/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200601.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 109

                            Headlines

4716 INC: Cabanillas Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay for Club Dancers
AARON'S INC: Stein Securities Suit Moved From New York to Georgia
ADEPTUS HEALTH: $44-Mil. Settlement Wins Final Approval
ADP TOTALSOURCE: Berkelhammer Alleges ERISA Breach
ALBANY INT'L: Fails to Offer Compliant COBRA Notice, Taylor Says

ALIERA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over "Fake Insurance Plans"
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Hearing Thursday on Motion to Dismiss
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: S.D.N.Y Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
ALLERGAN INC: LaFleur Suit Moved From Wisconsin to New Jersey
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Steijn Suit Moved From California to Colorado

AMERICAN EAGLE: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Wereme Claims
AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued by Noor for Undervaluing Total Loss Claims
AMETEK INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on August 24
ANTARES PHARMA: Smith Consolidated 2nd Amended Class Suit Tossed
APPLE INC: To Settle iOS 6 FaceTime Issue, Sept. 3 Hearing Set

APYX MEDICAL: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims
ATRIA SENIOR: Buchanan Files Suit in California Superior Court
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Sea Land Air Travel Files Insurance Suit
BAIDU INC: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 22
BANK OF AMERICA: Refuses to Pay PPP Loans' Agent Fees, Panda Says

BARCO INDUSTRIES: Underpays Manual Laborers, Cryer Claims
BED BATH & BEYOND: Klein Law Firm Notes of June 15 Deadline
BED BATH & BEYOND: Vincent Wong Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
BENEFIT COSMETICS: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in California
BETTY LOU'S: Protein Shake Has Misleading Label, Mercado Alleges

BLUE CROSS: Judge Recommends Allowing ERISA Suit to Proceed
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Early 2021 Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Tran Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
BRANDYWINE UROLOGY: Faces Abernathy Suit Over Ransomware Attack
BRUNOINC: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Gonzales et al. Claim

CALIFORNIA: Denies Right to Vote in Spring Election, Fugazi Says
CAPITAL ONE: Figueroa Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
CENGAGE LEARNING: Cabral Sues Over Supracompetitive Book Pricing
CHINA: Small Businesses in Calif. File Class Action Over COVID-19
CIT GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 22

CITIGROUP INC: Accord in GSE Bond Antitrust Suit Wins Initial Okay
CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Govt. Bonds Suit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Wins Dismissal of SSA Bond Antitrust Suit
CONNECTICUT: Class Action v. DOC Over COVID-19 Outbreak Okayed
CONNECTICUT: Gottlieb, Chand Sue Over Voting Rules Amid COVID-19

CONTRACT CALLERS: Christie Sues in Texas Alleging FDCPA Violation
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Class Suit
CORELOGIC RENTAL: Brown Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FCRA Violation
CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Suit
D & BRADSTREET: Faces Knudsen Employment Suit in California

DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Refuses COVID-19 Tuition Refunds, Chavez Says
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Refuses COVID-19 Ticket Refunds, Maree Claims
DHPARTNERS INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Reeves Claims
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Students File Class Action in South Carolina

EAGLE INSTRUMENTS: Advanced Dermatology Sues over Unsolicited Fax
ECLINICAL WORKS: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
EHEALTH INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ELAP SERVICES: South Broward Hospital Files Suit in S.D. Florida
ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Chapman Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime

ELLIOTT SECURITY: Class Cert. Filed in Security Guards Suit
EMCOR FACILITIES: Soto Sues over Background Check, Termination
ETX ENERGY: Byrd Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Oilfield Workers
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces FCRA Biton Suit in C.D. California
FAIR ISAAC: Kenmore Sues Over Monopoly, Conspiracy in B2B Credit

FAMILY DOLLAR: Phenix FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Victorino Suit
FIRST FINANCIAL: Hash Balks at $37 Overdraft Fees
FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Failed Unemployment Website
FLORIDA: Student's Class Action Demands Campus Fee Refunds

FONNER PARK: Owens Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS: Faces Mahomes Suit Over Unlawful OT Pay
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Cadillac CUE Suit
GOLDEN STAR: Rosen Reminds of June 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
GOODYEAR TIRE: Perez FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

GOYA FOODS: Misclassifies Sales Reps, Morel et al. Claim
GROUPON INC: Barbuto & Johansson Files Class Action Suit
GROUPON INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit
GROUPON: Investors File Securities Class Action in Illinois
GRUBHUB INC: Faces CO Craft Suit Over False Advertising Tactics

H & M HENNES: Fails to Give Seating for Attendants, Martinez Says
HANSEN & ADKINS: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss FCRA Case Ruling
HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Suit Ongoing
HENRY SCHEIN: Order of Dismissal in Marion Diagnostic Suit Reversed
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in NY Securities Suit Underway

HERSHEY CO: Metcalf Wants to Appear Pro Hac Vice in Mirzoyan Suit
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Overdraft Fees Class Suit
HISCOX: Faces Class Action Over Business Interruption Claims
HOLY SEE: Faces Blecher Suit in Southern District of New York
HONDA: Class Action Over Defective Window Can't Proceed

HOOTERS III: Faces COVID-19 WARN Act Class Action
HOPHAPCITY INC: Poltamai Seeks Minimum, OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 15
IKEA US: Faces Dukich Suit Over Defective Chests and Dressers
INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending

INSPERITY INC: Proposed Findings of Fact Due June 15
IQIYI INC: Files First Securities Class Action Lawsuit
IQIYI INC: Hagens Berman Urges Investors to Join Class Action
IRISH MARKETING: Faces Yoshida Suit in California Superior Court
JOBCASE INC: Walter Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads

JOE MACHENS: Hail Damage Class Action Sent to Arbitration
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Web Sites Inaccessible to Deaf, Winegard Says
KANKAKEE, IL: Crainic Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
KATERRA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Washington Suit Alleges
KBR INC: Appellate Proceedings Postponed Sine Die

KLEARY MASONRY: Faces Gomez Employment Suit in Calif. Super Ct.
KOHL'S CORP: Murphy Appeals S.D.N.Y. ADA Suit Ruling to 2nd Cir.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Securities Litig. Has Initial OK
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Klein Law Firm Notes of June 2 Deadline
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Sued for Denying Coverage for COVID-19 Losses

LOYAL SOURCE: Ortega Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
LUNDY MANOR: Faces Class Action Over Negligence
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
MACROGENICS INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid in Hill Class Suit Pending
MARTIN RESOURCE: Settles ERISA Class Action for $19.5 Million

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Filed to Free Prisoners in Pandemic
MDL 2947: Lowe's Seeks Consolidation of 19 Actions to W.D.N.C.
METLIFE INC: Checks Mailed to Newman Class Members
MICHAEL HUGHES: Criminal Defendants Class Certified

MICHIGAN: DOC Sued Over Coronavirus Response
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Chuluunbat FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MIDWEST DIVERSIFIED: DeMastes Seeks to Certify Collective Action
MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Underway
MUELLER WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chapman Class Suit Still Underway

NCL CORP: Faces COVID-19 Class Suits
NEW YORK: BOD Files Five Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Pirone 'Handcuffing' Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Fails to Provide OT Pay, Kenworthy et al. Claim

OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Still Ongoing
PACCAR INC: Claims Over European Commission Probe Ongoing in UK
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Denies Coverage of COVID Losses, Kahn Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Kenwood Pools Balks at Denial of Waiver Application
PHOENIX TREE: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action

PIXELOGIC MEDIA: Misclassifies Workers, Gabriel Suit Alleges
POLAR CORP: Ginger Label Misleading, Fitzgerald Says
POSTMATES INC: Altounian Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Couriers
POWER HOME REMODELING: Warner TCPA Suit Removed to D. Colorado
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Stayed

PRIDE MANAGEMENT: Wahl Suit Seeks to Recover Back and Front Pay
PROVIDENCE, RI: Tran Suit Challenges Unlawful Private Tax Sale
QANTAS: Class Action Mulled Over Refusal to Provide Refunds
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Benesch Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action

RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Coulter Suit Seeks Class Certification
RESOLUTE ENTERPRISES: Faces Morris Employment Suit in California
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Charleau Sues Over Unpaid Work-Related Expenses
SB DIRECTIONAL: Approval of Field Workers Class Notice Sought
SEALED AIR: UA Local 13's Securities Class Suit Ongoing

SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Action Under Appeal
SEMPRA ENERGY: June 24 Trial Postponed Sine Die
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Agar Class Suit Pending
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Notes of June 9 Deadline
SK ENERGY: Fricke-Parks et al. Sue Over Gas Price Manipulation

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Sued for Denying Business Interruption Claim
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Securities Suit Against Legacy Unit Ongoing
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: Pinkney Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
TAMPA BAY SPORTS: Court Okays $2.25MM TCPA Class Action Settlement
TD BANK: Galgano Balks at Out-of-Network ATM Fees

TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Securities Class Suit
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
TILRAY INC: Gross Law Files Shareholder Class Action
TRACY PAI: Weeks et al. Sue Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Plaintiff Seeks to Revive Ohio Securities Suit

TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Chaves Wants Refund, Not Travel Voucher
TROIA BROTHERS: Garcia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Klein Law Firm Notes of June 5 Plaintiff Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers Suit Pending

TYSON FOODS: Faces Turkey Purchasers Suits in Illinois
TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Price-Fixing of Pork Ongoing
TYSON FOODS: Must Defend Against Okla. Broiler Chicken Grower Suit
TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Review on Suit v. Hillshire Pending
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit

U.S. IMMIGRATION: ACLU, 4 Firms Seek Release of NH Jail Detainees
UNITED FINANCIAL: Korsakov Files Insurance Suit in California
UNITED STATES: Barber Seeks to Certify Loan Borrowers Class
UNITED STATES: CARES Act Is Bias Against Immigrants, Doe Alleges
UNITED STATES: Class Suit Seeks to Free Transgender ICE Detainees

UNITED STATES: Minors Allege Bias in Cash Assistance Program
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Refund of Fees
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Handling of Tuition Fees
VISA INC: Approval of 2018 Amended Settlement Under Appeal
VISA INC: Nuts for Candy Class Action Suit Dismissed

VMWARE INC: Vincent Wong Notes of June 1 Plaintiff Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Campbell Sues Over Cars With Defective Sunroofs
WALMART INC: Ellebracht Suit Removed to Western Dist. of Missouri
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit in Evidentiary Stage
WESTJET: Class Action Seeks Refund of Cancelled Flights

WHISPERTEXT INC: Database Breach Exposes Secrets, Ogburn et al Say
WHITEPAGES INC: Can't Shake Suit Over Personal Information Misuse
WIDEOPENWEST INC: All Discovery in Kirkland Class Suit Stayed
WILLIAMS CO: Appeals Ruling in Sulfolane-Related Suit
WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 14

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Gregg Claims
XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Putative Class Suit Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
ZENDESK INC: Consolidated Reidinger Suit Ongoing
ZOOM VIDEO: Kehoe Law Firm Notes of Class Action Lawsuit

ZOOM VIDEO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Shareholders of Class Action
ZUORA INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
[*] 25 Universities Hit with Tuition Fee Refund Class Actions
[*] Arent Fox Attorneys Discuss COVID-19-Related Class Actions
[*] Class Actions Against Cannabis Companies Doubled in 2019

[*] Travel Industry Hit with COVID-19-Related Class Actions
[*] Tuition Refund Class Actions Hit College and Universities

                            *********

4716 INC: Cabanillas Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay for Club Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEXIA CABANILLAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. 4716, INC., DBA HI LITER GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB; FRANK ZANZUCCHI; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00894-MTL (D. Ariz., May 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated dancers and/or entertainers of the required
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, and forced tip
sharing.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dancer since
2017.

