLP is a provider of audit, consulting, tax,
and advisory services with its principal place of business located
at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Amanda Peterson, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         90 Broad Street, Suite 1011
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 564-4568
         E-mail: apeterson@forthepeople.com

               - and –
         
         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 275-5272
         E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                 RMcGee@ForThePeople.com

               - and –
         
         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 345-8297
         Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and –
         
         Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
         THE LYON FIRM PC
         2754 Erie Ave.
         Cincinnati, OH 45208
         Telephone: (513) 381-2333
         E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and –
         
         Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
         LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
         510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Telephone: (215) 592-1500
         Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
         E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and –
         
         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
         Washington, D.C. 20016
         Telephone: (202) 640-1160
                    (202) 256-1169
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Protect PUA Data, Bozin Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BOZIN, TIMOTHY SMITH, and ALEXANDRIA POLICHENA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, Case No. 20 932778 (Ohio Ct.
Common Pleas, May 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who applied to the federal Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, allege that the Defendant
failed to implement reasonably industry standards necessary to
protect PUA applicants' personally identifiable information (PII),
including the Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal and financial
information. The Defendant contracts with various state agencies,
including the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS),
to administer the applications for the PUA program and expedite the
processing of their unemployment claims. The Plaintiffs received a
notice from Deloitte on May 20, 2020 informing them that their
PIIs, such as Social Security number, were exposed to unauthorized
persons and other unemployment claimants. As a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's actions and inactions, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered anxiety, emotional distress, loss of
privacy, financial damages, and are at an increased risk of future
harm.

Deloitte Consulting LLP is a provider of audit, consulting, tax,
and advisory services with its principal place of business located
in Hermitage, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Marc E. Dann, Esq.
         Brian D. Flick, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         P.O. Box 6031040
         Cleveland, OH 44103
         Telephone: (216) 373-0539
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
         E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
         Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
         77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 440-0020
         Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com
                 jeff@attorneyzim.com

DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition, Other Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Are you a college student who was forced to leave campus? You may
be entitled to compensation," a notice on collegerefund2020.com
announces, wrote Greta Anderson for Inside Higher Ed.

The website was created by a law firm currently capitalizing on the
growing anger and activism by students -- and indignant parents,
too -- who believe they're owed partial tuition and fee refunds for
semesters cut short, courses moved online and off-campus, and
unused housing and meal plans, among other disruptions that
occurred at colleges and universities across the country in the
wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The advertisement by the Anastopoulo Law Firm, which has offices
throughout South Carolina, appears to have struck a chord. It is
currently representing students in three class action lawsuits
filed in the last two weeks against Drexel University, University
of Miami and the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, as
calls from students for tuition and fee refunds grow stronger.

The lawsuits claim that online classes don't have equal value to
in-person classes and are not worth the tuition that students paid
for on-campus classes. The lawsuits also contend that the decision
by these institutions to use pass/fail grading systems this
semester have diminished the value of the degrees they offer. The
lawsuits claim they represent thousands of students enrolled at the
universities.

Separate class action lawsuits against the Arizona Board of Regents
and Liberty University were filed on behalf of students that attend
one of the three institutions in the Arizona university system or
the Christian liberal arts university in Lynchburg, Va. The
lawsuits claim students paid various fees -- recreation, health
services, room and board, and meal plans -- for resources they did
not use after college administrators shut down campuses to prevent
the spread of the coronavirus. Students demanded universities
return any "unused" fees, "proportionate to the amount of time that
remained in the spring 2020 semester when classes moved online,"
according to the Arizona lawsuit.

Liberty, which allowed students to return to campus following the
university's spring break, is providing $1,000 to students who
moved out of its campus residence halls, according to a university
spokesman. The lawsuit against Liberty is "without merit," the
university said in a written statement.

"While it's not surprising that plaintiff class action attorneys
would seek to profit from a public health crisis, we don't believe
this law firm or its single client speaks for the vast majority of
our students," the statement said. "Similar class-action suits are
pending against other schools, and such claims will no doubt be
made against other higher education institutions that changed how
they operate and deliver services to students in the face of
COVID-19."

The five universities named in the lawsuits are committing "breach
of contract" and receiving "unjust enrichment" from tuition and fee
payments that won't go toward services that benefit students,
according to the lawsuits. The universities have failed to deliver
on promises of in-person instruction and campus life, which the
University of Miami touts as "a world of interaction with other
students" and Drexel promotes as "experiential learning," according
to the lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston division. Grainger
Rickenbaker, who attends Drexel, and Adelaide Dixon, a student at
Miami, both live in South Carolina, and did not reply to requests
for comment sent through Facebook.

Roy Willey IV, a lawyer with the Anastopoulo Law Firm, said in an
email that the firm is investigating "dozens" of other potential
cases across the country where students claim colleges owe them
refunds. The firm created collegerefund2020.com because it is
receiving numerous inquiries for legal representation, he said.

"This is a national problem where colleges and universities with
endowments in the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars
are passing the entire burden of the pandemic onto students and
their families," Willey wrote. "That is not fair, it is not right,
and they should be held accountable."

He pointed to the significant price differences between some online
and in-person classes as examples of the lower costs of providing
online instruction. For example, he noted that tuition for Drexel's
online bachelor's degree program in business administration is 40
percent less than the rate for the on-campus program.

An updated version of the Arizona lawsuit filed on April 15 names
eight students. An anonymous student filed the Liberty lawsuit.
Matt Miller, an attorney whose firm is representing Liberty and
Arizona students, said the anonymous Liberty student is worried
about retaliation from officials for speaking out against the
university.

The anonymous student said Liberty's response to the pandemic is
"irresponsible and dangerous" because it offered students the
choice to return to residence halls, Miller explained in an email.

Liberty and Arizona's coronavirus responses were unique among
others because they made the "same bad decision" to leave campuses
open and left it up to students to decide whether to return, Miller
said. Students at the universities Miller is representing are not
seeking reimbursement for tuition, rather, they want refunds of any
unused fees for on-campus services. He said it is "indefensible"
for universities to hold on to fees for services which they are not
providing.

"The cases that we have filed, these are not meant to be punitive
to the schools," Miller said. "People have paid for something and
you're not providing it in a very clear way . . . Colleges are
already really expensive. Families are taking on massive debt or
pour their life savings into going to college."

Northern Arizona University, which is part of the state system,
says in its coronavirus response posted on the university's website
that students who moved off campus by April 16 will receive a 25
percent refund for spring housing and meal plans. A spokesman for
Arizona State University said a $1,500 credit will be applied for
"eligible" students who moved out of on-campus housing by April 15,
but housing remains open and some resources are still being
provided, such as telehealth for medical and counseling services. A
spokesperson for the Arizona Board of Regents did not respond to a
request for comment.

Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel for the
American Council on Education, said while it's reasonable for
students to ask whether they're getting what they paid for,
institutions are also facing financial hardship due to the
pandemic. The assumption of "unjust enrichment claims" -- that
colleges are saving money by not having students on campus -- is
inaccurate, said McDonough, who is the former counsel to Princeton
University.

"There's no way schools are saving a boatload of money now that
they've sent students home for the remainder of the year,"
McDonough said. "A typical college's expenses weigh heavily toward
paying faculty and staff. I hope we appreciate that schools are
trying to carry, the best they can, their employees, and
particularly the ones that are most economically challenged."

Colorado faculty members at the system's four campuses have been
working hard to ensure online coursework has the "same academic
rigor and high quality" as it did before the pandemic, said Ken
McConnellogue, vice president for communication for the system's
president. Colorado and other universities have stressed that
students will continue to receive academic credit for their courses
taken this semester.

"It's disappointing that people feel compelled to sue amid a global
pandemic, barely a month after we moved to remote teaching to
protect the health and safety of students, faculty and staff,"
McConnellogue said.

McDonough said he could not predict whether the current lawsuits
might prompt more students to seek refunds through legal channels.

"I frankly hope that we don't have to play all of that out,"
McDonough said. "I hope that students and their families will have
a look back and [feel] appreciation for everything institutions did
do to help them through this." [GN]

ENERGY DRILLING: Young Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Young, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
ENERGY DRILLING COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01716 (S.D. Tex., May 15,
2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required
by the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Defendant paid the
Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses that were not included in their
respective rates of pay for purposes of calculating their
time-and-a-half overtime rate. Because the bonus was not included
in calculating these workers' regular rates of pay, the Defendant's
Putative Class Members were not properly compensated at a rate of
one-and-one-half times their regular rates–-as defined by the
FLSA–-for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for Energy Drilling from September 2017 until
August 2019.

Energy Drilling is a land drilling contractor headquartered in
Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FCI OAKDALE: Inmates Seek Class Status in COVID-19 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEVEN JUSTIN VILLALONA,
DAMIAN ROMERO, STEVEN WILLIAM ANGELET, and CARLOS VAZQUEZ OTERO v.
RODNEY MYERS, warden of Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale;
and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in their official and individual capacities,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00580 (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order  certifying their case as a class action.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to protect inmates
from being exposed to COVID-19.

FCI Oakdale is a low-security United States federal prison for male
inmates in Louisiana.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC]

FOREMOST INSURANCE: Coates & Hille Seek Payment for COVID Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG COATES and MARCIA HILLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00383 (W.D. Mich., May 4,
2020) arises after the Defendant refused to pay its insureds
including the Plaintiffs under its Loss of Rent coverage for losses
suffered due to COVID-19 and any orders by civil authorities that
prohibited occupancies at insured dwellings.

The Plaintiffs operate Three Capes Vacations, through which they
provide short term vacation rentals at two properties in Netarts,
Oregon. Recently, however, Plaintiffs have been unable to offer
vacation rentals at these properties because of COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from Foremost,
including property coverage, as set forth in Foremost's Dwelling
Fire Three Policy Form to protect their business in the event that
they suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of its
control.

The Defendant's Property Coverage Form promises to pay for "Loss of
Rents" if damage occurs at a neighboring premises and civil
authorities prohibit occupancies of the insured dwelling.

The Plaintiffs have been unable to accept renters at their covered
properties due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders issued
by civil authorities in Oregon.

As a result, the Defendant denied Plaintiffs' claims for coverage
for losses under their Foremost policies.

Foremost Insurance Company is a Caledonia, Michigan-based insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com

                       - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

                       - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

                       - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com

FRIEZE EVENTS: Shane Campbell Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Shane Campbell Gallery, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's Memorandum Order entered on May 11, 2020,
in the lawsuit styled Shane Campbell Gallery, Inc. v. Frieze
Events, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-5134, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant breached a contractual promise by
failing to properly design, test and regulate the ability of the
air conditioning system at the Art Fair to maintain an environment
within which Exhibitors could conduct commercial business.

This is a class action filed on behalf of hundreds of art galleries
and other persons, who paid substantial sums to participate in the
2018 Frieze Art Fair held on Randall's Island in New York. The
Defendant Frieze, in form written contracts, promised each
Exhibitor, among other things, to "use commercially reasonable
efforts to provide common area air conditioning."

The appellate case is captioned as Shane Campbell Gallery, Inc. v.
Frieze Events, Inc., Case No. 20-1535, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Shane Campbell Gallery, Inc. and Julie N.
Campbell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
          LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          29 Howard Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 376-8450
          Facsimile: (212) 376 8447
          E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com

Defendant-Appellee Frieze Events, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael Charles Lynch, Jr., Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-5082
          Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
          Email: mlynch@kelleydrye.com


FRM SOCKS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FRM Socks, LLC. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. FRM Socks, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03792
(S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Frm Socks LLC is located in Osage, Iowa, and is part of the Apparel
Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FROST BANK: Faces Class Action Over PPP Stimulus Loans
------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that separate class-action lawsuits were filed
against Wells Fargo, Frost Bank, JPMorgan Chase, US Bancorp and
Bank of America, alleging that the financial institutions (FIs)
unlawfully prioritized their own business customers when processing
coronavirus stimulus loans from the government's Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP).

The Frost complaint charges that "[n]othing in the CARES Act
authorizes or permits the Defendant to pick and choose who would
gain access to, or benefit from, the federally backed lending
program. And the priority of access to these limited funds is
material -- the demand is overwhelming as America responds to the
economic tsunami of COVID-19 upon small businesses."

The Wells Fargo complaint alleges that "at an unprecedented time of
severe national need, Wells Fargo chooses privileged discriminatory
policies driven by corporate greed over the recognized and urgent
needs of America's small businesses."

Both complaints were filed on April 11 in the Southern District of
Texas by Houston business owner Edward L. Scherer. The lawsuits
contend that nothing in the CARES Act allows banks to differentiate
between eligible applicants on the basis of preexisting business
with the bank. The CARES Act also does not allow lenders to follow
their own criteria for eligibility.

The California complaints were filed in the Southern District Court
on Sunday (April 19) with different plaintiffs. The complaint
against Bank of America was brought about by four businesses: the
Law Office of Sabrina Damast, Eye Land Optometry, BNG Restaurant
Group and Umezu Enterprises. It alleges that "BofA has, once again,
prioritized corporate greed at the expense of its small business
customers."

The suit against JPMorgan Chase was brought by Cyber Defense Group
and In the Mix Promotions, and alleges that "Chase concealed from
the public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received
and prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most
money."

The complaint against U.S. Bancorp was initiated by the Law Office
of Irina Sarkisyan and Simovich & Sons, and alleges that "U.S. Bank
prioritized loan applications seeking higher loan amounts because
processing those applications first generated larger loan
origination fees for the banks."

Wells Fargo also faces a second class-action suit, initiated by
BSJA, Inc. and Alexhd, LLC in California.

Evidence of the banks' "foul play" is evident in a Small Business
Association (SBA) report outlining details about the PPP loans
processed April 3-13 compared to April 13-16, the plaintiffs
allege.

The SBA said that nearly 5,000 lenders have approved 1.6 million
loans totaling $342.2 billion under the PPP. The program ran out of
funds in just days, long before many could even apply. [GN]


GAIA INC: Jones Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Gaia, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kahlimah
Jones, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Gaia, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02257 (E.D. N.Y., May 19, 2020).

Gaia, Inc., formerly Gaiam, Inc., is engaged in providing global
digital video subscription service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



GC SERVICES: Norton Seeks to Certify Class in FDCPA Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TROY NORTON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:19-cv-01218-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "(a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who
      were sent a collection letter by GCS, (c) stating that GCS
      is licensed by the Division of Banking in Wisconsin, (d)
      seeking to collect a debt for personal, family or
      household purposes, (e) between August 21, 2018 and August
      21, 2019, (f) that was not returned by the postal
      service";

   2. appointing himself as class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel;

The complaint alleges that GCS's form letters violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

GC Services provides adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI LAW
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com

GENERAL ALUMINUM: Lahnanen Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Lahnanen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. GENERAL ALUMINUM MFG. COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-01066-JRA (N.D.
Ohio, May 15, 2020), is brought to challenge the Defendant's
policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or
more hours per workweek for the Defendant. The Plaintiff was a full
time employee who was regularly scheduled to work 40 hours a week
or more. Thus, the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff for all
hours worked resulted in the Plaintiff being denied overtime
compensation to which they were entitled.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee.

The Defendant is a manufacturer of aluminum castings and other
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Chevrolet Corvette Cracked Wheels
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that
Chevrolet Corvette cracked wheels have caused a lawsuit that
alleges the rims crack and bend, causing tire leaks and blowouts.

The class action lawsuit alleges 2015 to present Chevy Corvette Z06
and 2017 to present Corvette Grand Sport cars are equipped with
rims made of a cheaper cast material rather than forged.

California plaintiff Richard Barrington purchased a new 2018
Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport from a General Motors dealer, but
within one or two months he allegedly realized the right rear tire
was leaking air.

The plaintiff says he took the car to the dealer and technicians
confirmed the rear wheel was cracked in three places, so the wheel
was replaced.

But in July or August 2018, Barrington allegedly discovered the
driver-side rear wheel was cracked. Another trip to the dealer
confirmed the rim was cracked, but GM allegedly refused to cover
the wheel replacement under warranty.

The plaintiff says he finally purchased stock wheels on Facebook.

Then in August 2019, two of the Corvette wheels cracked, and in
November another rim allegedly cracked. The plaintiff says even
though he drove the Corvette in a normal manner, he was forced to
pay about $3,000 to replace six cracked rims.

In addition to allegedly equipping the Corvettes with cheaper cast
aluminum rather than forged, the lawsuit says GM used less material
than needed in order to save unsprung weight. This allegedly makes
the rims too weak for normal driving conditions, a problem that has
allegedly existed since the cars were first sold.

According to the plaintiff, the automaker knows about the cracked
wheels but claims the rims aren't defective. Chevy dealers who look
at the cracked and bent wheels allegedly refuse to make repairs for
free because Corvette owners are blamed for the cracks.

By refusing to cover wheel repairs while the cars are under
warranties, owners are forced to pay thousands of dollars to
replace the wheels that GM says are cracked by hitting potholes.

A Car and Driver magazine report entitled "Wheel Woes" is
referenced in the lawsuit to present evidence the cracked wheel
problem is widespread. The report includes a review of a 2017
Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport which suffered three bent wheels
along with a repair bill for $1,119.

The plaintiff also says General Motors has known about the rims
since 2015 based on customer complaints, data from replacement part
orders and other sources.

"The car has just 10K miles on it, there is no evidence of a bent
rim or damaged tire, or even a mark on the wheel, which would have
caused the rim to crack. Both rear wheels cracked and I just
noticed today when having my tires rotated. I have heard that these
wheels have been an issue since 2015 on Z06 yet no recall or
coverage under warranty." - 2016 Chevy Corvette Z06 owner

According to the lawsuit, GM should inform Corvette owners about
the alleged defects and tell owners the automaker will pay for all
repairs. The plaintiff also argues GM should replace the wheels
with alternative rims, stop selling the cars if they are equipped
with defective wheels and reform the warranties.

A similar lawsuit concerning Corvette cracked rims was filed in
2019 but ultimately was dismissed months later.

The Chevrolet Corvette cracked wheels class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California: Barrington, et al., v. General Motors LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Capstone Law APC.

CarComplaints.com has complaints from owners of Chevrolet Corvette
cars. [GN]



GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Student A Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Student A, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05937-CCC-MF
(D.N.J., May 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at
Georgetown, 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, Georgetown, through a published notice,
announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all
in-person classes would be suspended, and that online classes would
begin on March 16, 2020 (the first day after Spring Break). The
University announced that the rest of Spring 2020 semester
coursework would be offered solely online. Georgetown has not held
in-person classes since March 6, 2020. Classes that have continued
since then have only been offered in an online format, at times
with little or no actual, real-time instruction from professors or
instructors.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiff and the putative
class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The
online learning options being offered to Georgetown 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, including but not limited to the
discontinuance of internships and clinical placements.

The Plaintiff and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a
refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not
provided, the Plaintiff contends. Even if the Defendant claims it
did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it
nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services that have
diminished in value or are not being provided at all, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Georgetown law student, who paid tuition for the
Spring 2020 semester.

Georgetown is a private research university in Washington D.C.,
with a total enrollment of approximately 19,000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


GLENBROOK FARMS: West Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glenbrook Farms Herbs
and Such, Inc. The case is styled as Mary West, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Glenbrook Farms Herbs
and Such, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03777 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Glenbrook Farms Herbs and Such is a herb store offering bulk
organic herbs and spice, pure essential oils, fine teas, natural
soaps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL INSTITUTE: Faces Mendez Class Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Institute of
Stem Cell Therapy and Research, USA, et al. The case is styled as
Christina Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Global Institute of Stem Cell Therapy and
Research, USA, a California Corp.; Giostar Labs, Inc., a California
Corp.; Bioscience Americas, LLC, a Wyoming Corp.; Anand Srivastava
M.S., Ph.D, an Individual; Deven Patel, an Individual; Siddharth
Bhavsar, an Individual; Scott Kirkpatrick, an individual;, Case No.
3:20-cv-00915-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Global Institute of Stem Cell Therapy and Research (GIOSTAR),
headquartered in San Diego, California, was formed with the vision
to provide stem cell based therapy to aid those suffering from
degenerative or genetic diseases around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          1501 San Elijo Hills Road South, Suite 104-212
          San Marcos, CA 92078
          Phone: (310) 400-1053
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed Over Uber IPO 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 plaintiffs in the
district court action related to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Initial
Public Offering (IPO) have filed an amended complaint.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed
beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of
San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber) $8.1
billion May 2019 initial public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.6 billion.

On February 11, 2020, plaintiffs in the state court action filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs in the district court action filed an
amended complaint.

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 Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in a putative securities class
action in New York relating to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s
US$805 million November 2017 public offering of common stock is
pending

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September
12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals' $805 million November 2017 public offering
of common stock.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $322 million.

On December 20, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint filed on November 7, 2019.

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 Sea Ltd. IPO Still 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 defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit related to Sea Limited's US$989
million October 2017 initial public offering, remains pending.

Goldman Sachs Asia (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November
1, 2018 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of
American depositary shares.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors.

GS Asia underwrote 28,026,721 American depositary shares
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $420
million.

On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.

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 Nix Suit Over Altice USA IPO Still 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 defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit related to Altice USA, Inc.'s
US$2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering, is still
pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New
York Supreme Court, County of Queens, and the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018,
relating to Altice USA, Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017
initial public offering.

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

GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $368 million.

On May 10, 2019, plaintiffs in the district court filed an amended
complaint, and on June 27, 2019, plaintiffs in the state court
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On July 23, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
in the state court action.

On October 14, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in
the district court action.

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 Nix US Treasury Securities Suit 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 defendants' motion
to dismiss the litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury
securities remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the primary dealers
named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to
the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July
2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.

The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

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: Defendants Want Remaining Individual Actions Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 defendants in the
litigation related to SunEdison, Inc.'s convertible preferred
stock, have moved to dismiss the remaining individual actions.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions
filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public
offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible
preferred stock.

The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and
officers. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.

The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs
in the putative class action filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison
convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million. On April
10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the individual
actions filed amended complaints.

The defendants have reached a settlement with certain plaintiffs in
the individual actions and a settlement of the class action, which
the court approved on October 25, 2019.

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

Defendants moved to dismiss the remaining individual actions on
December 18, 2019.

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: NY Court Narrows Claims in Camping World 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, a New York state court has
trimmed the claims in the litigation related to Camping World
Holdings, Inc.'s initial public offering in 2016.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, beginning in December
2018.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Camping
World Holdings, Inc. (Camping World) and certain of its officers
and directors, as well as certain of its stockholders.

As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to three offerings of
Camping World common stock, a $261 million October 2016 initial
public offering, a $303 million May 2017 offering and a $310
million October 2017 offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 4,267,214 shares of common stock in the October
2016 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $94 million, 4,557,286 shares of common
stock in the May 2017 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $126 million and 3,525,348 shares of common
stock in the October 2017 offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $143 million. GS&Co. and the other
defendants moved to dismiss the Illinois state court action on
April 19, 2019 and the Illinois district court action on May 17,
2019.

The Illinois state court action has been stayed pending resolution
of the motions to dismiss in the Illinois district court action.

On April 7, 2020, the Illinois district court preliminarily
approved a settlement among the parties to the Illinois district
court action, which would resolve this action without any
contribution by GS&Co.

On April 22, 2020, the New York state court granted in part and
denied in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss with
leave to amend.

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.