4716, Inc., doing business as Hi Liter Gentlemen's Club, is an
adult-oriented entertainment facility operator located at 4716 N
12th Street, Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
         RANDALL LAW PLLC
         4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Telephone: (602) 328-0262
         E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com

               - and –
         
         Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
         HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
         1105 Milford Street
         Houston, TX 77066
         Telephone: (713) 554-2377
         E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

               - and –
         
         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         KRISTENSEN LLP
         12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
         Los Angeles, CA 90066
         Telephone: (310) 507-7924
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

AARON'S INC: Stein Securities Suit Moved From New York to Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHIVA STEIN, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AARON'S, INC., JOHN
W. ROBINSON, III, and STEVEN A. MICHAELS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01796
(Filed Feb. 28, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on May 12, 2020.

The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02030-JPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Aaron's securities between March 2, 2018, and
February 19, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws.

Aaron's was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. The Company operates as an omnichannel provider of
lease-purchase solutions to underserved and credit-challenged
customers, and also engages in the sale, lease ownership, and
specialty retailing of various products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Israel Dahan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100

Movant Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern Nevada is
represented by:

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          LERACH, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER
          RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173


ADEPTUS HEALTH: $44-Mil. Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas approved a $44
million securities settlement to resolve claims the nation's
largest free-standing emergency department operator misled
investors about cash flow and liquidity, causing them to purchase
Adeptus Health Inc. stock at inflated prices.

Plaintiffs' expert estimated maximum aggregate damages to be as
high as $850 million but, according to class counsel, settling for
5.2% of the potential recovery was reasonable given the context.
Not only was the settlement sizable relative to those reached in
comparable securities class actions, but the risk of litigation was
enhanced by the fact that Adeptus filed for bankruptcy in 2017, the
plaintiff's motion for settlement approval said.

The funds will be distributed pro rata among class members who
will, in exchange, release the defendants from all claims,
including unknown claims, that were or could have been raised in
the lawsuit, according to the settlement.

Judge Amos L. Mazzant awarded 25% of the settlement fund, or $11
million, for attorneys' fees, plus just over $1.38 million for
expenses, which will be paid from the fund and allocated among
class lawyers by lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Alameda
County Employees' Retirement Association received an aggregate
award of nearly $21,000.

The settlement resolves allegations against Adeptus, as well as
private equity firm and shareholder Sterling Partners, named
underwriters, and individual executives and directors.

Lead counsel for the class were Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. Adeptus Health
was represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

The case is Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Adeptus
Health Inc., E.D. Tex., No. 4:17-cv-00449-ALM.

Evercore Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that beginning on or about
November 16, 2016, several putative securities class action
complaints were filed against Adeptus Health Inc. ("Adeptus") and
certain others, including Evercore Group L.L.C. ("EGL") as
underwriter, in connection with Adeptus' June 2014 initial public
offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas where a consolidated complaint was filed
asserting, in part, that the offering materials issued in
connection with the four public offerings violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by containing alleged misstatements and
omissions.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was
subsequently removed as a defendant. On November 21, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the
defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the claims
relating to the initial public offering and the May 2015 secondary
public offering, but denied as to the claims relating to the July
2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings.

EGL underwrote approximately 293 shares of common stock in the July
2015 secondary public offering, representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $30,800,000, but did not underwrite any
shares in the June 2016 secondary public offering. On September 25,
2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint relating only to
the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings.

On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the defendants filed briefs in opposition. On
February 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
after having been granted leave to amend by the court. On March 4,
2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to the second
amended complaint.

On January 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement among the parties, including the underwriters, and
scheduled a final hearing for May 20, 2020.

Evercore said, "The settlement amount attributed to the Company is
not material to the Company."

Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management. The company
was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed its name
to Evercore Inc. in August 2017. Evercore Inc. was founded in 1995
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


ADP TOTALSOURCE: Berkelhammer Alleges ERISA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
BETH BERKELHAMMER and NAOMI RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. ADP TOTALSOURCE GROUP,
INC.; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC.; ADP TOTALSOURCE RETIREMENT
SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; NFP RETIREMENT, INC.; AND JOHN DOES 1–40,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05696 (D.N.J., May 7, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants and
beneficiaries by allowing unreasonable expenses to be charged to
participants for administration of the Plan and for managed account
services, retaining poorly performing investments that similarly
situated prudent fiduciaries would have removed from their plans,
and failing to ensure that the lowest-cost available share classes
of the designated investment alternatives were included in the
Plan, resulting in the Plan paying excessive investment management
and other unnecessary fees. Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants allowed the Plan's service providers to use Plan
participants' highly confidential data, including social security
numbers, financial assets, investment choices, and years of
investment history to aggressively market lucrative non-Plan retail
financial products and services, which enriched the service
providers at the expense of participants' retirement security.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a company that offers retirement
savings plan to employees of small- and medium-sized business, with
principal place of business located at 1 ADP Boulevard, Roseland,
New Jersey.

ADP TotalSource Group, Inc. is a professional employer organization
providing human resources services throughout the United States,
with principal place of business located at 10200 Sunset Drive,
Miami, Florida.

ADP TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan Committee is a retirement
savings plan administrator, with principal place of business
located at 10200 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida.

NFP Retirement Inc., formerly known as 401k Advisors, Inc., is an
investment consultant with principal place of business located at
120 Vantis, Suite 400, Aliso Viejo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  aschlichter@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
                  abraitberg@uselaws.com

               - and –
         
          Eric H. Jaso, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON
          830 Morris Turnpike 2nd Floor
          Short Hills, NJ 07078
          Telephone: (973) 310-4026
          E-mail: ejaso@spiroharrison.com

ALBANY INT'L: Fails to Offer Compliant COBRA Notice, Taylor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALBANY INTERNATIONAL CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-00565
(D.N.H., May 11, 2020), alleges that Albany violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to provide a
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 notice that
complies with the law.

Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, Albany chose not to use the model form to send timely
notice--presumably to save Albany money because COBRA coverage is
inherently expensive for employers, the complaint says.

The Plaintiff contends that failure to provide a timely COBRA
notice misled her and caused her economic injuries in the form of
lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as
informational injuries.

According to the complaint, Albany, the plan sponsor and plan
administrator of the Albany Plan during the relevant time period,
has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants
and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed
by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the
occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Sacht, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq.
          HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
          155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 422-0200
          E-mail: cms@bostonbusinesslaw.com
                  jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., No. 2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975 3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


ALIERA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over "Fake Insurance Plans"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Amaro, writing for Fresno Bee, reports that a California
couple said they were saddled with thousands of dollars in medical
expenses when a company misled them into purchasing what one
attorney described as "fake insurance plans."

Now they want a judge to force the company -- Aliera Healthcare
Inc. -- to cover those costs and others, according to a class
action lawsuit filed on April 28 in U.S. District Court in
Sacramento.

The lawsuit names as defendants The Aliera Companies, Inc, Aliera
Healthcare, Inc., and Trinity HealthShare Inc. The company told The
Bee the claims in the lawsuit are false.

Thousands of Californians who struggle to afford private health
insurance have turned to faith-based health care sharing ministries
for their care. Members make monthly payments into a system for
health care costs to be shared among all members.

However, experts who previously spoke with The Bee/USC Center for
Health Journalism Collaborative have said the product isn't a
replacement for insurance.

Eleanor Hamburger, one of several attorneys involved in the
lawsuit, said her law firm filed several complaints in multiple
states on behalf of people she said were "harmed by the sale of
these fake insurance plans."

If approved by a judge, the lawsuit would seek to have medical
bills paid off and to recapture premium costs for anyone who
purchased a plan from the company dating back to September 2017.

"They don't have to do anything to join, they'll automatically be
in if the class (action lawsuit) is certified, and typically they
would be given the chance to opt-out," Hamburger said.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are Corlyn and Bruce Duncan of
Benicia.

According to the lawsuit, the couple enrolled in an Aliera plan in
2017. Initially, they paid $1,287.56 per month for the plan, but
the cost later increased to $1, 612.91.

The lawsuit says Aliera approved a spinal cord surgery Corlyn
Duncan underwent in 2018 but later refused to pay, saying her
medical need was tied to a pre-existing condition. The company
eventually paid a portion of the costs. The Duncans, however, were
left with more than $70,000 in unpaid bills, according to the
lawsuit.

Debt collectors have pursed the couple, and their credit scores
have suffered, the lawsuit says.

"We realize now that we've just been taken for a ride, and I'd like
to see justice as far as shutting them down so they cannot do this
to another party," Bruce Duncan told The Bee. "It's becoming a big
problem, not only in California but throughout the U.S. right
now."

In a statement to The Bee, a company spokesperson said Aliera for
years has provided its services to health care sharing ministries
to assist them with expanding their membership.

"HCSM (Health care sharing ministries) programs provide an
affordable and flexible alternative to the high costs of
traditional health insurance," according to the statement. "HCSM
marketing materials make a point of stating very clearly that these
programs are absolutely not insurance. Any assertions to the
contrary are simply incorrect. We will continue to vigorously
defend against false claims about the services our company provides
its clients."

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the California Department of
Insurance's cease-and-desist order, handed down in March against
Aliera Healthcare, Inc., and its subsidiary Trinity HealthShare, to
get the companies to stop doing business in the state.

This story has been corrected to reflect that in its March
cease-and-desist order, the California Department of Insurance said
that while those companies -- Aliera Healthcare, Inc., and its
subsidiary Trinity HealthShare -- "represent that they are (an)
HCSM," they "do not meet the definition of HCSMs under the Internal
Revenue Code." [GN]


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Hearing Thursday on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the hearing on the
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is
scheduled for June 4, 2020.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three
of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock between July 25, 2018 and October
24, 2018.

The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities
laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs
and expenses incurred in the litigation.

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (together with the
first lawsuit, the "Securities Actions").

On May 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against Align and four of its executive officers alleging similar
claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our common stock between April 25, 2018 and October
24, 2018.

On June 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On October 29, 2019, that motion to dismiss
was granted with leave to amend.

On November 29, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint against Align and two of its executive
officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common
stock from May 23, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
was filed on January 17, 2020.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 4, 2020.

Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: S.D.N.Y Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
that was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has been transferred to to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against Align and two of
its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between April 24, 2019 and
July 24, 2019.

The complaint filed in the Southern District of New York alleges
claims under the federal securities laws and seeks monetary damages
in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the
litigation.

The court entered an order approving a stipulation of the parties
that defendants will have no obligation to respond to the
complaint, until after the appointment of a lead plaintiff.

On April 16, 2020, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

No lead plaintiff has been appointed to date.

Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


ALLERGAN INC: LaFleur Suit Moved From Wisconsin to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nancy LaFleur, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. ALLERGAN INC. formerly known as: INAMED
CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00681, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 21, 2020.

The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06177-BRM-JAD to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product.

Allergan, Inc., was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and
urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Schwaba, Esq.
          SCHWABA LAW FIRM
          212 S Tryon St., Ste. 1725
          Charlotte, NC 28281
          Phone: (704) 370-0220
          Fax: (704) 370-0210
          Email: ASCHWABA@VERDICTNC.COM


ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Steijn Suit Moved From California to Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MILAN STEIJN, ABBAS GOKAL,
and JOSEPH PANGANIBAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY U.S. INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00755, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on May 12, 2020.

The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01347 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge James V. Selna.

The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.

Alterra Mountain is an American hospitality company established in
2018 with headquarters in Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert M. Schwartz, Esq.
          Michael E. Williams, Esq.
          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: robertschwartz@quinnemanuel.com
                  michaelwilliams@quinnemanuel.com
                  shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com


AMERICAN EAGLE: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Wereme Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
AMARAN ABDOUL AZIZ WEREME, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EAGLE EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a
AEX Group, Defendant, Case No. 2;20-cv-05616 (D.N.J., May 6, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Plaintiff worked full-time as a delivery driver for Defendant for
approximately one year and was required to provide his own vehicle
in order to work for Defendant.

According to the complaint, Defendant deducted "occupational hazard
insurance" from Plaintiff's paycheck each week even though he
maintains his own policy, and "administrative technology fee" for
use of the company's electronic scanner which Defendant uses to
track its drivers and the packages they deliver.

Moreover, Plaintiff is charged a monetary penalty when he is forced
to miss work due to illness or other reason, and often worked in
excess of forty hours per week without receiving overtime premium
compensation.

American Eagle Express, Inc. d/b/a AEX Group is a regional package
delivery company that provides courier delivery services to a
variety of large companies such as hospitals, drug companies, and
pharmacies and operates in the Mid-Atlantic States from Virginia to
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mollie Hartman Lustig, Esq.
          CHASAN LAMPARELLO MALLON & CAPPUZZO, PC
          300 Lighting Way
          Secaucus, NJ 07094
          Tel: 201-348-6000
          Fax: 201-348-6633
          Email: mhartman@chasanlaw.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued by Noor for Undervaluing Total Loss Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MUNA NOOR, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20-2-08685-1 SEA
(Wash. Super., King Cty., May 11, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's wrongful system of improperly valuing class members'
totaled vehicles, which reduced the amount it paid to
policyholders, in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that AmFam has used and continues to use
Autosource to systematically undervalue and underpay first party
claims of "total loss" to insured vehicles, in breach of its
contractual obligations to its policyholders.

The Plaintiff and the putative Class seek redress and damages for
AmFam's wrongful actions, including breach of contract, violation
of Washington insurance regulations pertaining to the settlement of
total loss vehicle claims, common law bad faith, and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiff purchased a comprehensive policy of automobile
insurance from AmFam that was in effect on the date of loss: March
9, 2020.

AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as
investment and retirement-planning products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Whitmore, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE
          6840 Fort Dent Way, Suite 210
          Tukwila, WA 98188
          Telephone: (206) 329-8400
          Facsimile: (206) 329-8401
          E-mail: dan@whitmorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
          Mark A. Trivett, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
          Seattle, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          Facsimile: (206) 621-9686
          E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com
                  mtrivett@badgleymullins.com


AMETEK INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on August 24
----------------------------------------------------------
Ametek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that a final fairness hearing to consider
approval of the global settlement in the class action suits related
to groundwater contamination is set for August 24, 2020

The Company has been remediating groundwater contamination for
several contaminants, including trichloroethylene ("TCE"), at a
formerly owned site in El Cajon, California.

Several lawsuits have been filed against the Company alleging
damages resulting from the groundwater contamination, including
property damages and funds for medical monitoring to detect
causally related personal injury, and seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.

While the Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to
each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously if
pursued through trial, the parties agreed to terms to globally
settle the cases.

After extensive negotiations, the Company entered into a global
settlement of these lawsuits for an aggregate amount of $6.8
million, for which the Company had previously established reserves
sufficient to cover this settlement.

The global settlement is subject to court approval in two class
action cases.

The class representative plaintiffs have filed motions to
preliminarily approve the settlements, which the court recently
granted.

The court also scheduled a final fairness hearing for August 24,
2020.

Ametek Inc. manufactures electronic instruments and
electromechanical devices. The Paoli, Pa.-based Company has
operations in North America,Europe, Asia, and South America.


ANTARES PHARMA: Smith Consolidated 2nd Amended Class Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the trial court
overseeing the class action suit initiated by Randy Smith has
dismissed the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint in
its entirety.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell, Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf
of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017,
inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.  

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the
New Drug Application (NDA) for XYOSTED(R); and (ii) accordingly,
Antares had overstated the approval prospects for XYOSTED(R).  

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.  

On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition
to the motion on January 10, 2019 and defendants filed a reply in
support of their motion on February 25, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the
court dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On July 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended
Class Action Complaint against the same parties alleging
substantially similar claims. On September 12, 2019, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on October 28,
2019 and defendants' reply in support of their motion was filed on
November 27, 2019.

On April 28, 2020, the court dismissed the Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The court further
ordered that plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 29,
2020 and provide the court with a form of the amended complaint
that indicates in what respect(s) it differs from the complaint
which it proposes to amend.

The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.

Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


APPLE INC: To Settle iOS 6 FaceTime Issue, Sept. 3 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple posted a legal report back in February 2017 titled
"Class Action Lawsuit Launched against Apple over Intentionally
Breaking FaceTime on iOS 6." The original lawsuit stated that "This
is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated who owned an Apple iPhone
4 or iPhone 4S that was operating on iOS 6 or an earlier operating
system, and therefore lost the ability to use Apple's 'FaceTime'
video conferencing feature when Apple intentionally broke FaceTime
for iOS 6 and earlier operating systems on April 16, 2014." It was
learned that Apple decided to settle the case. The parties will go
before Judge Lucy Koh on
September 3, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.  

The settlement involves approximately 3.6 million devices. The
Summary of Settlement states that it provides relief for the
following Class Members:

"All owners of non-jailbreak Apple iPhone 4 or 4S devices who on
April 16, 2014, had iOS or earlier operating systems on their
iPhone 4 or 4S devices, and who were in California at the time."

The Net Settlement Fund will receive $18 million which is to be
divided evenly to all 3.6 million devices in the case less the
costs of notice and administering the settlement funds, attorney
fees and expense reimbursement to Class Counsel, and any incentive
awards to the Class Representatives, as ordered by the court.

The settlement also notes that payment will only apply to a little
over 90% of the Settlement Class Members which would strongly
suggest that 7 or 8% of those listed in the Class Action owned
Jailbroken iPhones which eliminates them from the final
settlement.

The ones who originally filed the Class Action, Christina Grace and
Ken Potter, will receive up to $7,500 each for a total of $15,000
for "incentive awards."

The Attorney fees are unknown but are likely to be steep, so the
rest of those in lawsuit will only receive a few dollars each
which, in my opinion is a joke, considering the payout is only to
Californians. It's a great deal for Apple.   

With this settlement, Apple may be forced to settle with a Florida
case on the same FaceTime issue filed on August 28, 2019 by Austin
Belanger. At present there's no official settlement news on this
case. [GN]


APYX MEDICAL: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Apyx Medical Corporation (formerly Bovie Medical) (NASDAQ: APYX)
against certain of its officers and directors.

In 2019, a Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of
those who purchased securities of Apyx between August 1, 2018
through April 1, 2019.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) the clinical study on the use of J-Plasma, a plasma-based
surgical product for cutting, coagulation, and ablation of soft
tissue, for dermal resurfacing had not met its primary efficacy
endpoint; (2) the clinical study did not support Apyx's application
for regulatory clearance; (3) Apyx was unlikely to receive
regulatory approval of J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
Apyx's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

If you are a long-term shareholder of Apyx, currently holding
shares purchased before August 1, 2018, you may have standing to
hold Apyx harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and
directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You
may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.  [click here to join this
action] There is no cost or obligation to you.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact Lead Analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

Johnson Fistel, LLP, is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.

Contact:

          Johnson Fistel, LLP
          Jim Baker
          Tel: 619-814-4471
          E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com
          http://www.johnsonfistel.com/
[GN]



ATRIA SENIOR: Buchanan Files Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atria Senior Living
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mary Buchanan, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Atria Senior Living Inc., Atria
Management Company, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00279232-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 21, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment."

Atria Senior Living is a privately held, for-profit senior housing
company based in Louisville, Kentucky. The Company operates more
than 205 communities in 26 states and seven Canadian provinces.

The Plaintiff is represented by Blake Jones, Esq.[BN]



AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Sea Land Air Travel Files Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jameson Cook, writing for Macomb Daily, reports that travel agent
Deborah Viant believes her Macomb County company may lose nearly a
full year of revenue due to the COVID-19 crisis.

"The impact on our business is huge," Viant said. "We have no
income coming in."

Viant, co-owner of Shelby Travel in Shelby Township, said her
company typically earns a $60,000 profit on $3 million in bookings
each year. But revenues for 2020 are near zero as bookings came to
a screeching halt around Feb. 1 as the public started to realize
the coronavirus impact.

She currently is not accepting reservations and not operating other
than providing refunds to customers who cancelled because of the
virus.

"We're waiting to until June and July to see" if the pandemic
subsides and people start traveling again across the country and
world again, she said.

But Viant said she is "gun shy." She said she believes it may be
November until she sees a substantial uptick in business - bookings
for spring break 2021.

The loss of revenue has been a hardship and she has been tapping
into rainy day funds. She expects the company, formed in 1978, will
survive.

"We're hanging in there," Viant said. "I believe the industry will
come back. It's just a matter of when."

She said her company was rejected for the federal Payroll
Protection Program in the first round and applied for the second
round but is not hopeful about getting help.

A study by the U.S. Travel Association and Oxford Economics
indicated the U.S. is forecast to suffer a $519 billion decline in
direct travel expenditures translating into a $1.2 trillion loss in
economic output, due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to an
April 21 report on statista.com. Travel industry revenue is
expected to fall 81 percent over the next two months while it is
forecast to decline 45 percent over the year.

Leslie Roberts, owner of Travel Leaders agency in Clinton Township,
said she lost $11,000 in profits in April after also suffering
losses in March. May and June revenues are looking abysmal, and she
is hoping for some resumption in July and August.

Viant and Roberts both said they were denied business-interruption
claims by their insurance companies. Roberts said she was denied
despite "virus coverage" in her policy.

"They still found a way to deny me," she said. "I feel they're
finding a loophole somehow."

Viant said she doesn't wish to pursue legal action, but Roberts
said she has talked to a lawyer and is looking to sue her insurance
company.

Sea Land Air Travel Service Inc., a Paw Paw, Mich. travel agency,
took legal action as it filed a class-action lawsuit May 1 against
its insurance company, Auto-Owners Insurance, in Wayne County
Circuit Court in Detroit via a Clinton Township law firm.

Attorneys hope other businesses join the class-action claim.

"People paid these premiums for so many years and now aren't
getting anything back when they need it," said Robert Kirk of Kirk,
Huth, Lange and Badalamenti.

The firm is working with a law firm that has offices in Chicago and
San Francisco.

"This is an issue facing a huge variety of businesses all across
Michigan, and all across the country," Chris Dore, attorney for the
Edelson law firm, said via email. "Businesses have paid for this
insurance for years and were relying on it should a crisis like
this arise. We intend to prove that these claims were wrongfully
denied and look forward to presenting that issue to a jury."

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Illinois, Wisconsin and
Pennsylvania against various insurance companies, and there are
more to come throughout the country, he said.

"We have been contacted by hundreds of businesses and are contacted
by more each day," Dore said.

The plaintiffs allege Auto-Owners has rejected claims for "most, if
not all, Michigan businesses that have claimed business
interruption losses and/or extra expense under the special property
coverage form or BI/EE (Business Income and Extra Expense)
endorsement" related to COVID-19.

Regarding Sea Land Air Travel's claim, the insurance company
rejected it because its losses were not due to a "direct physical
loss of or damage to property," the lawsuit says. "Defendant also
instructed insurance brokers to discourage policy holders from
filing claims and promulgated the false conclusion that no coverage
was available."