GOOD PAL CHANTELLE: Viens Sues in New York Over FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Viens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOD PAL CHANTELLE CORP. d/b/a HOTEL CHANTELLE, THE
AMBER AVALON CORP., GOOD PAL RAVEL CORP., RAVEL HOTEL LLC d/b/a
RAVEL MGMT LLC and d/b/a PROFUNDO DAY CLUB, Case No. 1:20-cv-03807
(S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bottle server at
Hotel Chantelle from May 2017 until November 22, 2019, and was
recruited to work at Profundo in May 2018 as a bottle server for
the pool club and bar. However, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants
carefully separated payroll for their two locations. The Plaintiff
received separate paychecks from Hotel Chantelle and Profundo. This
separation of payroll caused the Plaintiff not to receive the
correct overtime pay for all hours she worked over 40 in a workweek
and the mandated spread of hours compensation during the seasons
when she worked at both locations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bottle server.

Good Pal Chantelle Corp. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates the bar and nightclub called Hotel Chantelle together with
Amber Avalon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE LLC: Roley Seeks to Certify Class in 'Local Guide' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREW ROLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case
No. 5:18-cv-07537-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on June 25, 2020 for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all residents of the United States who attained "Level 4"
      status as a Google Local Guide after November 12, 2015 and
      redeemed the benefit of 1 TB of Google Drive storage"; and

   2. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 484-0980
          Facsimile: (415) 658-7758
          E-mail: monique@osclegal.com
                  christian@osclegal.com

               - and -

          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Chen, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  sachen@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
          Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
          TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP
          222 South 9th Street, Suite 4050
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 746-1558
          Facsimile: (651) 846-5339
          E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com
                  katz@tkkrlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Leventhal, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL PLLC
          SPS Commerce Tower
          333 S. 7th Street, Suite # 1150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 234-7349
          Facsimile: (612) 437-4980
          E-mail: seth@leventhalpllc.com

GSX TECHEDU: June 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on April 20 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired GSX Techedu Inc. ("GSX" or the
Company") (NYSE:GSX) securities between June 6, 2019, and April 13,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). GSX investors have until June
16, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

On February 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that the Company "has been drastically
overstating its profitability in its US public filings, especially
for 2018" and that Grizzly Research had "found multiple strong
indications of past and current order ‘brushing,'" which are
"essentially fake student enrollments to boost student count."

On this news, the price of GSX's American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") fell $1.33, or nearly 3%, to close at $44.09 per share on
February 25, 2020.

Then, on April 14, 2020, Citron Research issued a report entitled
"GSX Techedu Inc – The Most Blatant Chinese Stock Fraud since
2011," alleging that the Company "is overstating revenue by up to
70% and should immediately halt trading and launch an internal
investigation."

On this news, the price of GSX's ADSs fell $0.20 per share, or
0.64%, to close at $31.20 on April 14, 2020.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(i) that GSX overstated its profitability, revenue, student
enrollment figures, teacher qualifications, and teacher selection
process; (ii) that the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results; and (iii) that as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased GSX securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than
June 16, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you purchased GSX securities,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007,
by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


HOMEADVISOR INC: Hise Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DENISE VAN HISE and TREVOR
VAN HISE d/b/a CARPET & TILE BY THE MILE, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
HOMEADVISOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00617-JCH (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. taking motion for class certification under submission and
      deferring further activity on it until after the discovery
      cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23
      scheduling order, or alternatively;s

   2. granting motion for class certification pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23.

HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace formerly known as
ServiceMagic.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          Facsimile: 847-368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

INFINITE PRODUCT: West Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinite Product
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Mary West, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Infinite Product Company, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03779 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Infinite Product Company, LLC, offers high-quality CBD
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on April 20 disclosed
that on April 17, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Shiferaw v. iQIYI, Inc., No. 20-cv-3115 (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Action"), on behalf of its client Sintayehu Shiferaw ("Shiferaw")
against iQIYI, Inc. ("iQIYI" or the "Company") (IQ) and certain
executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired iQIYI's securities between March 29, 2018
through April 7, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
who were damaged thereby (the "Class").

iQIYI operates a Chinese online streaming platform which is
currently one of the largest video-based websites in the world,
with on-demand video content. The Company generates its revenue
primarily from membership services and online advertising. The
Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions.
Specifically, Defendants overstated iQIYI's 2019 revenue by 27%-44%
and the Company's user numbers by 42%-60%. iQIYI also inflated its
expenses to conceal these misstatements from investors.

This fraud was revealed on April 7, 2020 by Wolfpack Research. On
that date, Wolfpack Research published a 37-page report detailing
Defendants' scheme to defraud investors. Among other things, this
report explained how iQIYI had materially overstated its revenue
and subscriber numbers. On this news, iQIYI's American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") fell $1.01 per share, or 5.8 percent, over the
remainder of the day and the next full trading day to close at
$16.51 per share April 8, 2020. As a result of Defendants false
and/or misleading statements and/or omissions, the Class suffered
harm under the Exchange Act.

If you purchased iQIYI securities, including ADSs, during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the Class and
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than June 15, 2020. You do
not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in the Action.

If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class,
you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action.

If you would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

                        About the Firm

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
www.labaton.com.

CONTACT:

David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
dschwartz@labaton.com or recover@labaton.com [GN]


ISLE OF PARADISE: Gonzalez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isle of Paradise LLC.
The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Isle of Paradise LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03791 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Isle of Paradise is a tanning brand developed by celebrity tanner
Jules Von Hep.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


JACK GEORGES: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Georges, Inc.
The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Jack Georges, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03795 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Jack Georges Inc. was founded in 1987. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of luggages from leather.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEENER CONSTRUCTION: Vasquez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Vasquez, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons v. KEENER CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-01703 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week; he usually worked 60 or more hours per
week. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a salary basis, that is,
paid him the same amount of pay each week, irrespective of hours
worked. The Defendant also paid the Plaintiff and his co-workers an
incentive bonus of 10% of their weekly pay if the crew finished the
refurbishment of 3 apartments in a week. The Defendant, however,
did not pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for any of the hours
he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff was
paid the same salary rate for all the hours he worked.

Plaintiff Vasquez worked for Keener as a worker on a construction
crew of about 9 individuals from November 2018 until February
2020.

Keener is a construction company that refurbishes older apartment
complexes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


KING & SPALDING: Estakhrian Suit Moved From California to Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Estakhrian, Abdi Naziri, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. King & Spalding
LLP, Marquis & Aurbach PC, Mark Obenstine, Benjamin F Easterlin IV,
Terry A Coffing, Case No. 2:11-cv-03480-FMO-CW, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on May 15,
2020.

The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-mc-00463 to
the proceeding.

King & Spalding LLP is an American international corporate law firm
that is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and with offices located
in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.[BN]


LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP: Bryson Files Suit in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Insurance
Corporation.  The case is styled as Gloria Bryson and Bessie
Gibson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Liberty Insurance Corporation and LM Insurance
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01928-TMC (D.S.C., May
19, 2020).

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

Liberty Insurance Corporation provides its clients with protection
against losses to property and personal well-being through
specialized service in the traditional lines of insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David Eugene Massey, Esq.
   Massey and Associates
   PO Box 7014
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 799-9022
   Fax: (803) 256-4824
   Email: radmassey@aol.com

     - and -

   Summer Collette Tompkins, Esq.
   David E Massey Law Office
   PO Box 7014
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 799-9022
   Email: summertompkins2010@gmail.com



LIBERTY OILFIELD: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 2, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Liberty Oilfield Services Inc.
("Liberty" or "the Company") (NYSE: LBRT) securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's January 17, 2018 initial public
offering (the "IPO" or "Offering").

If you suffered a loss on your Liberty investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information here or contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, via email
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.  

On February 5, 2020, after the market closed, Liberty issued a
press release announcing its financial and operations results for
fourth quarter and full year 2019. Therein, Liberty reported full
year adjusted EBITDA of $277 million, or a 37% decline over the
prior year, and diluted earnings per share of $0.53, which fell
significantly short of analyst forecasts.

On this news, Liberty's stock price fell $1.07, or over 12%, to
close at $7.80 per share on February 6, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Liberty securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
June 2, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


LOMPOC, CA: Torres Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milusnic, et al. The
case is styled as Yonnedil Carror Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix
Samuel Garcia, Andre Brown, Shawn L. Fears, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Louis
Milusnic, in his capacity as Warden of Lompoc; Michael Carvajal, in
his capacity as Director of the Bureau of Prisons; Respondents,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04450 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

Louis Milusnic is the Assistant Director of the Program Review
Division. Mr. Milusnic began his career with the Bureau of Prisons
in 1996, as a Correctional Officer at FCI Florence (CO).[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Naeun Rim, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG
          AND RHOW
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2516
          Phone: (310) 201-2100
          Fax: (310) 201-2110
          Email: nrim@birdmarella.com


MAINE: Denbow and Others File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al. The case is styled as Joseph A. Denbow, Sean R.
Ragsdale, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RANDALL A
LIBERTY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Maine
Department of Corrections; Case No. 1:20-cv-00175-JAW (D. Me., May
15, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

The Maine Department of Corrections is a state agency of Maine that
is responsible for the direction and general administrative
supervision, guidance and planning of both adult and juvenile
correctional facilities and programs within the state.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emma Eaton Bond, Esq.
          Zachary L. Heiden, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE
          PO BOX 7860
          Portland, ME 04112
          Phone: (207) 619-8687
          Fax: (207) 774-1103
          Email: ebond@aclumaine.org
                 zheiden@aclumaine.org


MAJOR LEAGUE: Fantasy Baseball Players' Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that a New
York-based federal court recently dismissed a proposed class action
filed by five fantasy baseball players against Major League
Baseball, the Houston Astros and the Boston Red Sox.  The five
plaintiffs alleged that the Astros' and Red Sox' sign-stealing
scandal adversely affected their participation in a fantasy
baseball league run by DraftKings.

According to the complaint, DraftKings is an online platform that
operates fantasy sports contests on a daily and weekly basis across
multiple sports.  DraftKings's daily fantasy sports baseball
competitions require contestants to select a lineup of MLB players,
each assigned a different "salary" value set by DraftKings.  The
salary is based on the reported past performance statistics of the
player.  DraftKings participants accrue fantasy points based on the
real-life performance of the players they have "drafted" on the
particular day or week covered by the contest, and the
participants' total points at the end of the contest determine who
wins a cash prize. Participants pay DraftKings a fee for each
fantasy contest. DraftKings keeps a portion as its fee and the
remainder funds the contests' prizes.

Major League Baseball is an investor in DraftKings and a party to a
co-branding agreement that allows MLB to reap financial rewards
from DraftKings' operation.  For the non- baseball fans who read
this column, it was revealed late last year that from at least 2017
forward, the Astros and Red Sox used technology to steal signs
given by the opposing catchers to opposing pitchers, thereby
allowing Astro and Red Sox hitters to know what type of pitch was
coming.  This is a huge and unfair advantage.

The complaint contends MLB knowingly made false statements about
the situation and otherwise failed to disclose what it knew.  The
fantasy players thus made less than fully informed decisions on
what players to draft and play.

The court actually agreed that MLB, the Astros and Red Sox made
false statements.  For example, the complaint alleges that MLB
Commissioner Rob Manfred claimed to have performed a "thorough
investigation that found that . . . [the] club was not violating
any rules." The plaintiffs argued that this investigation could not
have been thorough because it cleared the Astros of wrongdoing that
it later became clear they'd committed.

Similarly, the plaintiffs alleged that Astros President of Baseball
Operations and General Manager, Jeff Luhnow, and Astros Field
Manager A.J. Hinch made false statements when they denied that the
Astros were involved in any sign stealing, even though, according
to the complaint, both managers knew of the sign stealing at the
time they made these statements.

But the court found that even with those misrepresentations, the
plaintiffs didn't claim that they would have not played the fantasy
game had they known the truth.  That meant they failed to allege
any reliance, and that was fatal to their claim.

The plaintiffs fared no better with their claim that the defendants
were liable by virtue of their omissions.  In short, not revealing
what was going on is as bad as lying about it.  But the court ruled
that the plaintiffs failed to allege that MLB, the Astros or the
Red Sox owed the plaintiffs a duty to make the disclosure.  In the
court's view, the defendants were not engaged in such a direct
transaction with the plaintiffs to require a duty to disclose.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence claims and consumer
protection claims on similar theories.