Auto-Owners blamed the government for causing the loss of business,
the filing asserts.

"Defendant purposefully mischaracterized Plaintiff's claim as 'the
result of governmental action in response to the COVID-19 crisis'
which, according to Defendants, is 'expressly excluded by policy
language,'" the lawsuit asserts.

The lawsuit contends the claim is not excluded. The policy did
include a "communicable diseases exclusion for its business
liability and medical expenses coverage but did not apply that
exclusion to its special property coverage form," the lawsuit
says.

The lawsuit alleges Auto-Owners was attempting to limits its
"exposure" based on an "erroneous assertion."

"Defendant's denial appeared to be driven by Defendant's desire to
reduce or extinguish its own financial exposure to the economic
fallout caused by the COVID-19 crisis," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit accuses Auto-Owners of failing to complete a
"meaningful investigation" into whether the policy provided
coverage.

Matt Headqist, spokesman for Auto-Owners, said on May 6: "We will
address each claim as presented and appropriately respond to the
parties involved."

The claim was denied April 3, the lawsuit says. It points to a
ruling in its favor by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which
determined the coronavirus pandemic "constitutes a 'natural
disaster,' namely because, like other identified natural disasters,
it involves 'substantial damage to property, hardship, suffering or
possible loss of life.'"

The lawsuit lists 11 instances in which a state or large-city
government issued orders that indicate the coronavirus was causing
"physical" damage and losses.

In Michigan, closure orders were issued "'to suppress the spread of
COVID-19' and acknowledged the 'widespread and severe health,
economic and social harms posed by the COVID-19 pandemic," the
lawsuit says. "The closure orders … called the virus 'aggressive
and persistent' and that it could not be sufficiently remediated
with frequent cleaning. The closure orders were issued in direct
response to these existing dangerous physical conditions in
business," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit points out the coronavirus can remain present at a
location for up to 28 days, although it also quotes two studies
saying the virus can remain on surfaces for lesser amounts of time,
up three days and up to nine days.

The plaintiff believes "COVID-19 particles have been physically
present at or around Plaintiff's insured premises -- both airborne
and on surfaces and items of property at or around Plaintiff's
premises -- during the time the policy was in effect and remained
physically present for up to 28 days," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit notes "human interaction is critical" for the business,
"where the majority of Plaintiff's clients seek out Plaintiff's
services because they provide a personal travel planning
experience."

The company adds in the lawsuit it "did not expect to be swindled"
by the insurance company and expected to be covered.

Dore said he did not wish to divulge how much the company has lost.
The claim must exceed $25,000 to be filed in circuit court.

The family business was founded in 1961.

"This pandemic has hit them hard, just as it has for thousands of
businesses nationwide," he said. "They have had to shut their doors
completely, which is tremendously difficult for a business that has
built an excellent reputation based on its in-person service."
[GN]


BAIDU INC: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

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

iQIYI, Inc. (IQ)
Class Period: 3/29/2018 - 4/7/2020 or securities issued either in
or after the March 2018 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 15, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-iqiyi-inc-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

Baidu, Inc. (BIDU)
Class Period: 3/16/2019 - 4/7/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 22, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-baidu-inc-securities-litigation

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

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Refuses to Pay PPP Loans' Agent Fees, Panda Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PANDA GROUP, PC d/b/a PANDA ACCOUNTING, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated businesses and individuals v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., CHASE BANK USA, N.A., MOUNTAIN
AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION d/b/a MOUNTAIN AMERICA CREDIT UNION,
AND UNIVERSITY FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION d/b/a UNIVERSITY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:20-cv-00045-DN (D. Utah, May 11, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants did not comply with the Small Business
Administration Regulations in distributing Paycheck Protection
Program funds, and failed and refused to pay agent fees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants as Lenders under the
PPP, and without any legal authority under the SBA Regulations or
otherwise, refused and continue to refuse to pay Agents, like the
Plaintiff, the required statutory Agent Fees from the fees they
obtained from the Government despite demand, or repudiated the
Agent's role and refused to pay the required Agent Fees as a
general policy.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class has suffered financial harm by being deprived of the
statutorily mandated compensation for the professional services
that it provided in connection with assisting its clients in
applying for and obtaining PPP loans, and by being denied by the
Defendants just compensation for playing the important role of
Agent in the PPP process on behalf of the intended beneficiaries of
the program, the small business owner, the lawsuit adds.

On January 21, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
confirmed the first U.S. case of COVID-19. On January 30, 2020, the
World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a
"public health emergency of international concern." On March 11,
2020, the WHO declared that the spread of COVID-19 had become a
pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump issued the
COVID-19 Emergency Declaration.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). As part of the
CARES Act, the Federal Government created the $349 billion PPP for
small businesses providing funds for loans to be originated from
February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020.

Panda specializes in providing accounting and related consulting
services to small and midsize businesses.

BofA is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services company. Chase Bank is a Delaware corporation and
federally-chartered bank. MACU and UFCU are Utah not-for-profit
corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley R. Helsten, Esq.
          Michael S. Popok, Esq.
          Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq.
          ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & HELSTEN, LLC
          2061 E. Murray Holladay Rd.
          Salt Lake City, UT 84117
          Telephone: (801) 478-5899
          Facsimile: (801) 401-7228

               - and -

          Mark Geragos, Esq.
          Ben Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, No. 102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834

               - and -

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          177 Post St., Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593


BARCO INDUSTRIES: Underpays Manual Laborers, Cryer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MERLIN CRYER, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARCO INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00556 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from February 2018 to August
2018 as a pump specialist to perform manual labor work in the
oilfield.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members worked for Defendant as pump specialists and field
supervisors over the past three years throughout Texas, and were
required by Defendant to regularly work 12 or more hours in a day
or more than 80 hours in a week. But, Defendant denied them of
overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
under the hourly system for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members seek to recover all their
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and/or penalty
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

Barco Industries, LLC is an oilfield service company providing high
pressure pumping. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


BED BATH & BEYOND: Klein Law Firm Notes of June 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY).
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)
Class Period: October 2, 2019 to February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020

According to the complaint, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) due to "aggressive disposition of inventory,"
the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key categories to
support holiday sales; (2) the Company's internal control over
inventory levels and financial reporting was not effective; (3) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience
reduced sales; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Learn about your recoverable losses in BBBY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-submission-form?id=6067&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

           J. Klein, Esq.
           Empire State Building
           350 Fifth Avenue
           59th Floor
           New York, NY 10118
           E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
           Tel: (212) 616-4899
           Fax: (347) 558-9665
           Web site: www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]



BED BATH & BEYOND: Vincent Wong Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Bed Bath & Beyond
Inc.  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6069&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
Class Period: October 2, 2019 to February 11, 2020

Allegations against BBBY include that: (1) due to "aggressive
disposition of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory
in key categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's
internal control over inventory levels and financial reporting was
not effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]

BENEFIT COSMETICS: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benefit Cosmetics
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Sondra Hernandez, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Benefit Cosmetics LLC and Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00278210-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., May 6, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Benefit Cosmetics is a manufacturer of cosmetics founded and
headquartered in San Francisco, California, selling at over 2,000
counters in more than 30 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito St.
          200, Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


BETTY LOU'S: Protein Shake Has Misleading Label, Mercado Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIELA MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BETTY LOU'S, INC. and CVS PHARMACY, INC., and DOE INC.
1 to 5, Case No. 1:20-cv-01220 (D. Colo., May 11, 2020), alleges
that Betty Lou's markets its "Protein Shake" product in a
systematically misleading manner, by misrepresenting that the
Product has specific amounts of protein that it does not in fact
contain.

To further encourage sales of the Product and to conceal the
misrepresentations, the Defendant offers the Product in diverse
flavors, such as Vanilla, Orange Cream, and Chocolate, along with
statements such as the Product is "delicious" and has "high-quality
milk and rice proteins, digestive enzymes, probiotics, fiber, and
an energizing vitamin & mineral blend," says the complaint.

Because the sales of Defendant Betty Lou's are driven by consumers
seeking protein supplementation, Defendant Betty Lou's prominently
displays on the front of the Product that it is a "PROTEIN SHAKE,"
and on the back of each Product's label Defendant Betty Lou's
states definitively and unequivocally under "Nutrition Facts" that
each serving of the Product contains 20g of protein, the Plaintiff
asserts.

The Plaintiff contends that the Product provided less actual
protein than the amount of protein that was stated on the nutrition
label, and contained virtually no Free Amino Acids. Accordingly,
the Product label was misleading, inaccurate, and false, the
Plaintiff adds.

Betty Lou's formulates, manufactures, advertises and sells the
"Protein Shake" in various flavors throughout the United States,
including in the District of Columbia. Defendant CVS and the Doe
Defendants are corporate entities that have chosen to enable Betty
Lou's Misrepresentations for the sake of increasing the profits of
these corporate entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohaimina Haque, Esq.
          J. Nelson Happy, Esq.
          1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-355-6384
          E-mail: mina@attorneymina.com


BLUE CROSS: Judge Recommends Allowing ERISA Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida magistrate judge has recommended
allowing the bulk of an ERISA suit against Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Florida Inc. and New Directions Behavioral Health LLC to
proceed, although he expressed reservations about the plaintiff's
ability to represent the proposed class in her case over New
Directions' guidelines for covering residential treatment. [GN]



BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Early 2021 Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger is set for trial in
early 2021.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company,
Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk
Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding
the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the
issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already
owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement).

Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement.

On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase of the
Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the
Court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion
and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case
proceeding to trial.

The case has been set for trial in early 2021.

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

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Tran Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------
VENUS TRAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-03088
(N.D. Cal., May 5, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff is a graduate student at Defendant's Medical Sciences
program and paid more than $28,000 in tuition and other mandatory
fees, including Student Services fees and Health & Wellness fees,
for the Spring Term which began on or about January 21, 2020.

According to the complaint, Defendant announced via news release on
March 17, 2020 that all in-person classes would be suspended
effective immediately because of the COVID-19 pandemic and all
classes will be held remotely through online formats. Consequently,
Plaintiff and the putative class demanded a refund of all tuition
and fees for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that
Defendant has failed to provide as a result of the closure.

The complaint asserts that Defendant has failed to provide the
contracted for services and has voluntarily and retained monies
paid by Plaintiff and the Class without providing them the benefit
of their bargain.

Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass claim that they
have suffered damage as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach and demand that Defendant should return the
pro-rated portion of any Spring Term tuition and fees for education
services not provided.

Boston University is a large private university in Los Angeles,
California with an enrollment of approximately 34,657
students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


BRANDYWINE UROLOGY: Faces Abernathy Suit Over Ransomware Attack
---------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA ABERNATHY, FLINT DELONG, TINA MURPHY, and JEFFREY WASKO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
BRANDYWINE UROLOGY CONSULTANTS, P.A., Case No. N20C-05-057 PRW CCLD
(Del. Super., New Castle Cty., May 6, 2020), arises out of the
recent ransomware attack at Brandywine's medical facilities that
disrupted operations by blocking access to Brandywine's computer
systems and data, including the highly sensitive patient medical
records of thousands of patients.

As a result of the ransomware attack, the Plaintiffs and Class
Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of disruption of
medical services, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs contend that their and Class Members' sensitive
personal information--which was entrusted to Brandywine--was
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Ransomware Attack.
Information compromised in the Ransomware Attack includes names,
addresses, Social Security numbers, medical file numbers, claims
data, other financial and personal data, other protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, and additional personally identifiable
information and protected health information that the Defendant
collected and maintained, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to address the
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to them and other Class Members that their information had been
subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and
precisely what specific type of information was accessed.

The Defendant was established in 1987 and has been serving the
urology needs of patients in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey ever since.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared T. Green, Esq.
          SEITZ, VAN OGTROP & GREEN, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-7606
          E-mail: jtgreen@svglaw.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202 640 1160
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dlietz@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 208-4585
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com


BRUNOINC: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Gonzales et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO GONZALES and MARCOS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRUNOINC D/B/A
METROWIDE APARTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01380 (E.D.
La., May 6, 2020) is collective action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as maintenance workers,
housekeeping workers, temporary labor staffers, and other
non-management operations staff at Defendant's sites in and around
New Orleans Louisiana.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees
and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But Defendant
never paid them an overtime rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

The complaint alleges that Defendant have willfully and improperly
applied the same unlawful pay practice to many other non-exempt
employees.

Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
ppre-judgment interest and/or post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the litigation process.

BrunoInc d/b/a MetroWide Apartments, LLC specializes in development
and management of multi-family and commercial properties in the New
Orleans metro area and provides a variety of services to its
customers in the New Orleans area. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cesar R. Burgos, Esq.
          Robert J. Daigre, Esq.
          Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
          George McGregor, Esq.
          Leila M. Bonilla, Esq.
          BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3535 Canal Street, Suite 2100
          New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
          Tel: (504)488-3722
          Fax: (504)482-8525
          Website: http://www.burgoslawfirm.com/contact/


CALIFORNIA: Denies Right to Vote in Spring Election, Fugazi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA FUGAZI; ALEX GONZALEZ; ANNETTE ZIMMER; FRANCISCO MACIAS;
JAMAR C. BERRY; JO A. LAING; BENJAMIN R. HERRERA; DIVINE JANE
LEANOS; ELIZABETH LAWRENCE WHITE; MARC LAWRENCE WHITE; KALANI
MARSHALL BLACK; TARKDEEP SINGH; TOOBA NAVEED; VALDOMERO LOPEZ v.
ALEX PADILLA, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for
the State of California; MELINDA DUBROFF, in her official capacity
of the San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters, and DOES 1 through
50, Case No. 2:20-at-00467 (E.D. Cal., May 12, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' denial of certain of the Plaintiffs' right to vote
in the March 3, 2020 California Presidential Primary and Spring
Election under the United States Constitution and federal statutory
law.

This action seeks remedial and prospective injunctive relief
related to the March 3, 2020 California Presidential Primary and
ongoing recount in San Joaquin County. The Plaintiffs contend that
despite a worldwide pandemic involving COVID-19 that to date has
infected more than 4.2 million people and killed approximately
283,850 individuals worldwide, Defendant Melinda Dubroff chose
politics over the interests of San Joaquin County citizens in an
intentional and self-serving certification of an election that
disenfranchised numerous voters in the Presidential Primary
Election.

California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican border
along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen Sawyer, Esq.
          ROSENFELD & SAWYER
          4578 Feather River Drive, Ste. D
          Stockton, CA 95219
          Telephone: (209) 645-0556

               - and -

          Charles L. Hastings, Esq.
          Natali A. Ron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HASTINGS & RON
          4568 Feather River Dr., Ste. A
          Stockton, CA 95219
          Telephone: (209) 476-1010


CAPITAL ONE: Figueroa Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACOB FIGUEROA AND MARY
JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-00692-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 8, 2020 for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the class action
      settlement reached by the parties; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
      approval of class settlement and for certification of the
      settlement class.

Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the
United States.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 762 1900
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekim@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gore Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: 202.350.4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

CENGAGE LEARNING: Cabral Sues Over Supracompetitive Book Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CABRAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., MCGRAW HILL, LLC (f/k/a
MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS LLC); PEARSON EDUCATION, INC;
and EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT GROUP, Case No.
1:20-cv-03660 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2020), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful trade restrain resulting in supracompetitive
prices for course materials, in violation of federal antitrust
laws.

The Plaintiff contends that these actions have been ongoing since
at least January 1, 2016, and continue through the present.

In response to the growing accessibility of the secondary market
due to both the availability of online textbook copies and larger
repositories for used books, such as Amazon, which began to temper
the Publisher Defendants' enormous profits, the Publisher
Defendants, along with EPEG--the organization they formed to combat
the secondary market sales--spearheaded a "digital first" movement,
transitioning students from physical textbooks to online services.
This movement is epitomized by their "Inclusive Access" agreements,
the complaint says.

"Inclusive Access" requires Class Members to purchase access codes
to use Course Materials on a proprietary platform. Although the
Defendants are required to allow students to opt out from Inclusive
Access, they have intentionally made the process confusing,
misleading, or outright impossible, such that opt-out rates are
extremely low and he and the members of the putative classes are de
facto locked into using Inclusive Access, the Plaintiff alleges.

Cengage is an educational content, technology, and services company
for the higher education, K-12, professional, and library markets.
Cengage operates in more than 20 countries around the world.

McGraw-Hill is a learning science company and one of the "big
three" educational publishers that provides customized educational
content. Pearson Education provides education services. Pearson
Education publishes educational, technical, and professional
materials, textbooks, digital on-line and educator professional
development courses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fatima G. Brizuela, Esq.
          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          101 West Broadway, Suite 820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: brizuela@hartleyllp.com
                  hartley@hartleyllp.com
                  lindner@hartleyllp.com


CHINA: Small Businesses in Calif. File Class Action Over COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Llamas, writing for Drugwatch, reports that on April 9,
small businesses in California filed a class action suit against
the People's Republic of China and other Chinese government
entities on behalf of 32 million small businesses in the United
States.

"According to scientists almost 99 percent of the world's
infections could have been avoided if the defendants had acted
properly in early December 2019," plaintiffs said.

According to the suit, the Chinese government "engaged in a
campaign of falsehoods, misinformation, cover-up and destruction of
evidence." No evidence of this claim is provided in the complaint.


In another suit filed on the same day in Florida, a group of
medical professionals accused China of hoarding personal protection
equipment (PPE) and withholding it from the United States.

"On the front line of our nation's response to the effects of this
deadly pandemic are the nearly 4,000,000 doctors, nurses, medical
technicians, paramedics, and EMTs who are faced with severe
shortages of PPE," plaintiffs said in their complaint. "These
shortages can be directly traced to the actions of Defendants."

At the time of the complaint, two of the plaintiffs had tested
positive for COVID-19 and others were awaiting test results. The
health care workers are seeking compensatory and other damages for
class members. [GN]


CIT GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 22
------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a final approval
hearing is currently scheduled for July 22, 2020, in the class
action settlement related to Hawaiian foreclosure claims.   

Based on recent rulings of the Hawaii Supreme Court, 43 individual
lawsuits were filed against CIT in Hawaii alleging technical
violations in non-judicial foreclosures. Similar cases have been
filed against other mortgage lenders in Hawaii.

The Hawaii Supreme Court did not establish a clear methodology for
calculating alleged damages if a violation is proven and there is
substantial dispute in this regard. In many instances the borrower
had no equity in the home at the time of foreclosure.

Damages sought in these cases include any lost equity, compensation
for loss of use of the house and, in some cases, treble or punitive
damages under Hawaii's unfair practices law.

The Company has settled all of the individual lawsuits alleging
foreclosure violations. In addition to the individual lawsuits,
plaintiffs' counsel filed six putative class actions alleging the
same foreclosure defects violate Hawaii's unfair and deceptive acts
and practices statute. The Company was not named as a defendant in
any of the class actions, but serviced loans at the time of
foreclosure on behalf of various securitization trusts.

In November 2019, the Company signed a class settlement agreement
to resolve the claims of the putative class members in the class
actions for approximately $9.25 million.

In order to effectuate the settlement, a new class action was filed
against the Company on February 7, 2020, and concurrently
plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of
the settlement.

The court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement after a hearing on March 19, 2020. The final approval
hearing is currently scheduled for July 22, 2020.  

CIT said, "Based on existing reserves, CIT does not expect the
settlement will have a material impact."

CIT Group Inc. operates as the holding company for CIT Bank, N.A.
that provides banking and related services to commercial and
individual customers. The company operates through Commercial
Banking and Consumer Banking segments. The Company was founded in
1908 and is based in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Accord in GSE Bond Antitrust Suit Wins Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in the case, IN RE GSE
BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the trial court has granted preliminary
approval of a settlement with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI)
and 11 other defendants.

The ruling was entered on February 3, 2020.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Govt. Bonds Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in the case, IN RE
MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Citibanamex and
other defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Defendants made the request on February 21, 2020.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Wins Dismissal of SSA Bond Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in the case, IN RE SSA
BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, a trial court has granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action
complaint related to the supranational, subsovereign, and agency
(SSA) bond market with prejudice.  The ruling was entered  on March
25, 2020.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CONNECTICUT: Class Action v. DOC Over COVID-19 Outbreak Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Lessard, writing for FOX61, reports that a federal judge
allowed a class-action lawsuit seeking to protect incarcerated
people from the COVID-19 to proceed.

"Time is a luxury that incarcerated people do not have during this
pandemic, as the DOC's response to COVID-19 has placed people in
prisons and jails in grave, imminent danger. We are grateful that
the federal court has swiftly rejected the State of Connecticut's
procedural shell game and will allow people who are incarcerated to
have their day in court," said Elana Bildner, staff attorney for
the ACLU of Connecticut and an attorney on the case.

The ACLU of Connecticut is joined in representing the incarcerated
people are Brandon Buskey from the national ACLU's Criminal Law
Reform Project, and Dechert LLP attorneys Will Sachse, Jonathan
Tam, Jenna Newmark, and Gabrielle Piper from the firm's
Philadelphia, New York, and San Francisco offices.

In March, the DOC released 569 individuals. Governor Lamont says he
wants to prioritize those considered to be high-risk for the virus.
As on March 6, Connecticut's prison population is down by 1,609
inmates.

It was announced on May 5 that six inmates have died due to
COVID-19. [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Gottlieb, Chand Sue Over Voting Rules Amid COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY GOTTLIEB AND LORNA CHAND, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, & DENISE MERRILL, SECRETARY OF THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00623-JCH (D. Conn.,
May 6, 2020) is a civil rights action challenging Connecticut state
law requirements to (1) collect in-person signatures to access the
ballot for the August 11, 2020 primary election; and (2) use
in-person ballots for the August 11 primary and the November 3
general elections, with few exceptions that exclude Plaintiffs and
thousands of other voters.

The Plaintiffs, for themselves and a class of all Connecticut
voters whose rights are at risk, seek a declaratory judgment that
those requirements violate the Constitution of the United States,
especially given COVID-19, and seek injunctive relief should
Defendants fail to remedy the alleged constitutional violations
promptly.

According to the complaint, unless remedied, Plaintiffs and
thousands of Connecticut voters will have their choice of primary
candidate unduly and unjustifiably restricted by Connecticut’s
Ballot Access Laws, infra pp. 4-6, which can require thousands of
signatures on paper petitions for candidates to access the ballot.

Connecticut's Absentee Ballot Laws, infra p. 6, will give
Plaintiffs and thousands of Connecticut voters a stark choice in
the primary and general elections: either risk infection from a
dangerous disease by voting in person; vote by mail utilizing the
excuses provided for under state law and risk criminal prosecution
for false statement; or be disenfranchised.