All of this means the plaintiffs are left with no remedy, and the
Astros and Red Sox got away with cheating. Again.

Jack Greiner is managing partner of Graydon law firm in Cincinnati.
He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.
[GN]


MDL 2819: Class Certified in Restasis Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC
EMULSION) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 18-MD-2819 (NG) (LB), (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
      behalf of:

      "all persons or entities who indirectly purchased, paid
      and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the
      purchase price for Restasis, other than for resale, who
      made their purchases in Arizona, Arkansas, California,
      Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
      Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
      Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
      Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
      Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South  
      Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and
      Wisconsin from May 1, 2015, through the present (in the
      case of Arkansas  only, July 31, 2017), for consumption by
      themselves, their families, or their members, employees,
      insureds, participants, or beneficiaries. In Maine,
      Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, and Vermont, class
      members are only consumers, not third-party payors."

      Excluded from the class are: Allergan, its officers,
      directors, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; all
      federal and state government entities except for cities,
      towns, municipalities, or counties with self-funded
      prescription drug plans; all persons or entities who
      purchased Restasis for purposes of resale or directly from
      Allergan of its affiliates; fully insured health plans,
      i.e., plans that purchased insurance covering 100 percent
      of their reimbursement obligations to members; any "flat
      copay" consumers who purchased Restasis only via a fixed
      dollar copayment that does not vary on the basis of the
      drug's status as brand or generic; pharmacy benefit
      managers; and all judges assigned to this case and their
      chambers staff and any members of the judges' or chambers
      staff's immediate families.;

   2. appointing Girard Sharp LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
      Bernstein, LLP, and Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. as co-
      lead counsel for class plaintiffs, and appointing
      Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP as liaison counsel for
      the class;  and

   3. appointing 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU
      Greater New York Benefit Fund; 1199SEIU National Benefit
      Fund for Home Care Workers; 1199SEIU Licensed Practical
      Nurses Welfare Fund; American Federation of State, County,
      and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health and
      Security Plan; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20,
      Insurance Trust Fund; Ironworkers Local 383 Health Care
      Plan; Self-Insured Schools of California; Sergeants
      Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund; St. Paul
      Electrical Workers' Health Plan; and United Food and
      Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
      Benefits Fund, as class representatives.

The opinion and order applies to all end-payor plaintiff class
cases, the Court says.

MICHIGAN: MNLA Files Class Action Over Executive Order 2020-42
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Bryan and Blake Keller, writing for WNEM, report that the
Michigan Nursery and Landscaping Association (MNLA) filed a
class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan on behalf of its members and several
specific companies to stop Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's Executive Order
2020-42.

Executive Order 2020-42 was extended on Thursday, April 9. Along
with the extension of the "Stay Home, Stay Safe" order, Whitmer
imposed more stringent limitations on stores to reduce foot traffic
and prohibited all business and operations from requiring workers
to leave their homes unless they are essential.

MNLA said that the businesses are asking the court for an emergency
order allowing them to immediately resume services and sales.

"While we fully support the Governor's focus on keeping people
safe, ours is an outdoor industry and one that can get
Michigander's back to work safely," said MNLA Executive Director
Amy Upton. "Every state in the nation except Michigan recognizes
our ability to work safely and allows our industry to stay open.
The other states' approach makes sense. It's easy to mow the lawn,
trim trees, install planting, and sell plants and seeds for
curbside pick-up without person-to-person contact. We can keep
workers employed without increasing the public-health risk."

Upton said besides easily practicing social distancing, the lawn,
landscape, and retail-garden-center industry plays an important
health role.

"We are families frontline defense against the infestation of
fleas, spiders, ticks, and mosquitos that can spread dangerous
diseases such as Lyme, Canine Heartworm, West Nile virus, Zika
virus, yellow fever, and encephalitis. At a time when our
healthcare providers are taxed with serious cases, we help prevent
needless additional cases coming to them," Upton said.

According to Upton, Attorney John Bursch, of Bursch Law PLLC, filed
the suit on behalf of the MNLA and the other plaintiffs.

"Public-health protections need to be balanced by common sense,"
Bursch said. "The Governor's order already allows public employees
to mow and trim public parks, and homeowners can do the same in
their backyards. But an elderly or infirm homeowner cannot hire
someone to do this work for them, even if they need it. Yet local
governments are now giving citations to such homeowners, calling
their overlength grass a public nuisance. What's more, hundreds of
businesses face permanent closure. This has got to stop."

Bursch said they appreciate the severity of the pandemic, but said
the industry is suffering.

In response to the tough restrictions, Whitmer did not budge on her
stance on CNN's State of the Union.

"My stay at home is one of the nation's more conservative, but the
fact of the matter is, it's working. We are seeing the curve
starting to flatten and that means we're saving lives," Whitmer
said.

Bursch said the lawsuit calls for an emergency motion to allow
these businesses to reopen almost immediately because it could be
detrimental without it.

"It would save thousands of Michigan jobs and put people back to
work instead of being on the unemployment line," Bursch said.

According to the lawsuit, the executive order's ban on sales by
retails garden centers are equally difficult to understand. It says
property owners can order plants and seeds online and have them
delivered to their homes, but prevents garden centers from selling
the same products, even for curbside pickup. They said at the same
time, the order allows curbside pickup of fast food, alcohol,
tobacco, and marijuana.

The lawsuit calls for an emergency motion to allow businesses to
reopen. It explains that the order's application to businesses in
the landscaping, lawn-care, and retail-garden-center industry
violates the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The lawsuit also requests class-action status and
damages on behalf of every business affected in the state. [GN]


MIKE BLOOMBERG: Former Campaign Organizer Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Roundtree, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that Mike
Bloomberg has been hit with a class action lawsuit from a former
campaign organizer, claiming the billionaire terminated thousands
of staffers during the coronavirus crisis despite ensuring them
they would be paid until November.

Grette Fernandez filed the suit on April 20 in the Southern
District of New York, claiming she uprooted her life from
Washington D.C. to Pennsylvania in February to work as an organizer
for Bloomberg's 2020 presidential campaign.

She claims Bloomberg's campaign promised that she would have her
$6,000-a-month job through the general election, which is in
November.

However, Bloomberg "publicly breached its agreements" after the
former New York City mayor "under performed in the Democratic
primaries" and ended his campaign on March 4, going on to terminate
thousands of staffers, the suit states.

Now Fernandez said she is left with no job, no income and no health
insurance 'during the worst global pandemic since 1918', noting
Bloomberg's estimated net worth of $55 million.

Fernandez is seeking a trial by jury in the class action suit,
claiming Bloomberg's campaign broke both an oral and unilateral
contract and is seeking upwards of $5 million in damages.   

This is the third class action lawsuit against Bloomberg, after two
other field organizers filed suit against him in New York in March.


The suit states: "Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant accountable for
the promises that it made and thereby protect the economic security
of over 2,000 working families and individuals at a uniquely
precarious time in the nation's history."

Included in the lawsuit is a snippet of what is described as an
"Interview Notes Template", which Bloomberg campaign hiring
managers allegedly used when conducting interviews.

It lists five bullet points for hiring manager to emphasize when
discussing the benefits of working for the campaign while
interviewing applicants.

Among the points were "Employment through November 2020 with Team
Bloomberg", however, noting the location of the position could
change.   

Other bullets included a $6,000 a month salary, a $5,000 relocation
stipend, full health, dental and vision benefits and travel
reimbursement.  

The suit claims Bloomberg's campaign needed to promise applicants
they'd be employed through November to get them to sign on because
everyone 'knew that Mr. Bloomberg's path to the nomination was a
moon shot.'

"It was imperative that the Bloomberg Campaign quickly build a
robust campaign staff throughout the country," the lawsuit reads.


"The Bloomberg Campaign went on an aggressive hiring spree,
promising applicants that it would employ Bloomberg staffers (which
include field organizers, deputy field organizers, and regional
organizing directors) through the Democratic primary process and
the general election to be held on November 3, 2020."

After a disastrous Super Tuesday on March 4, Bloomberg announced he
was dropping out of the race and endorsing former Vice President
Joe Biden.

The suit claims that on the same day, Kevin Sheekey, the campaign
manager of the Bloomberg Campaign, held a phone meeting with
staffers telling them "nothing would change with respect to the
Campaigns efforts to defeat President Trump in November . . ."

However, "in the days following Mr. Bloomberg's announcement,
Plaintiff and other Class members would come to learn that
Defendant had no intention of keeping its promises of employment
for a definite period," court papers claim.

"Specifically, the Bloomberg Campaign began to hold 'termination
calls' during which staffers were told that their positions at the
Campaign were terminated, and that they would no longer receive a
paycheck or health insurance coverage come April 1."

Fernandez claims she was "taken aback" by Bloomberg's campaign's
"blatant breach of terms" and found herself 'unemployed and
uninsured at the beginning of the worst public health crisis in at
least a century."  [GN]


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TX: Faces Powell Class Suit in Texas Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Powell, individually and as representative of all persons
similarly situated v. Tony Belinoski, in his official capacity as
chief appraiser of the Montgomery County Appraisal District, and
Tammy J. McRae, in her official capacity as Tax Assessor-Collector
for Montgomery County, Texas and all taxing entities for which she
collects taxes, Case No. 20-05-05758 (Tex. Dist., Montgomery Cty.,
May 15, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Civil Case."

Tony Belinoski is the Chief Appraiser/Administrator of Montgomery
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rigby III Owen, Esq.
          THE OWEN LAW FIRM
          401 W. Davis Street
          Conroe, TX 77301
          Telephone: (936) 539-5800


MOONLIGHT PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Aleman Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VIDALI ALEMAN, an individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MOONLIGHT PACKING CORPORATION, a California
corporation; MOONLIGHT PACKING COMPANY, LLC, a California limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20CECG01196 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., May 4, 2020), alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and failed
to provide meal periods and rest-breaks in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee based out of California.

Moonlight was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of packaged quick-frozen
vegetables, juices, meats, fish, and other deep freeze
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  natalie@yeremianlaw.com


MOSAIC COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Hazardous Substances
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE CRUZ and STEVEN FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY, YES
COMPANIES WFC LLC, and CHC VI LTD., Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-01045-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for strict liability pursuant to Sec.
376.313 Florida Statutes, negligence and negligence per se,
premises liability, breach of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and breach of implied warranties.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members have
been exposed to hazardous substances, including, but not limited
to, gamma radiation, released as a result of Mosaic's conduct in
its phosphate mining operations, its polluting of and waste
disposal on the mined lands, and its incomplete remediation of such
mined lands, including the Angler's Green and Paradise Lakes
communities located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members' properties have also been damaged due
to the presence of hazardous conditions, including radiation and
other pollutants, on, in and around their properties resulting in
the need for cleanup and remediation.

The Plaintiffs also seek damages against Defendants CHC VI Ltd. and
Yes Companies WFC LLC, which are the current owners and possessors
of Angler's Green and Paradise Lakes communities, respectively, for
leasing defective lots to them and Class members without warning
of, or disclosing, the radiation contamination and hazardous
substances it knew, or should have known, existed on and permeated
the land located in the Class areas.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, the Plaintiffs and each of the Subclass members
currently suffer ongoing radiation exposure leading to an increased
risk of serious latent disease, including a number of types of
cancer that are associated with exposure to ionizing radiation,
currently suffer property damage, diminution in the value of their
property, improperly inflated rent expenses, cleanup costs, loss of
use and enjoyment of their property and destruction of their
community.

The Mosaic Company is a producer of potash and phosphate fertilizer
with its principal place of business at 3033 Campus Drive, Suite
E490, Plymouth, Minnesota.

Yes Companies WFC, LLC is the owner of the Paradise Lakes community
in Polk County, Florida, with its principal place of business at
1900 16th Street, Suite 950, Denver, Colorado.