Plaintiffs as Connecticut voters thus file this suit to force
action at the earliest possible time as recent events in Wisconsin
demonstrate the disarray and voter confusion that results from
inadequately planned elections held during a pandemic.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander T. Taubes, Esq.
          470 James Street, Suite 007
          New Haven, CT 06513
          Telephone: (203) 909-0048
          Email: alextt@gmail.com

CONTRACT CALLERS: Christie Sues in Texas Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contract Callers
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Christie, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Contract Callers
Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-00518-P (N.D. Tex., May 21,
2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Contract Callers Inc. provides commercial services. The Company
offers customer assistance programs, accounts receivable
management, bad debt and field collections, meter reading, storm
support, and call center services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nayeem Nur Mohammed, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM NUR MOHAMMED
          539 W. Commerce St., #1899
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Phone: (936) 718-7467
          Email: Nayeem@nnmpc.com

               - and -

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the lead
plaintiff in the class action suit initiated by Nicholas Melucci
has filed an amended complaint.

On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).

The complaint named the company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about our business,
operations, and prospects.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.

On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff/s consolidated complaint was filed on
December 6, 2019.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January
27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to dismiss, on
March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Corcept said, "We will respond to this amended complaint vigorously
but cannot predict the outcome of this matter."

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.


CORELOGIC RENTAL: Brown Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corelogic Rental
Property Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Terry Brown, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Corelogic
Rental Property Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00363-REP (E.D.
Va., May 21, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions is used by single and
multifamily housing property operators to improve fee income,
reduce bad debt and mitigate risk through resident screening and
renters insurance solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7576
          Fax: (703) 591-0167
          Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 kkelly@kellyguzzo.com


CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Yellowdog
Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt,
William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No.
18-2662.

On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming
Doug Rippel, Chad Faulkner, Mike McKnight, Friedman Fleischer &
Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL Executive Partners II, L.P.,
and FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P. as additional defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and that certain defendants
also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "control
persons" of CURO.

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period,
the Company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian
inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans.
Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price
high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

CURO said, "While the Company is vigorously contesting this
lawsuit, it cannot determine the final resolution or when it might
be resolved. In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this
litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an
adverse ruling, management's efforts and attention may be diverted
from the ordinary business operations to address these claims.
Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a material
adverse impact on results because of defense costs, including costs
related to indemnification obligations, diversion of resources and
other factors."

CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


D & BRADSTREET: Faces Knudsen Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & Bradstreet Inc.
The case is captioned as Austin Knudsen and all persons similarly
situated v. D & Bradstreet Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2020-00277776-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 6,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com


DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 24, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the purported class action suit initiated by a former company
employee.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.

Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims.


Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes could
prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential
assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are
inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict
the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter.

However, based on management's current understanding of the
relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that
these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and
should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows.

Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of
March 24, 2020.

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

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.


DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Refuses COVID-19 Tuition Refunds, Chavez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Chavez and Emma Sheikh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DePaul University and Board of
Trustees of DePaul University, Case No. 1:20-cv-02865 (N.D. Ill.,
May 12, 2020), is brought by the Plaintiffs and other graduate and
undergraduate students of DePaul University, who paid in full for
their tuition charges for the Spring 2020 academic Quarter, Summer
2020 Term, and/or Summer 2020 Sessions.

These students have not been refunded or reimbursed a pro-rated
portion of the tuition expenses for the educational and other
services they did not and will not receive after they were forced
to leave campus when DePaul University abruptly closed its doors to
students due to COVID-19, says the complaint.

According to Forbes, DePaul University is expected to receive at
least $14 million in relief from the federal government as part of
the federal stimulus bill designed to ease the impact of COVID-19.
This means that DePaul University will receive the tenth-largest
sum of federal aid among private, non-profit institutions.

The Plaintiffs contend that despite receiving this influx of
federal funds, the Defendants refuse to refund or reimburse them
and similarly situated DePaul University students for tuition for
online classes that DePaul is currently offering to them that are
substantially less valuable than the in-person classes for which
the students enrolled.

On March 11, 2020, DePaul announced its intention to suspend all
in-person final exams for the Winter 2020 Quarter, cancel or
postpone all University-sponsored events, and, "whenever possible,"
deliver all classes remotely during the Spring 2020 Quarter and,
for the law school, the remainder of Spring 2020 Semester.

DePaul is the nation's largest Catholic university and the
thirteenth largest private university in the U.S. DePaul' budget
for the 2019 to 2020 academic year is $568 million. As of 2019,
DePaul had a $696.5 million endowment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. Schwartz, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: rschwartz@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  enoteware@bm.net
                  jripley@bm.net
                  emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

               - and -

          Amit Bindra, Esq.
          Kristen Prinz, Esq.
          THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          One East Wacker, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 212-4450
          Facsimile: (312) 284-4822
          E-mail: abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com
                  kprinz@prinz-lawfirm.com


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Refuses COVID-19 Ticket Refunds, Maree Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARLA MAREE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AG, Case No. 8:20-cv-00885 (C.D. Cal., May
12, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to provide full
refunds to customers whose flights were canceled as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The United States Department of Transportation has issued an
Enforcement Notice clarifying, in the context of the COVID-19
public health emergency, that U.S. and foreign airlines remain
obligated to provide a prompt refund to passengers for flights to,
within, or from the United States when the carrier cancels the
passenger's scheduled flight or makes a significant schedule change
and the passenger chooses not to accept the alternative offered by
the carrier.

Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Defendant has canceled a
vast percentage of its international and United States flights.
However, Defendant has, to date, refused to issue refunds for
flights that the Defendant canceled, says the complaint.

Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany and the second-largest
airline in Europe in terms of passengers carried. In 2019,
Lufthansa carried over 12 million passengers in the Americas.
Lufthansa's business was disrupted as a result of
government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the
coronavirus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com


DHPARTNERS INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Reeves Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
KEITH REEVES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DHPARTNERS, INC. d/b/a DIRECT HIT LOGISTICS,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01047-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2020)
is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant since approximately May 21,
2018 through the present as a driver delivering goods to customers
in Florida.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other class members
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks.
Allegedly, Defendant would automatically deduct one hour of pay
from them for one or more automatic meal break(s), although they
did not actually take meal breaks.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
the class members overtime and maintain accurate records of their
work hours in accordance with the law.

Plaintiff and the class members seek all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs.

DHPartners, Inc. d/b/a Direct Hit Logistics operates a carrier and
logistics business and among other activities, provides trucks
and/or drivers to deliver goods to customers in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Tel: (866)344-9243
          Fax: (954)337-2771
          Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Students File Class Action in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Miller, writing for PhillyVoice, reports that a Drexel
University student is suing the university for a refund of his
tuition and other fees because the college abruptly shutdown due to
the coronavirus pandemic.

Grainger Rickenbaker, 20, and a member of Drexel's ice hockey team,
filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and fellow
classmates earlier this month, Law360 reported. The suit was filed
in federal court in Rickenbaker's home state of South Carolina, and
in addition to tuition, it seeks reimbursement for fees going
towards school services that he and his fellow students no longer
have access to.

The class action suit was filed along with another by a University
of Miami undergrad, Adelaide Dixon. That lawsuit also was filed in
South Carolina and Dixon and Rickenbaker are each represented by
the same South Carolina law firm.

Tuition for undergraduate students is about $51,930 at the
University of Miami and about $54,516 at Drexel.

Although Drexel is still conducting online classes, the
student'slawsuit against the university argues that depriving
students of face-to-face interactions with professors, access to
campus facilities, as well as activities, athletics, and more
justifies a refund in the tuition for the Spring 2020 semester.
Activities and athletic fees are often automatically added to
college tuition in the form of mandatory fees, which the plaintiffs
want back.

There are about 13,490 undergrads at Drexel, and about 11,117 at
the University of Miami. Dixon and Rickenbaker say their class
action suits are on behalf of these large student bodies.

The lawsuits argue that the quality of pass/fail online classes is
not the equivalent of the instruction the students would be
receiving in-person.  [GN]

EAGLE INSTRUMENTS: Advanced Dermatology Sues over Unsolicited Fax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE INSTRUMENTS, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00988 (N.D. Ohio, May 6, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant sent a two-page facsimile,
consisting of a cover sheet with message and promotional flyer, to
Plaintiff on or about August 5, 2019 in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to become Defendant's customer. Plaintiff did not provide
prior express consent to Defendant to send those facsimile.

Allegedly, Defendant routinely sends its facsimiles to small
businesses, including medical offices, to promote its services.

Plaintiff claims that he was damaged by Defendant's facsimile by
suffering monetary loss due facsimile, incurring the costs of the
use of facsimile paper, ink and toner, loss of employee time to
review the fax, invasion of privacy, nuisance, interruption of
work, and other aggravation.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief prohibiting
Defendant from engaging in the wrongful and unlawful acts, actual
and statutory damages, reasonable litigation expenses and
attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Eagle Instruments, Ltd. provides services and maintenance of
surgical instruments for medical providers nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Tel: (216)502-1055
          Fax: (216)566-9400
          Emails: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


ECLINICAL WORKS: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, writing for JDSupra, reports that on March 27, the
First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action for
lack of Article III standing, rejecting the named plaintiffs'
attempt to allege an informational injury stemming from inaccurate
medical records.

The estates of two deceased individuals filed suit against the
manufacturer of allegedly faulty software used to track medical
records, claiming the manufacturer was liable for failing to
disclose or correct certain software bugs. The estates sought to
represent a class of patients whose medical providers used the
defective software. The putative class included patients who were
not deceased.

While one of the named plaintiffs learned prior to his death that
his health information contained inaccuracies, the other named
plaintiff did not. That plaintiff's primary care physician had
attempted to order a magnetic resonance angiogram, but the order
went unfulfilled due to the alleged software glitches -- resulting
in her brain aneurysm remaining undiagnosed and untreated.

The manufacturer moved to dismiss, arguing that the named
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The estates claimed that
the two deceased patients shared the following concrete injuries
with the putative class: (1) a risk that their doctors would
misdiagnose them or botch their medical treatment based on the
faulty records; and (2) the future out-of-pocket costs necessary to
find and fix the errors. The district court disagreed and dismissed
the case.

On appeal, the First Circuit likewise concluded that the named
plaintiffs had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact
because they passed away before the complaint was filed. As a
result, the named plaintiffs did not face an imminent threat of
injury when the complaint was filed. The court further noted that
the estates could not "drum up standing by claiming [they would]
need to pay money to correct errors no longer relevant to their
care."

The court also rejected the estates' argument that the deceased
plaintiffs suffered an "informational" injury-in-fact by being
unable to rely on their medical records, which were maintained
through the software during their lifetimes. Citing the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the court explained
that the authorities cited by the estates relied on Congress's
power to identify previously inadequate intangible injuries and
protect them with procedural rights by statute. The estates, by
contrast, were not claiming that a statute gave them a right to
have the software manufacturer maintain accurate information about
them and to bring suit if it did not -- in fact, they conceded that
their claims did not involve a new statutory right, but only rights
protected at common law. The court held, however, that the estates
failed to identify a common-law claim that would provide the kind
of informational right that would give rise to a concrete
injury-in-fact.

As a result, the First Circuit held that the estates' claims
concerned "a moot risk of misdiagnosis or mistreatment that no
statute or common-law claim makes suable," and thus affirmed the
district court's dismissal for lack of Article III standing. The
decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to claim
informational injury absent a specific federal statute creating a
right against such injury, and also confirms that named plaintiffs
must be similarly situated to the putative class members they seek
to represent.

The case is Amrhein v. eClinical Works LLC, No. 19-1429 (1st Cir.
2020).  [GN]


EHEALTH INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 6 disclosed that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of eHealth, Inc.
(NASDAQ:EHTH) common stock between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-2395, and is assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar. The eHealth
securities class action lawsuit charges eHealth and certain of its
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased eHealth common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the eHealth securities
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the eHealth securities class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the eHealth securities class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the eHealth
securities class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
eHealth securities class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the eHealth securities class
action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or
contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
eHealth securities class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than June 8, 2020.

eHealth is a health insurance marketplace with a technology and
service platform that provides consumer engagement, education, and
health insurance enrollment solutions.

The eHealth securities class action alleges that during the Class
period, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding eHealth's business and operations, including
information regarding eHealth's highly aggressive accounting and
modeling assumptions, its skyrocketing rate of member churn
resulting from eHealth's pursuit of low quality, loss-making
growth, and its reliance on direct-response television advertising,
which attracts unprofitable, high-churn enrollees. As a result of
defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, the price of eHealth
common stock was artificially inflated to more than $146 per share
during the Class Period.

On April 8, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report stating
that the Company and its management were using highly aggressive
accounting practices designed to conceal the Company's
unprofitability and to make the Company's prospects appear far more
robust than they really were. Muddy Waters wrote that eHealth's
"highly aggressive accounting masks what we believe is a
significantly unprofitable business." The report also stated that
eHealth's "persistence assumptions in its [long-term value ('LTV')]
model seem highly aggressive when compared to reality," that
"[a]fter [Accounting Standards Codification] 606 went into effect,
member churn immediately skyrocketed," and that eHealth "is
pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on
lower churn, pre-growth cohorts." Muddy Waters concluded that "the
key driver of growth since 2018 has been [the Company's] reliance
on Direct Response television advertising, which attracts an
unprofitable, high churn enrollee. To generate this unprofitable
growth, [eHealth] has been incinerating cash, which we expect it to
continue to do until this value destruction slows down or stops.
[eHealth] management is, in our view, running a massive stock
promotion." On this news, the price of eHealth stock fell from an
April 7, 2020 closing price of $116.02 per share to an April 8,
2020 closing price of $103.20 per share, a one-day drop of $12.82
per share, or approximately 12%.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is
one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in
securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins
Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities
Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50
Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount
recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on
behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries
for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys
are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations,
and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. [GN]


ELAP SERVICES: South Broward Hospital Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elap Services, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as South Broward Hospital District, doing
business as: Memorial Healthcare System, on its own behalf and on
behalf of other similarly situated healthcare facilities v. Elap
Services, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; Group &
Pension Administrators, Inc., a Texas corporation; Case No.
0:20-cv-61007-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

ELAP is a healthcare solution provider with 10 years of experience
reducing employer health plan costs with its metric-based pricing
solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danya Pincavage, Esq.
          Douglas Wolfe, Esq.
          Omar Mazien Ali-Shamaa, Esq.
          WOLFE PINCAVAGE, LLP
          2937 SW 27th Avenue, Suite 203
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (786) 409-0800
          Email: danya@wolfepincavage.com
                 doug@wolfepincavage.com
                 Omar@wolfepincavage.com

               - and -

          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Gail Ann McQuilkin, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 728-2959
          Email: tjl@kttlaw.com
                 gam@kttlaw.com


ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Chapman Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD CHAPMAN, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRICAL BUILDERS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 0:20-cv-01087 (D. Minn., May 5, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly rate Project
Manager from August 2018 through May 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members regularly worked over 40 hours in a week. However,
Defendant paid them the same hourly rate for the hours worked over
40 in a work week instead of paying them overtime premiums at a
rate of one and one-half their regular rates for the hours they
work in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

Electrical Builders, Inc. provides high quality industrial,
electrical, and welding services to utilities, power plants,
industrial customers and manufacturers around the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: 612-256-3200
          Fax: 612-338-4878
          Email: fisher@nka.com

                - and -

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


ELLIOTT SECURITY: Class Cert. Filed in Security Guards Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAPHNE FLEMING AND BRINTNEY
JONES v. ELLIOTT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC; IAN KENNARD AND DARRIN
ELLIOTT, SR., Case No. 2:19-cv-02348-GGG-KWR (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective classes:

      Deductions/Kickbacks Class:

      "all persons employed by Defendants as security guards
      since May 2017 who had deductions made from their pay to
      purchase from Defendants certain items such as uniforms,
      equipment and other miscellaneous expenses for the primary
      benefit of Defendants, which resulted in them earning less
      than the federal minimum wage and/or less than the
      mandatory one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
      during weeks when they worked in excess of 40 hours per
      week, in direct violation of the anti-kickback provisions
      of the FLSA";

      Overtime Class:

      "all persons employed by Defendants as security guards
      since May 2017 who were paid at a straight time or flat
      rate of pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per
      week, in direct violation of the FLSA"; and

      Late Payment Class:

      "all persons who worked for Defendants as security guards
      since May 2017 and who received one or more paychecks late
      due to Defendants' failure to pay them timely, but did not
      receive liquidated damages due to Defendants' late
      payment, in direct violation of the FLSA.; and

   2. authorizing notice to allow potential members of the FLSA
      Collective Classes to opt in to preserve their rights.

The Defendants allegedly subject security guards to improper
"kickbacks" when they deducted the cost of uniforms, equipment and
other expenses that were primarily for the benefit of the
Defendants, which reduced the security guard's wages to less than
the federal minimum wage and/or reduced the overtime pay the
Defendants paid to security guards when they worked more than 40
hours per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated security guards who worked for the Defendants
for unpaid wages and liquidated damages wrongfully not paid to them
in violation of the FLSA.

Elliott is doing business in the security guard services
Industry.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

EMCOR FACILITIES: Soto Sues over Background Check, Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMCOR FACILITIES SERVICES, INC. and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04135 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
and California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee in Ventura County, California from approximately June 2018
and February 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendant ran a background check on
Plaintiff and the putative class, without any disclosure or
authorization, on or about February 2019 or eight months after
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, which subsequently terminated
Plaintiff after the result background check result.

The complaint contends that Defendant failed to obtain an
authorization in writing to obtain a credit and background report
for Plaintiff and the class during the course of their employment
as required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii).

Plaintiff and all FCRA Class Members have been injured by having
their privacy and statutory rights invaded, and thus, they seek all
available remedies including statutory and/or actual damages,
punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

EMCOR Facilities Services, Inc. provides staff for the maintenance
of buildings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 877-206-4741
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


ETX ENERGY: Byrd Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Oilfield Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case STEVE BYRD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ETX ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01622
(S.D. Tex., May 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendant fails to pay
overtime to Plaintiff and others similarly situated even though
they work many hours in excess of 40 hours per week that are set
forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant employed Byrd and the Class Members as day rate
oilfield workers to accomplish ETX Energy's core business, which is
drilling wells, like these workers featured prominently on ETX
Energy's website.

ETX Energy, LLC is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma and owns, manages and
operates upstream energy projects in east Texas. ETX is highly
experienced in the application of advanced technologies such as
horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracture stimulation to
maximize the value of U.S. oil reserves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                     - and -

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

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces FCRA Biton Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Bar Biton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Porsche Financial Services,
Inc.; and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-04147-DDP-PJW (C.D.
Cal., May 6, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.

Experian operates as an information services company. The Company
offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing
services. Experian Information Solutions serves clients worldwide.
Porsche Financial offers insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


FAIR ISAAC: Kenmore Sues Over Monopoly, Conspiracy in B2B Credit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENMORE NY TEACHERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIR ISAAC
CORPORATION; EQUIFAX, INC.; EXPERIAN PLC; and TRANSUNION, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02755 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants pursuant to Sections 1, 2, and
3 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, as
well as certain state antitrust and consumer protection laws in the
U.S.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others all
similarly-situated entities in the United States and its
territories, alleges that Fair Isaac has been engaged in
anticompetitive tactics in order to maintain its monopoly of the
B2B Credit Market and the dominance of its FICO credit scores. Fair
Isaac entered into new agreements with three Credit Bureaus,
Equifax, Inc.; Experian PLC; and TransUnion, LLC, which provisions
designed to limit the competitive impact of VantageScore, the
Bureaus' joint venture credit score, by: (a) preventing Credit
Bureaus who sold FICO credit scores along with Fair Isaac from
distributing equivalent products; (b) requiring that when a lender
sought to pre-qualify a customer for credit, Fair Isaac could
charge a multiple of the normal cost of a FICO credit score if the
Credit Bureau provided the customer with any competing credit
score; and (c) requiring Credit Bureaus who offer discounted prices
of credit scores to make them available to Fair Isaac. According to
the complaint, the Credit Bureaus were coerced into accepting these
provisions because of Fair Isaac's market power and the dominance
of the FICO credit scores. That made them co-conspirators with Fair
Isaac. As a result of Fair Isaac's monopolization and Credit
Bureaus' coercion, the Plaintiff and Class members were injured and
suffered damages.

Kenmore NY Teachers Federal Credit Union is a credit union with a
principal place of business at 258 Highland Parkway, Buffalo, New
York.

Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company, with its
principal place of business at 181 Metro Drive, Suite 700, San
Jose, California.

Equifax, Inc. is a Credit Bureau incorporated in Georgia that has
its principal place of business at 1550 Peachtree St. NW, Atlanta,
Georgia.

Experian PLC is a Credit Bureau incorporated in Ireland that has
its principal place of business in the United States at 475 Anton
Blvd., Costa Mesa, California.

TransUnion, LLC is a Delaware limited liability Credit Bureau that
has its principal place of business at 555 W Adams St., Chicago,
Iliinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
         Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
         CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES PC
         120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 899-9090
         Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
         E-mail: rclifford@cliffordlaw.com
                 smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
         Paul Gallagher, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 540-7200
         Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
         E-mail: hscherrer@hausfeld.com
                 pgallagher@hausfeld.com

               - and –
         
         Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
         Christopher Lebsock, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 633-1908
         Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
         E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                 clebsock@hausfeld.com

               - and –
         
         Scott A. Martin, Esq.
         Irving Scher, Esq.
         Jeanette Bayoumi, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (646) 357-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
         E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                 ischer@hausfeld.com
                 jbayoumi@hausfeld.com

               - and –
         
         Arthur Bailey
         RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
         1600 Liberty Building
         424 Main Street
         Buffalo, NY 14202
         Telephone: (716) 664-2967
         Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
         E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com

FAMILY DOLLAR: Phenix FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT PHENIX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES
OF TEXAS and DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., (Filed April 2, 2020), was
removed from the Texas District Court, Dallas County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on May
12, 2020.

The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01214-X to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an American chain of discount variety stores
that sells items for $1 or less.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Bhatti, Esq.
          Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq.
          THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75254
          E-mail: Vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com
                  Ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeremy W. Hawpe, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Suite 1500, Lock Box 116
          Dallas, TX 75201-2931
          Telephone: 214 880 8100
          Facsimile: 214 880 0181
          E-mail: jhawpe@littler.com


FCA US: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Victorino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant FCA US LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Carlos Victorino v. FCA US LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 10,
2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
Defendant's petition for permission to appeal the District Court's
order granting class action certification on Dec. 19, 2019. The
District Court lifts the stay imposed on the case on Nov. 6, 2019.

Accordingly, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel ordered that the counsel to
comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(3). Compliance was supposed to be by Jan. 24, 2020.
Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements could result in
evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Counsel were also to meet and take the action required by Local
Rule 16.1(f)(4) by Jan. 31, 2020. At that meeting, the counsel was
to discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and agreements
resulting in simplification of the triable issues. The counsel was
to exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to
be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in
accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). The counsel shall note
any objections they have to any other parties' Pretrial Disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3).