CHC VI, Ltd. is the owner of the Angler's Green community in Polk
County, Florida, with its principal place of business at 500 S.
Florida Ave., Suite 700, Lakeland, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Neal O'Toole, Esq.
         O'TOOLE LAW GROUP
         310 E. Main Street
         Bartow, FL 33830
         Telephone: (863) 533-5525
         E-mail: notoole@otoolepa.com

               - and –
         
         W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
         Richard Meadow, Esq.
         Chris Gadoury, Esq.
         THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
         10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100
         Houston, TX 77064
         Telephone: (713) 659-5200
         E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
                 Richard.Meadow@lanierlawfirm.com
                 Chris.Gadoury@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and –
         
         Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
         Jonathan Nace, Esq.
         NIDEL & NACE PLLC
         2201 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
         Washington, D.C. 20007
         Telephone: (202) 780-5153
         E-mail: chris@nidellaw.com
                 jon@nidellaw.com

               - and –
         
         Steven J. German, Esq.
         Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
         GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP
         19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 704-2020
         E-mail: sgerman@germanrubenstein.com
                 jrubenstein@germanrubenstein.com

MOUNTAIN ROSE: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountain Rose, Inc.
The case is styled as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mountain Rose, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03780 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Mountain Rose Herbs is an American grower, processor, distributor,
and retailer of herbs, spices, teas, essential oils and DIY
ingredients used in herbalism.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MW SERVICING: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRITTANY MOORE; DMITRY
FELLER; JADA EUGENE; AND CHRISTOPHER WILLRIDGE v. MW SERVICING,
LLC; WBH SERVICING, LLC; AND JOSHUA BRUNO, Case No.
2:20-cv-00217-GGG-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order conditionally certifying their case as a collective
action, including subclass, and grantng formal notice of this
pending action to be sent to:

   "all affected employees, current or former, who worked for
   Defendants at any time in the three years prior to the filing
   of this motion."

MW Logistics provides truck transportation and logistics
services.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite #104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
          KENNETH C. BORDES,
          2725 Lapeyrouse St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: 504-588-2700
          Facsimile: 504-708-1717
          E-mail: KCB@KennethBordes.com

NATIONWIDE MOTOR: Coady et al. Seek Proper Wages for Sales Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COADY 4574 Clermont Mill Road Street, MD 21154 and CHARLES
JENKINS 5223 Hydes Road Hydes, MD 21082 and LARRY HOLMES, 8 East
Trails Road Airville, PA 17302, Plaintiffs v. NATIONWIDE MOTOR
SALES CORP. dba NATIONWIDE INFINITI OF TIMONIUM, NATIONWIDE KIA,
NATIONWIDE NISSAN, and NATIONWIDE MOTOR SALESS aka NATIONWIDE
PRE-OWNED 2085 York Road Timonium, MD 21093 Serve: Steven R.
Freeman, Esq. Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A. 409 Washington
Avenue Suite 300 Towson, MD 21204 Registered Agent and WILLIAM H.
SCHAEFER, JR. 9 Hendricks Isle Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 and
BRANDON E. SCHAEFER 106 Graystone Farm Road White Hall, MD 21161,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01142-SAG (D. Md., May 4, 2020)
alleges that Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiffs and the
Commission Class a net profit on each vehicle sale that was lower
than Defendants' actual net profit, and in turn, paid lower
commissions to Plaintiffs and the Commission Class than what
Plaintiffs should have received based on the actual net profit.

Due to Defendants' years-long practice of falsely inflating costs,
Plaintiffs and the Commission Class have collectively been
underpaid millions of dollars in earned but unpaid commissions, and
with statutory treble damages under the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law (MWPCL), significantly more than five million
dollars. Plaintiffs and the Commission Class bring claims for
treble damages under the MWPCL and common law claims for unjust
enrichment arising from Defendants' pattern and practice of
underpayment, along with an accounting to determine the amounts due
and owing from Defendants’ wrongful underpayment.

In addition to the claims brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of the
Commission Class, Plaintiffs bring claims under both state and
federal law on behalf of similarly situated persons who quit or
were terminated from employment for the three years prior to the
filing of this complaint by Defendants.

The Defendants did not pay departing employees their entire last
paycheck. In order to avoid paying departing employees in full,
Defendants would deduct large portions of the employee's final
paycheck, without justification or with a false justification. As a
result of these wrongful deductions from employees' final
paychecks, Plaintiffs and the Collective were paid less than the
amount they were owed per hour under the federal minimum wage for
those hours corresponding to their final paychecks.

Nationwide Motor Sales Corp. is a corporation formed and
headquartered in Baltimore County, Maryland. It operates under the
trade names Nationwide Infiniti, Nationwide Kia, Nationwide Nissan,
and Nationwide Pre-Owned. Although the Dealerships operate under
various trade names, NMSC operates all four Dealerships as a single
entity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
          Nicholas N. Bernard, Esq.
          JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214

                  - and -

          Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK LLC
          788 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 204
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Telephone: (732) 842-2070
          Facsimile: (732) 879-0213

NATURE'S WAY PRODUCTS: Dass Files Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature's Way Products
LLC.  The case is styled as Anil Dass, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nature's Way Products
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03906-LJL (S.D. N.Y., May 19,
2020).

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

Nature's Way is a pioneer and innovator in health products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



NESTLE PURINA: Faces Class Action Over Glyphosate in Food Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Nestle
Purina is facing a class action lawsuit alleging its animal food
products contain glyphosate, a chemical thought by some to be
cancerous.

Kellen Jacquin, Kristen Sparks and Gregory Waters, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
March 2 in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court against Nestle
Purina Petcare Co., alleging violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act. The defendant removed the case to
federal court on April 1.

The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Purina misrepresented
its animal food products are safe, including listing on the product
labels that the products are made from "quality ingredients,"
despite the products containing glyphosate, a chemical at the
center of high-stakes litigation involving Roundup weed killer.

The plaintiffs claim a 2015 study found "alarming amounts" of
glyphosate in several of Nestle Purina's dog food products
including Purina Beneful Originals, Purina Dog Chow Complete, and
Purina Pro Plan Adult dog formula.

The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, trial by jury, interest and
all other just relief. They are represented by Daniel Orlowsky of
Orlowsky Law PC in St. Louis and Adam Goffstein of St. Louis.

The case is Kellen Jacquin, Kristen Sparks, and Gregory Waters, on
behalf of themselves and allo thers similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
vs. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Defendant, Case No.
20-CV-00467-SNLJ (Cir. Court of City of St. Louis, Mo.). [GN]


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Lehman Suit v. Ohr Pharma Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that  the appeal in the
class action headed by George Lehman against Ohr Pharmaceutical
remains pending.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action
in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr Pharmaceutical,
Inc. (Ohr) and several current and former officers and directors of
Ohr, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between
June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating
the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they
seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover
damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class
period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously.

On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 20, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the
Court, and the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief with respect
to such matters with the Court on February 5, 2020.

Further briefing on the appeal is currently scheduled for the
summer of 2020.

NeuBase said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs
and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which
could harm the Company's business and the value of its common
stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Ohr Pharmaceutical,
Inc. continues to defend a class action entitled, Wheby v. Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr Pharmaceutical (Ohr) and its board of directors,
Legacy NeuBase, and Merger Sub, captioned Wheby v. Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the
"Wheby Action").

The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary
joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material information in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the
individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements
and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was
service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action.

The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Ohr
Acquisition or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action.

NeuBase said, "Management believes that the likelihood of an
adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely;
however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a
diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm
the Company's business and the value of the Company's common
stock.

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

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Certifies Class of Detainees
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as John Doe, et al. v.
Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human
Services, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-JD (D.N.H.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who are currently being, have been, or will
      be involuntarily detained in a non-DRF hospital under RSA
      135-C:27–33 without having been given a probable cause
      hearing by the Commissioner of the Department of Health
      and Human Services of the State of New Hampshire within
      three days (not including Sundays and holidays) of the
      completion of an emergency admission certificate";

   2. approving John Doe, Charles Coe, Jane Roe, and Deborah A.
      Taylor as the class representatives; and

   3. appointing Gilles Bissonnette, Esq. and Theodore E.
      Tsekerides, Esq. as class counsel.

The New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services is a state
agency of New Hampshire, headquartered in the Brown Building in
Concord.[CC]

NIXON ENGINEERING: Salaried Employees Class Certified in "Heslip"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILL HESLIP, et al. v. NIXON
ENGINEERING, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-01327-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action 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 this
      order;

   3. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute notice via U.S.
      mail and email or text to members of the proposed
      collective with actual notice of this lawsuit and their
      right to participate;

   4. scheduling a period of 60 days following the Defendant's
      production of the list of collective members to allow
      collective members sufficient time to receive notice and
      file consents to join this lawsuit; and

   5. directing the Plaintiffs to send a reminder email or text
      message to any members of the proposed class who did not
      respond to the initial notice. The reminder may be sent 21
      days after the original mailing.

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

OHIO: Fails to Prevent Spread of COVID-19 in Prisons, Smith Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashunte Smith, Kaiquin Wang, Christopher Martin, and Travis
Williams, individually, and on behalf of a class of other similarly
situated individuals v. MIKE DEWINE and ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02471-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 15, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their failure to implement
preventative measures for COVID-19, including testing, adequate
sanitation, and the distribution of protective equipment to staff
and prisoners.

Richard Michael DeWine served as the 70th governor of Ohio.

Without immediate action by Governor DeWine and the Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) to drastically reduce
Ohio's prison population, COVID-19 will continue to ravage Ohio's
twenty-eight prisons, according to the complaint. The fallout from
those infections will reach not only into the community surrounding
the prisons but also into the small and large hospitals in
surrounding counties, which will attend to the ill flooding through
their doors in shackles.

ODRC facilities lack the ability to adequately prevent COVID-19 and
its spread and are unable to appropriately care for and ensure the
safety of Plaintiff Class Members, the Plaintiff contends. The
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' actions and inactions have
resulted in the exponential increase in COVID-19 infections within
ODRC as they have failed to test, treat, and prevent COVID-19
outbreaks, resulting in a violation of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights to treatment and adequate medical care.

The Defendants' refusal to reduce prisoner population through
immediate release have directly contributed to the unchecked spread
throughout the prisons as release would increase the safety not
only of the released prisoners but also of those remaining
prisoners, staff, and communities, the Plaintiffs aver. By
operating the ODRC facilities without the capacity to treat, test,
or prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, the Defendants, as participants and
policy makers, have violated the rights of the Plaintiff Class
Members guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and are ODRC
prisoners.

Mike DeWine has been and continues to be the Governor of the State
of Ohio and, as such, is the ultimate executive authority over
ODRC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph C. Patituce, Esq.
          Megan M. Patituce, Esq.
          Kimberly Kendall Corral, Esq.
          PATITUCE & ASSOCIATES, LLC.
          16855 Foltz Industrial Parkway
          Strongsville, OH 44149
          Phone: (440) 471-7784
          Fax: (440) 398-0536
          Email: attorney@patitucelaw.com


ONLINE TRADING: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2020, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Amy Jine and Ana Biocini against Online
Trading Academy ("OTA") and its executives, Eyal Shahar and Samuel
Seiden, for their nationwide fraudulent business scheme. The
executives are also named for their individual conduct outside. OTA
targeted consumers and elderly individuals in particular. OTA
claims to offer consumers a low-investment, high-profit online
trading strategy and charges each student up to $50,000. The vast
majority of students who receive OTA training do not make the
"substantial income" promised by OTA. Many students lost thousands
of dollars trading on top of the money they spent on OTA training.

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") sued OTA in February and
obtained a preliminary injunction from a federal judge on April 2,
2020. To obtain the preliminary injunction, the FTC had to
establish the likelihood of success in showing that OTA made false
and unsubstantiated claims regarding consumers' ability to earn
income.

Elizabeth Tran Castillo, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP, one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs and the class,
remarked:

"OTA has defrauded consumers likely in excess of $400 million since
2012. Its 'instructors' and 'education counselors' -- despite their
titles-- were just salespeople who pitched seminars that would
supposedly teach students how to reliably time the financial
markets. OTA was essentially selling false hopes packaged as
'patented' strategies."

Kelly Weil, a senior associate at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
who also represents plaintiffs and the class, stated:

" Now, more than ever, consumers need intervention and protection
against fraud and get-rich-quick schemes. Not even Wall Street's
most prosperous traders can produce the success rate that OTA
purports to offer its 'students' in exchange for thousands,
sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars. Despite its marketing and
misleading testimonials, OTA's strategy is far from 'proven.'"

              About Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, based in the San Francisco
Peninsula for over a half-century, engages exclusively in
litigation and trials. The firm's dedication to prosecuting or
defending socially just actions has earned it a national
reputation. With additional offices in Los Angeles and New York,
the core of CPM is its people and their dedication to principles of
law, their work ethic, and their commitment to justice.
www.cpmlegal.com

CONTACT:

Adam Zapala
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
(650) 697-6000
azapala@cpmlegal.com

Elizabeth Castillo
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
(650) 697-6000
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com

Kelly Weil
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
(310) 392-2008
kweil@cpmlegal.com
[GN]


PENGUIN RANDOM: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penguin Random House
LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Penguin Random House LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03796 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Penguin Random House (PRH) is a multinational conglomerate
publishing company formed in 2013 from the merger of Random House,
owned by German media conglomerate Bertelsmann, and Penguin Group,
owned by British publishing company Pearson plc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE: JABZ Chandler Files Suit in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philadelphia
Insurance Companies.  The case is styled as JABZ Chandler II LLC
and Len Hayko Promotions, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Philadelphia Insurance
Companies, Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp., Philadelphia
Indemnity Insurance Company and Maguire Insurance Agency Inc,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02341-TJS (E.D. Pa., May 19, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance
seeking Declaratory Judgment.

Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY) is a property & casualty
(P&C) insurer for niche markets in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel C. Levin
   Levin Sedran & Berman
   510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com



RCS CORPORATION: Weller Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Weller, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. RCS
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-05077 (E.D. Wash., May 15, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Revised Code of Washington and
Washington's Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required by
the FLSA and the Washington Wage Laws, according to the complaint.
Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Defendant further failed to pay the Plaintiff for all rest
breaks, meal breaks in violation of Washington Wage Laws.

The Plaintiff was a Maintenance Outage Coordinator and a Senior
Scheduler for RCS.

RCS is a nationwide staffing firm that provides services to the
energy, engineering, and utility sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas D. Kovarik, Esq.
          PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC
          522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 700
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: 509-321-5930
          Facsimile: 509-321-5935
          Email: nick@pyklawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Deecher et al. Seek Tuition Refund
----------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN DEECHER and GRADY HABICHT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC
INSTITUTE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-TJM-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May
4, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ("RPI") to recover tuition and
fees paid by students for an on-campus academic experience and
related on-campus services which Defendant has failed to deliver as
promised.

The Defendant has moved all class instruction completely online,
resulting in Plaintiffs being denied the educational instruction,
facilities and services that they bargained and paid for in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant, however, continues to
charge Plaintiffs tuition and fees for the undelivered services
without any refund or adjustment. Defendant's conduct has resulted
in injury to Plaintiffs, constitutes a breach of Defendant's
contractual duty owed to Plaintiffs, and it would be against equity
and good conscience to permit Defendant to retain such tuition and
fees.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class are entitled to legal and
equitable relief, including, but not limited to, monetary damages,
disgorgement of sums paid, injunctive relief, and the costs,
disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is a tax-exempt not-for-profit
corporation and private research university incorporated under the
laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald W. Boyajian, Esq.
          James R. Peluso, Esq.
          Joshua R. Friedman, Esq.
          DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP
          75 Columbia Street
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: (518) 463-7784
          Email: dboyajian@dblawny.com
                 jpeluso@dblawny.com
                 jfriedman@dblawny.com

SALLIE MAE BANK: Montesanti Files Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sallie Mae Bank.  The
case is styled as John A. Montesanti, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sallie Mae Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00502-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., May 19,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed over Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment.

Sallie Mae Bank is an FDIC-insured bank headquartered in Salt Lake
City, Utah. It offers savings and money market accounts. It also
offers certificates of deposits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com



SEATTLE PACIFIC: Bolland Files Breach of Contract Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Pacific
University. The case is styled as Andrew Bolland, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seattle Pacific
University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00741 (W.D. Wash., May 16, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as breach of contract.

Seattle Pacific University is a private Christian university in
Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miles Aaron Yanick, Esq.
          Jacob P. Freeman, Esq.
          1425 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800
          Seattle, WA 98101-2272
          Phone: (206) 749-0500
          Fax: (206) 749-0600
          Email: myanick@sbwllp.com
                 jfreeman@sbwllp.com


SEATTLE SPORTS: Faces Kalender ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Sports
Company. The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Seattle Sports
Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-03802 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

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

Seattle Sports Company was founded in 1983. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of sporting and athletic
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SKILLSHARE INC: Jones Alleges Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skillshare, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kahlimah
Jones, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Skillshare, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02252 (E.D. N.Y., May 19, 2020).

Skillshare is a learning platform with online classes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SOPHIA WEBSTER: Faces West Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SOPHIA WEBSTER USA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03788 (S.D.N.Y., May
15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.sophiawebster.com/,and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer.

The Defendant is a shoe and accessories company that owns and
operates www.sophiawebster.com, offering features, which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the
Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United
States, including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


SPRINT: Gorss Motels Seeks Certification of Junk Fax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Gorss Motels Inc., a defunct Super 8 franchisee
suing Sprint over unsolicited fax advertisements, is asking a
Connecticut federal court to certify the motel business' Telephone
Consumer Protection Act class action, pressing that there are
identical threads in the complaints of other Sprint customers.
[GN]



STALWART GROUP: De Jesus Morales et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIONICIO DE JESUS MORALES, JESUS DE JESUS GALINDO, and FLORENTINO
SALDANA NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, -against- STALWART GROUP INC (D/B/A ROASTED
MASALA) and SAMSON SEVERES, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03950
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2020) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated
individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law.

Plaintiffs were former employees of Defendants who were employed as
dishwashers and ostensibly as delivery workers.

Stalwart Group Inc., d/b/a Roasted Masala, operates an Indian
restaurant located in the Upper West section of Manhattan in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

STARR INDEMNITY: Faces Ital Uomo Insurance Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starr Indemnity &
Liability Company, et al. The case is styled as Ital Uomo of New
York, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, Starr
International Company, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02209-JMA-ST
(E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers property and casualty insurance services to business
and industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 584-0700
          Fax: 212/584-0799
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and –

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: 973/994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Stephen Andrew Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Phone: (973) 639-9100
          Email: sweiss@seegerweiss.com


SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Durbeck Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA DURBECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-10985 (D. Mass., May 21, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff as a result of 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
("COVID-19") while refusing to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs that Defendant is no longer
providing, or providing inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement
that does not fully compensate Plaintiff and members of the Classes
for their loss.

According to the complaint, while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for  Defendant to do, this
decision deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from
recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition.

Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant is eligible to
receive federal stimulus under the CARES Act. The Act directs that
approximately $14 billion be distributed to colleges and
universities based upon enrollment and requires that institutions
must use at least half of the funds they receive to provide
emergency financial aid grants to students for expenses related to
the disruption of campus operations due to COVID-19.

The complaint seeks refunds of the amount Plaintiff and other
members of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with
other damages.

Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student in Defendant's
undergraduate program, studying biology during Spring 2020.

Suffolk University is an institution of higher learning located in
Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Levine, Esq.
          STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
          65 William Street, Suite 205
          Wellesley, MA 02481
          Telephone: (617) 482-3198
          Email: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com

               - and -  

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com

TD AMERITRADE: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lynda J. Grant, an attorney with over 35 years of experience
representing wronged shareholders and consumers and a New York
Metro Superlawyer, on April 20 disclosed that TheGrantLawFirm and
the New York law firm, Stull Stull & Brody, have filed an action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of holders of TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation ("TD
Ameritrade" or the "Company")(AMTD: NASDAQ) in connection with the
proposed acquisition of TD Ameritrade by The Charles Schwab
Corporation ("Charles Schwab") announced on November 25, 2019. The
complaint ("Complaint") which alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against TD Ameritrade, its Board of Directors,
and Charles Schwab, is captioned Bernstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holdings Corporation, 2:20-cv-03695 (D.N.J.).

On November 24, 2019, TD Ameritrade and Schwab entered into an
agreement and plan of merger in which shareholders of TD Ameritrade
will receive 1.0837 share of Charles Schwab for each TD Ameritrade
share that they hold (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other
things, the Complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure
shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued
a materially misleading Joint Proxy/Prospectus (the "Prospectus"),
the preliminary version of which was filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020. The Complaint
alleges, among the things, that the Prospectus omits material
information about the Company's projections, fails to reconcile
GAAP and non-GAAP measures, and fails to include projections relied
upon by the Company's financial advisors. It also alleges that the
Prospectus fails to fully disclose the financial incentives of the
Company's financial advisors in rendering their fairness opinions.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions as to your
rights or interests, please contact Lynda J. Grant at
TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC, by telephone: 212-292-4441, or email:
lgrant@grantfirm.com. [GN]


TERMINAL ISLAND, CA: Wilson Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ponce, et al. The
case is styled as Lance Aaron Wilson, Maurice Smith, Edgar Vasquez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners v. Felicia L. Ponce, Warden of Terminal Island; Michael
Carvajal, Director of the Bureau of Prisons; Respondents, Case No.
2:20-cv-04451 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

Felicia L. Ponce was a Correctional Institution Administrator at
the Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System in Los Angeles,
California, and is now the Warden at FCI Terminal Island.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Naeun Rim, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG
          AND RHOW
          1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2516
          Phone: (310) 201-2100
          Fax: (310) 201-2110
          Email: nrim@birdmarella.com


TICKETMASTER: Faces Class Action Over Refund Policy Change
----------------------------------------------------------
Brock Thiessen, writing for Exclaim, reports that following a
supposed change to refund policies due to COVID-19, Ticketmaster
and parent company Live Nation are facing a class action lawsuit
launched by a seriously pissed off Rage Against the Machine fan.

A ticketholder named Derk Hansen has filed the suit, claiming
Ticketmaster retroactively revised its refund policy after the
coronavirus outbreak forced countless concerts and events to be
postponed or cancelled, TMZ reports.

In recent weeks, Ticketmaster has faced widespread criticism when
it allegedly changed its policy to only provide refunds for
concerts that were cancelled, while denying refunds for events that
had only been postponed or rescheduled.

According to Hansen's lawsuit, the fact Ticketmaster is currently
excluding refunds for postponed or rescheduled shows is a major
problem for ticketholders, who have been put into an unfair
position. This is especially true considering the fact that Live
Nation's president, as well as health experts, recently predicted
that live events will no longer occur until fall 2021 at the
earliest.

As Hansen explained in his lawsuit, he bought two tickets in
February to see Rage Against the Machine in Oakland on April 21.
However, the band's tour has now been postponed indefinitely, but
he still can't get a refund.

The RATM tickets cost Hansen roughly $600 USD, and he's now
demanding a refund via the class action suit.

According to the lawsuit, the potential damages are in the excess
of $5 million USD, TMZ reports.

As of press time, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have not responded
to the lawsuit. However, reports emerged that the ticketing giant
would begin to offer refunds for postponed and rescheduled events.
So far, though, an official announcement has not been made. [GN]


TIKTOK INC: Johnson Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiktok Inc.  The case
is styled as A.J. through her guardian, Aaron Johnson, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tiktok Inc.
and ByteDance Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03390 (N.D. Cal.,
May 19, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Property.

TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service owned by
ByteDance, a Chinese company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Francis A. Bottini , Jr., Esq.
   Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
   7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 914-2001
   Fax: (858) 914-2002
   Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com



TOYOTA MOTOR: Fish et al. Sue Over Fuel Tank Defect in RAV4s
------------------------------------------------------------
The case JULIE FISH, SKY FISH, and ROBERT FISH, individuals, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation; and TOYOTA
MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Kentucky
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10 Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00942 (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2020) contends that Plaintiffs
purchased a 2019 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid from Toyota that were
advertised to contain a 14.5 gallon tank with over a 500-mile range
but a defect in the design and manufacture of the Subject Vehicles
made it impossible to fill over 10 gallons in the Vehicles.

In the sales documentation from Toyota and Toyota's various
advertisements, there were never any warnings or notices regarding
the Fuel Defect. Toyota's RAV4 2019 Owner's Manual states that the
fuel tank capacity is 14.5 gallons. Plaintiffs also heard various
radio advertisements promoting the 500-plus mile range.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs first discovered the
defective gas tank when trying to fill up Subject Vehicle #1 at an
Arco gas station shortly after the initial purchase. The gas tank
was a quarter filled at the start of fueling, but Plaintiff was
only able to fill the tank about to 65% of capacity, which was less
than nine gallons. Plaintiff later learned that this problem was
not a result of defect with the Arco gas station or pump.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' breach of the
Federal Emission Control Warranty, Plaintiffs and the Class Members
sustained damages and other losses in an amount to be determined at
trial.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is the North American Toyota
sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United
States.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and
manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the
United States.

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. is a
Texas-based manufacturer and assembler of passenger
automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John van Loben Sels, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Shih, Esq.
          FISH IP LAW, LLP
          2603 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614-4271
          Telephone: (949) 943-8300
          Facsimile: (949) 943-8358
          Email: jvanlobensels@fishiplaw.com
                 jshih@fishiplaw.com

UNITED STATES: Hall et al. Balk at Unfair COVID-19 Federal Aid
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN HALL and STEVEN SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE and GEORGE ERVIN "SONNY" PERDUE III, in his official
capacity as United States Secretary of Agriculture, Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-03454-HSG (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2020) alleges that
Defendants unlawfully denied Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated essential emergency assistance including the federal
government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP"
formerly known as the Food Stamp program) that addresses rising
food insecurity and hunger due to the COVID-19 global pandemic.

In response to this public health crisis, Congress passed the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Among its goals, the Act
sought to address rising food insecurity and hunger with
significant additional resources for the federal government's SNAP.
Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to approve state
requests for emergency benefits to be distributed to current SNAP
recipients to help them meet temporary food needs during the public
health emergency.

The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") has
implemented an interpretation of the Act that departs from the
statute's directive and prevents state SNAP administrators,
including the California Department of Social Services, from
providing emergency food benefits to households that are receiving
the maximum SNAP monthly benefit. These are the households with the
lowest incomes, fewest resources, and greatest likelihood of
hunger. USDA is denying emergency food assistance to those who need
it the most in the midst of this unparalleled economic and health
catastrophe.

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Defendants
USDA and Secretary Perdue advising them that their guidance
interpreting section 2302(a)(1) of the Families First Act was
contrary to the language and purpose of the statute, and that as a
result, USDA unlawfully denied essential emergency assistance to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs requested that USDA withdraw the guidance
and process California's past and future requests for emergency
allotments consistent with the Act.

On May 7, 2020, USDA responded to thank Plaintiffs' counsel for
their April 23 letter. USDA took no actions to address Plaintiffs'
concerns.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Prieto, Esq.
          Richard Rothschild, Esq.
          Antionette D. Dozier, Esq.
          Rebecca Miller, Esq.
          WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
          3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2826
          Telephone: (213) 487-7211
          Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
          Email: aprieto@wclp.org
                 rrothschild@wclp.org
                 adozier@wclp.org
                 rmiller@wclp.org

               - and -

          Lindsay Nako, Esq.
          Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq.
          David S. Nahmias, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          2080 Addison Street, Suite 5
          Berkeley, CA 94704-1693
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
          Email: lnako@impactfund.org
                 jlarkin@impactfund.org
                 dnahmias@impactfund.org

USC: Diaz Balks at Collection of Full Tuition Fees Amid Shut Down
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA DIAZ, On Behalf of Herself And All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04066 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2020) is an
action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") violations brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other similar situated
students enrolled at the University of Southern California (USC).

The Defendant has shut down all its campus facilities, discontinued
all live in-classroom instruction of any courses at any of USC's
campuses and schools, and instead moved all instruction to remote
online media. While these actions are attributable to the COVID 19
pandemic and the shelter-in-place order in effect in the State of
California, USC has continued holding Plaintiff and all students
liable for the full pre-shutdown tuition and fee obligations. This,
despite the fact that USC is unable to provide, and is not
providing, the services or facilities that the students bargained
for and are being billed for as part of their tuition and fees --
fees and tuition costs that easily amount to thousands of dollars
per student.

The complaint asserts that while USC may not bear culpability for
the campus closures or the inability to provide any classroom
instruction, neither do the enrolled students. Yet, while USC has
used the current COVID 19 shutdown circumstances to excuse USC's
duty to fully perform the obligations of its bargain with its
students, USC continues to demand that all students fully perform
their contractual bargain to pay in full all tuition and fees
without any reduction for USC's lack of full performance. This is
contrary to ordinary tenets of contract law. And this indefensible
breach is saddling wholly innocent students with mounting debt as a
result of having to pay tuition and fees for services they are not
receiving and facilities that are not being provided. In so acting,
USC is unjustly enriching itself at the expense of Plaintiff and
the members of the class she seeks to represent.

The Defendant has breached its contractual duties by ceasing all
in-classroom instruction at all campuses and shutting down campus
facilities while continuing to asses and collect full tuition and
fee payment from Plaintiff and the class members as if full
performance had been rendered to them. Undoubtedly, however, the
performance now being provided by USC and USC’s campus facilities
are of a different nature and of lesser value than what was
bargained for at the time of Plaintiff's and the class members'
enrollment.

University of Southern California is a private educational
institution in Los Angeles, California, initially established in
1880. It is organized as a corporation under the laws of the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201
          Del Mar, CA  92014
          Telephone: (619) 363-3333
          Email: rak@katriellaw.com

                     - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          Veneeta Jaswal, Esq.
          THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC
          2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 200
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          Email: ralph@rbk-law.com
                  veneeta@rbk-law.com

VOLKSWAGEN: Settles Dieselgate Class Action with 200K Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoel Minkoff, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that Volkswagen
(OTCPK:VWAGY) has reached settlements with 200K of the 260K
claimants participating in a class action lawsuit brought by German
consumer group VZBV over its rigging of diesel emissions tests.

A further 21K cases are still being reviewed for possible payouts
of EUR1,350-EUR6,250 per car, and the deadline for participating
was extended to April 30.

VW has already set aside EUR830M to cover the costs of settlements,
while the entire Diselgate scandal has cost the automaker more than
$30B in vehicle refits, fines and provisions. [GN]


WEGMANS FOOD: Misrepresents Lowfat Yogurt Bars, Sharma Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pankaj Sharma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02210
(E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their
chocolate coated bars of lowfat yogurt products purporting to be
flavored with vanilla and "other natural flavors," under the
Wegmans brand.

The relevant front label representations include "Wegmans,"
"Vanilla," "Lowfat Yogurt," "With Other Natural Flavors" and a
vignette of the vanilla flower and vanilla beans. The Plaintiff
alleges that the representations are misleading because the amount
of vanilla is de minimis and the front label fails to disclose that
the non-vanilla "other natural flavors" deceptively enhance and
extend the vanilla taste, which is a deceptive practice unique to
vanilla, owing to the continuous attempts to use substitute flavors
of lower quality and less value.

The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence
of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
of consumers like the Plaintiff. The value of the Product that the
Plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less than their
value as represented by the Defendant.

Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for them, the
Plaintiff says. As a result of the false and misleading labeling,
the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.49 for containers of 6 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product within his district and/or
State for personal consumption.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells chocolate coated bars of lowfat yogurt products
purporting to be flavored with vanilla and "other natural flavors,"
under the Wegmans brand.[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 -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com


WILCO LIFE: Faces Grundstrom Suit Over Lapsed Life Insurance Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE GRUNDSTROM, Individually, and as successor-in-interest to DR.
RICHARD I. APPLETON and on Behalf of the Class; Plaintiff, vs.
WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-LB (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2020) arises after
the Defendant refuses to comply with mandatory provisions of the
California Insurance Code as well as California common law
regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies.

The complaint states that since January 1, 2013, Wilco and other
related entities have systematically and purposely failed to
provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and
others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination. Wilco has
failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to
designate someone to receive critical notices and information
regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an
annual basis. All of these important safeguards are required by,
among other sources, California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71
and 10113.72. California law requires strict compliance with these
safeguards, and failure to comply with these safeguards requires
payment of the policy proceeds, and Wilco refuses to comply.

As a result, the Defendant has failed to properly administer
policies, evaluate the status of payments due under policies and
pay claims to beneficiary for policies improperly lapsed or
terminated. Indeed, thousands of policy owners and beneficiary,
including the Plaintiff, have lost, and continue to lose, the
benefit, value and security of their life insurance; has been, and
continue to be, forced into unnecessary reinstatements; and in many
instances have lost all reasonable access to any insurance at all.
Ultimately, Defendant has robbed thousands of their customers and
beneficiary of the investment in such policies, policy benefits as
well as the security intended to be provided from such insurance.

Plaintiff Julie Grundstrom is an individual and daughter of the
insured, Dr. Richard I. Appleton. At all relevant times, Plaintiff
has been the primary beneficiary the life insurance policies
insuring her father, Dr. Richard I. Appleton.

Wilco Life Insurance Company is a California-based insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

WILHELMINA INT'L: Class Cert. Bid in Shanklin & Pressley Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that motions for class
certification and summary judgment in the putative class action
suits initiated by Alex Shanklin and Shawn Pressley are still
pending.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New
York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel
who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought
by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation").  

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.  

Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation
include other model management companies, advertising firms, and
certain advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants.  

Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.  

The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.

The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017.

The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame.  

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.  

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.  

Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case.
Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July
12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against
Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition
to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and
Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.  

Wilhelmina's reply papers in further support of its summary
judgment motions were filed on October 23, 2019.

The motions for class certification and summary judgment were
argued on December 4, 2019, and the parties are awaiting decision.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and
Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the actions.

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WMJ FARMS INC: Cruz Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WMJ Farms,
Incorporated.  The case is styled as Ambris Cruz, Nora, On Behalf
Of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WMJ Farms,
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. VCU282915 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
19, 2020).

The type of the case is stated as Civil: Unlimited-Visalia.

W M J Farms Incorporated is located in Dinuba, California. This
organization primarily operates in the Deciduous Tree Fruits
business / industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel J. Brown
   McCarter and English, LLP
   600 Market St., Suite 3900
   Philadelphia, PA 19103   
   Fax: 215.979.3899
   Email: djbrown@mccarter.com



[*] COVID-19-Related Class Actions on the Rise
----------------------------------------------
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that although
the COVID-19 pandemic is still unfolding, class actions related to
the coronavirus have already arrived and are on the rise. Despite
unprecedented court closures and changing procedural rules,
COVID-19 class actions have steadily increased and are expected to
expand across industries, jurisdictions, and areas of law. The
impact of COVID-19 on business operations, consumer activity, and
economic forecasts has made clear that the filings to date are only
an early indication of what is to come.

The following is a categorized summary of coronavirus-related class
action litigation filed to date, highlighting the core allegations
of each complaint. Where no recently filed actions have been
identified, but significant litigation is anticipated, that is also
noted.

BANKING AND DEBT COLLECTION
Banks and financial institutions are facing class action litigation
aimed at preventing foreclosures and suspending debt collection.
These businesses may also encounter class action litigation from
commercial clients based on their role in providing access to
government relief under the CARES Act and other legislation. Cases
filed to date include:

   * James L. Shuff, et al. v. Bank of America, et al., No.
5:20-cv-00184 (S.D. W.Va. 2020): seeks an injunction to temporarily
suspend foreclosure actions.

   * Oksenendler v. Northstar Education Finance, Inc., No.
20-cv-00805, (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2020): asserts claims for breach of
contract and consumer fraud based on the suspension of a student
loan repayment program based on changed conditions.

   * Profiles, Inc. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00894 (D.
Md. Apr. 3, 2020): seeks an injunction to prevent Bank of America
from limiting the issuance of loans under the new Paycheck
Protection Program and the CARES Act to active borrowers at the
bank.

EDUCATION
Educational programs and institutions, in particular colleges and
universities, are facing class action claims by students related to
campus closures, access to resources, and future operations based
on contract and other theories. Cases filed to date include:

   * Church v. Purdue University and Trustees, No. 20-cv-00025
(N.D. Ind. Apr. 9, 2020): asserts claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment seeking the refund of university tuition, room,
board, and other fees paid by students.

   * Rickenbaker v. Drexel University, No. 20-cv-1358 (D.S.C. Apr.
8, 2020): asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment seeking the refund of university tuition fees and other
costs paid by students.

   * Dixon v. University of Miami, No. 20-cv-1348 (D.S.C. Apr. 8,
2020): asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
seeking the refund of university tuition fees and other costs paid
by students.

   * Rosenkrantz v. Arizona Board of Regents, No. 20-cv-00613 (D.
Az. Mar. 27, 2020): asserts claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion seeking the refund of university room,
board, and fee payments by students.

   * Douglas v. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc., No.
37-2020-00013374 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2020); Grabovsky v. EF
Institute for Cultural Exchange, No. 20-cv-00508 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 17, 2020): assert claims for injunctive relief, consumer fraud
seeking the refund of educational travel program fees.

EMPLOYMENT
Employers are facing wage and hour, workplace safety, paid leave,
WARN Act, ERISA, employee privacy, worker classification,
disability accommodation, and discrimination claims. Cases filed to
date include:

   * Verhines v. Uber Technology, Inc., No. 20-583684 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Mar. 12, 2020): asserts claim for paid sick leave based on
worker classification.

   * Alaska State Employees v. State of Alaska, No. 20-5652 (Super.
Ct. Ak. Mar. 24, 2020): asserts claim for injunctive relief for
public employees to reduce health risks.

   * Olsen v. Hair Cuttery, No. 1:20-cv-03760 (D.N.J. Apr. 7,
2020): asserts claim under Fair Labor Standards Act for allegedly
closing hair salons in the middle of a pay period due to COVID-19
without paying stylists for the first part of the period.

   * Siers v. Velodyne Lidar, No. 5:20-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 3, 2020): asserts claim under WARN Act for allegedly
terminating over 140 employees with insufficient notice and using
the pandemic as a pretext for the improper layoffs.

   * Burr v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-CA-002640 (Fla. Cir. Ct.
Mar. 19, 2020): asserts claims by entertainers hired by cruise
ships who claim entitlement to full compensation for canceled
events.

   * Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., No. CGC-20-583685 (Cal. Super. Ct.):
claims that Lyft failed to provide adequate paid sick leave,
making drivers feel compelled to drive even if sick.

EVENT CANCELLATION AND SERVICE DISRUPTION
Consumer claims based on the cancellation or disruption of events
and services are likely to dominate court dockets in coming months.
Cases filed to date include:

    * McMillan v. StubHub, No. 20-cv-00319 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 2,
2020); Rutledge v. Do LaB Inc., (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 24, 2020):
assert claims for breach of contract, conversion, negligent
misrepresentation, consumer fraud, and false advertising based on
the availability of refunds for cancelled sporting, music, and
theater events.

   * Utley v. United Airlines Holdings, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00756
(N.D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2020); Rudolph v. United Airlines Holdings,
Inc., No. 20-cv-02142 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2020): assert claims for
consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent
misrepresentation based on the availability of refunds for
cancelled flights.

   * Delvecchio v. Boston Sports Clubs, No. 20-cv-10666 (D. Mass.
Apr. 5, 2020); Jampol v. Blink Holdings, No. 20-cv-02760 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 2, 2020); Namorato v. New York Sports Clubs, No. 20-cv-02580
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020); Barnett v. Fitness International, LLC,
No. 0:20-cv-60658 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2020); Labib v. 24 Hour
Fitness USA, No. 3:20-cv-02134 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020): assert
consumer protection and breach of contract claims based on monthly
membership fee collection during sports club closures.

   * Carisi v. Events and Adventures California, No. 3:20-cv-02260
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020): asserts breach of warranty, fraud, and
consumer protection claims against dating service for cancelling
events due to pandemic while allegedly continuing to charge its
customers monthly membership fees.

GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Governments and public officials may face a higher risk of class
action litigation based on their response to COVID-19 and handling
of prison inmates and detainees.

    * Schulmerich Bells, LLC v. Wolf, No. 2:20-cv-01637 (E.D. Pa.
Mar. 26, 2020): asserts claims by small businesses challenging
COVID-19 closure orders for allegedly failing to compensate those
who suffered diminution of value in property interests.

    * CommCan, Inc. v. Baker (Mass. Super. Ct. No. 2084CV00808,
Apr. 8, 2020): asserts claims that Massachusetts executive orders
classifying recreational marijuana stores as non-essential are
unconstitutional and exceed the governor's executive authority.

    * Bella Vista LLC et al. v. People's Republic of China et al.,
No. 2:20-cv-00574 (D. Nev. Mar. 23 2020); Alters et al. v. People's
Republic of China et al., No. 1:20-cv-21108-UU (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12,
2020): assert claims by small businesses for negligence, strict
liability, and public nuisance against China (including various
government entities and ministries) for failing to take appropriate
actions to stem the spread of the coronavirus.

   * Valentine v. Collier, No. 4:20-cv-01115 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30,
2020); Savino v. Hodgson, No. 1:20-cv-10617 (D. Mass. Mar. 27,
2020); Nellson v. Barnhart, No. 1:20-cv-00756 (D. Colo. Mar. 18,
2020); Dawson v. Asher, No. 20-civ-0409JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16,
2020): assert civil rights claims on behalf of prison inmates and
immigration detainees against state and local government and
corrections agencies based on their pandemic response and the risk
of exposure to COVID-19.

HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND NURSING FACILITIES
Hospitals, healthcare providers, and nursing and residential care
facilities may face class action litigation based in contract or
tort relating to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

INSURANCE
Insurers face heightened class action litigation risk as insured
businesses encounter disruptions and look to their policies for
relief and healthcare providers and health insurance subscribers
seek coverage for COVID-19 treatments. Cases filed to date
include:

    * Billy Goat Tavern I v. Society Insurance, No. 1:20-cv-02068
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2020): asserts claim for failure to provide
insurance coverage under "all-risk" policy for business income lost
to the pandemic.

PRIVACY AND CYBERSECURITY
Companies are facing privacy and cybersecurity claims by employers
and consumers based on the collection, use, and disclosure of
personal information and the unauthorized access by third parties
in data security incidents. Cases filed to date include:

   * Cullen v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 20-cv-02155
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020): asserts claims for consumer privacy,
consumer fraud, negligence, invasion of privacy, and unjust
enrichment based on the collection and disclosure of user
information to third parties.

PRODUCT PRICING, MARKETING & LABELING
Manufacturers and sellers of products with medical, sanitation, and
hygiene applications are facing class action claims related to the
pricing, marketing and labeling of their products based on
advertising and consumer protection laws. Cases filed to date
include:

   * David v. Vi-Jon, Inc. dba Germ-X, No. 20-cv-99999 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 5, 2020); Gonzalez v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-888
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2020); Marinovich v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No.
3:20-cv-747 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020); Aleisa v. Gojo Indus., Inc.,
No. 2:20-cv-1045 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020); Jurkiewicz v. Gojo
Indus., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-279 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2020); Miller v.
Gojo Indus., Inc., No. 4:20-cv-562 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2020);
Taslakian v. Target Co., 2:20-cv-2667 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020):
assert claims for false advertising, consumer fraud, and
misrepresentation based on claims about benefits of hand
sanitizers.

    * Armas v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 104631782 (Cir. Ct. Fla. Mar.
10, 2020): asserts claim for consumer fraud based on alleged price
gouging of personal hygiene products.

SHAREHOLDER AND SECURITIES LITIGATION
Public companies face class action claims by shareholders
concerning statements and omissions concerning the impact of
COVID-19 on their operations and performance. Cases filed to date
include:

   * Drieu v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02353
(N.D. Cal. Apr 7, 2020); Brams v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,
No. 3:20-cv-02396 (N.D. Cal. Apr 8, 2020): assert federal
securities law claims based on Zoom's allegedly inadequate security
and privacy measures, which were exposed by Zoom's increased use
during the pandemic.

   * Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No. 20-cv-21107 (S.D. Fla.
Mar. 12, 2020); Atachbarian v. Norwegian Cruise Lines et al., No.
1:20-cv-21386 (S.D. Fla. Mar 31, 2020): assert federal securities
law claims based on allegedly false and misleading statements that
minimized the health crisis and its impact on the company's
business.

   *  McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 20-cv-01402
(E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims
based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the
development of a COVID-19 vaccine.

TRANSMISSION AND EXACERBATION OF COVID-19
Plaintiffs have filed class actions alleging that businesses
negligently promoted the spread of COVID-19 or hid information
about the risks of COVID-19 transmission or complications. Cases
filed to date include:

   * Turner v. Costa Crociere SPA, No. 20-cv-21481 (S.D. Fla. Apr.
7, 2020): asserts claims including negligence and negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress related to cruise
line's decision to embark on cruise despite allegedly knowing a
passenger was showing symptoms of COVID-19.

   * Archer v. Carnival Corporation, et al., No. 20-cv-02381 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 8, 2020): asserts claims including negligence and gross
negligence based on an outbreak of COVID-10 on the Diamond Princess
cruise ship.

   * In re: Juul Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices & Products
Liability Litigation, 19-md-2913 (Apr. 10, 2020): amends complaint
to assert claims based on allegations that vaping product users are
at greater risk of complications from COVID-19.

WEBSITE AND DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY
Companies are likely to face Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and other claims based on the ability of users with disabilities to
navigate and understand their websites, mobile applications, and
electronic platforms, especially as goods and services that were
previously available at brick-and-mortar sites move to the
internet. [GN]


[*] Insurance Cos. Sued Over Business Interruption Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Turner, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that RIMS
issued a letter to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Congress
and President Trump requesting the creation of a pandemic risk
insurance program to accelerate economic recovery. In the letter,
RIMS asserts that a pandemic risk insurance program would provide
greater access to capital from lenders and establish a viable
insurance market. It would also provide greater resilience to U.S.
organizations in the event of a future pandemic.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) introduced the Business Interruption
Insurance Coverage Act of 2020, a bipartisan bill to ensure
businesses that purchase interruption insurance won't get their
claims denied because of major events, such as the coronavirus
pandemic. In response, industry leaders voiced opposition to the
bill, with one saying the bill, and others like it, "would apply
business interruption coverage where it doesn't exist, exacerbating
existing disruptions and further delaying our nation's economic
recovery."

Six class-action lawsuits were filed on April 17 against insurance
companies for denial of policy claims businesses had purchased to
protect against business interruptions, according to a press
release. The plaintiffs are represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler
LLC, Lanier Law Firm PC, Burns Bowen Bair LLP, and Daniels &
Tredennick. The cases include:

  -- Gio Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC and Gio Pizzeria Boca, LLC
v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York
   -- Rising Dough, Inc., et al. v. Society Insurance, U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
   -- Bridal Expressions LLC v. Owners Insurance Company, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
   -- Caribe Restaurant & Nightclub, Inc. v. Topa Insurance
Company, U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California
   -- Dakota Ventures, LLC d/b/a/Kokopelli Grill v. Oregon Mutual
Insurance Co.; U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
   -- Christie Jo Berkseth-Rojas DDS v. Aspen American Insurance
Company; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
[GN]



                            *********

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 ***