The counsel for the Plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the
pretrial order and arranging the meetings of the counsel pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f).  By Feb. 7, 2020, the Plaintiff's
counsel was to provide opposing the counsel with the proposed
pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must
communicate promptly with the Plaintiff's attorney concerning any
objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both
parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if
any, concerning the order.

The appellate case is captioned as Carlos Victorino v. FCA US LLC,
Case No. 20-80082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent, CARLOS VICTORINO, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8029
          Email: Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com
                 Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (844) 774-2020
          Email: mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Petitioner FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Kathy Wisniewski, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6354
          Email: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                 kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Hash Balks at $37 Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------
GREGORY HASH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST FINANCIAL BANCORP, FORMERLY
MAINSOURCE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01321 (S.D. Ind., May
6, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself
and a class of all similarly situated Hoosiers against Defendant
Mainsource Bank, which has since been acquired by First Financial
Bancorp over a practice that breached Mainsource's contracts and/or
was deceptive and designed to unfairly increase Mainsource's fee
revenue at the expense of its members.

According to the complaint, Mainsource charged accountholders $37
overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on accounts that were never actually
overdrawn before it ceased operation.

Plaintiff and other Mainsource customers have been injured by
Mainsource practices and have had improper fees assessed against
and collected from their accounts by Mainsource.

First Financial Bancorp is a regional bank headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, with $18 billion in assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 llafornara@cohenandmalad.com

                      - and -

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

FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Failed Unemployment Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Hinds, writing for FOX 13 News, reports that a group of
Floridians is suing the state after weeks of struggles and
frustration navigating the unemployment system, its crashing
website, and its overwhelmed call center. Many laid off due to
COVID-19 have been left for almost two months without a single
dollar.

Mike Latner's story starts like many others. "I was laid off on the
20th of March."

For weeks, the Citrus County restaurant worker wrestled with
Florida's CONNECT unemployment site, logging on, getting kicked
off, filing a claim, having it deleted, refiling and, despite
holding the same job for almost two years, being deemed
"ineligible."

"It said that I was ineligible because I didn't make any money at
my job," Latner said, dumbfounded. "And, I was like, wait I minute.
I put in how much I made. What do you mean I didn't make any money?
"

He filed an appeal. Then, he filed a class-action lawsuit.

"I also want the system to be fixed and I want the people that
broke the system to be held accountable," Latner said.

"The unemployment system is supposed to work for them, not prevent
them from surviving," said Julie Meadows-Keefe, an attorney with
Marie Mattox Law Firm.

Tallahassee attorneys Marie Mattox and Gautier Kitchen are leading
the fight. The lawsuit names the Department of Economic
Opportunity, Governor Ron DeSantis and the company that designed
the software, Deloitte Consulting, as defendants.

It states plaintiffs "have not been able to obtain benefits . . .
due to gross negligence and/or negligence of defendants. The system
design and/or implementation is a failure."

"We're trying to get the people immediate relief," Meadows-Keefe
said. "That means that if they are entitled to benefits, that they
receive the benefits in a timely way. That the waiting stops."

DeSantis has also faulted the system created in 2013 while Rick
Scott was still governor.  "It was designed with all these
different things to basically, I think, to fail," DeSantis said
previously. "The fact that the state paid $77 million for this
thing. It's a jalopy."

Since March, the DEO has upgraded software capacity, beefed-up call
center staff, and processed 674,000 claims to help get checks out
faster. But, almost 40% have been deemed ineligible.

"We'd like for them to have a right to reapply and to know the
reason why they were being denied," Meadows-Keefe said.

The Mattox and Kitchen law offices are hearing from thousands
wanting to join the lawsuit. The immediate goal: checks for those
still waiting. The long-term goal: prevent this from happening
again.

"I'm just a guy that wants to go back to work so I can support my
family," Latner said. "I'm responsible for every action in my life.
They need to be also."

An emergency hearing was pushed back to give the state time to file
a motion to dismiss. The hearing was set for May 6, 2020.

While the state's expected to ask the judge to throw out the case,
the plaintiffs' attorneys will ask the judge to order that those
who are due money are immediately paid. [GN]


FLORIDA: Student's Class Action Demands Campus Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Hyman, writing for NBC Miami, reports that a University of
Florida graduate student is going up against the Florida Board of
Governors in a class action lawsuit demanding refunds for on-campus
services that are no longer available to students because of the
coronavirus.

"If you promise to provide a service, and you can no longer provide
it, students should receive refunds for these fees," said student
Anthony Rojas.

The class action lawsuit filed on May 4 claims the Florida Board of
Governors and its 12 state universities need to refund close to
300,000 students for thousands of dollars in fees that the students
paid for on-campus services that they never got to use.

It's important to note that the lawsuit isn't asking for tuition
refunds, because students are still taking classes and earning
credits even though it's all virtual.

"Students across the state pay hundreds of thousands in student
fees whether it be for use of gyms or healthcare centers, and we
feel since we lost half our semester, that it's only right that if
students cannot have access to a physical service that they paid
for that they receive a prorated refund for those services."

The lawsuit says the Florida Board of Governors announced in March
that classes would be moved online for the remainder of the spring
semester. Students living on campus were told or strongly urged to
go home. On top of that, it says campus activists were shut down.

"We recognize that universities are having a difficult time right
now, but students are also in a very difficult financial situation.
Many struggling to pay rent, pay for food and even take care of
loved ones. We want to do right by students. We want to make sure
that students have as much help as possible," said Rojas.

NBC Miami reached out to the Florida Board of Governors for
comment, however, a spokesperson said they don't comment on pending
litigation. [GN]


FONNER PARK: Owens Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FONNER PARK EXPOSITION AND EVENTS CENTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03100-TSH (N.D. Cal., May 5,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received telemarketing text
message to his cellular telephone number (XXX) XXX-2937 from
Defendant on or about April 30, 2020. Allegedly, Defendant used an
automatic telephone dialing system without obtaining Plaintiff's
prior express written consent to receive those autodialed or
pre-recorded text messages.

Plaintiff claims that his personal privacy has been invaded by
Defendant, and thus he seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
Defendant's conduct to continue in the future.  He also seeks
treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every text message
sent, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Fonner Park Exposition and Events Center, Inc. is a non-profit
corporation which operates a horse racing track. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS: Faces Mahomes Suit Over Unlawful OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN MAHOMES, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC. (d/b/a G4S,
G4S USA, G4S SECURITY, and WACKENHUT), Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01144-E (N.D. Tex., May 7, 2020) is a civil action brought
by Plaintiff pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act for Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven day workweek as an employee of
Defendant.

Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as an hourly paid security
guard.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. is a Texas-based security services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Cadillac CUE Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Cadillac CUE lawsuit is still alive in court, but the judge hearing
the case dismissed multiple claims that allege the CUE (Cadillac
User Experience) screens fill with spider web patterns.

According to the Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit, these vehicles
are equipped with the defective systems made of projected
capacitance screens and plastic covers.

    2013-2017 Cadillac ATS
    2013-2017 Cadillac SRX
    2013-2017 Cadillac XTS
    2014-2017 Cadillac CTS
    2014-2017 Cadillac ELR
    2014-2017 Cadillac Escalade

The plaintiffs who sued allege the CUE plastic covers delaminate
and separate from the screen glass, leaving spider web patterns
which prevent the screens from recognizing touch inputs.

The CUE lawsuit says mechanical or thermal stress can cause the
plastic covers to separate from the screens due to the placements
of the screws and rubberized gaskets that hold the plastic covers
to the frames of the CUE systems.

The plaintiffs claim the plastic covers are anchored to the screens
by eight screws, but two screws are placed on "the bottom portion
of the plastic cover, which causes it to flex and move when
pressure is applied."

The plaintiffs also allege the rubber gaskets are cut in a way that
creates excessive space between the screens and the plastic covers
which also "allows for more flexibility in the plastic cover, which
leads to the spider-webbing defect."

In addition, the covers allegedly delaminate because of temperature
changes, causing a risk to safety by distracting drivers.

According to the Cadillac CUE lawsuit, General Motors knew or
should have known about the problems because four technical service
bulletins (TSBs) were issued to dealerships between 2014 and 2017.

These TSBs told dealers that "[s]ome customers may report that
their radio screen appears bubbled, crack, or is delaminating," and
dealers were told to "replace the ICS (Integrated Center Stack) by
following the SI replacement procedure."

In a motion to dismiss the class action, GM argues the court lacks
personal jurisdiction over GM for non-California plaintiffs, but
personal jurisdiction must exist for each claim asserted against
the automaker.

According to GM, the plaintiffs don't allege the vehicles were
manufactured, sold or driven in California, and the judge agreed to
dismiss claims from plaintiffs outside of California.

GM also argues Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims should be
dismissed because to maintain a class action under the Act, "the
number of named plaintiffs must be at least 100." However, the
lawsuit names only 29 separate plaintiffs, including those outside
California.

The judge agreed and granted GM's motion to dismiss the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty claims.

For a breach of express warranty claim made by the plaintiffs,
General Motor says the plaintiffs didn't plead a viable claim
because the owners didn't allege they experienced the defect during
the warranty period.

And GM says the owners didn't present their vehicles to dealers for
repairs during the warranty periods, and none of the owners claim
the automaker refused or failed to repair their vehicles.

The judge ruled because the plaintiffs didn't satisfy the repair or
durational terms of the warranty, GM's motion to dismiss the
express warranty claims of the California plaintiffs is granted.

In total, the judge dismissed all the claims against GM other than
a warranty claim made by one plaintiff, and claims of unjust
enrichment for all California plaintiffs to the extent they are
premised on California law.

The Cadillac CUE lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California -- Goldstein, et al., v.
General Motors LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law, and Berger
Montague.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the GM
vehicles.  [GN]

GOLDEN STAR: Rosen Reminds of June 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (NYSE:
GSS) between February 20, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important June 1, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Golden Star investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Golden Star class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1828.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had insufficient geological and geotechnical
data in its Prestea mine; (2) the Company had experienced
deficiencies in its operating practices and mining methods
including inaccurate long hole drilling and blasting in its Prestea
mine; (3) the Company did not have the mining flexibility and more
measured resources to ensure higher reserve grade; (4) the Company
had experienced increased tonnage at much lower grade where it had
to supplement some of the production with oxide material; (5) the
Company had excessive dilution which drove lower mining rates at
the Prestea mine; and (6) as a result, defendants’ public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1828.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact Information:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY  10016
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  cases@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]

GOODYEAR TIRE: Perez FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AMAURYS PEREZ, and other
similarly situated individuals v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
COMPANY d/b/a Goodyear Commercial Tire & Service Centers, Case No.
CACE-20-006589 (Filed April 17, 2020), was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court, in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 12, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-60949-XXXX to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges wage and hour violations under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Goodyear Tire is an American multinational tire manufacturing
company founded in 1898 by Frank Seiberling and based in Akron,
Ohio.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chelsea A. Lewis, Esq.
          Sherril M. Colombo, Esq.
          Chelsea A. Lewis, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 675-8497
          E-mail: scolombo@littler.com
                  kljackson@littler.com
                  chlewis@littler.com
                  ccano@littler.com


GOYA FOODS: Misclassifies Sales Reps, Morel et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
ANNERIS MOREL and HUGO MOREL TAVEAREZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOYA FOODS, INC.,
and A.N.E. SERVICES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05551 (D.
N.J., May 5, 2020) is a class action lawsuit asserting claims for
violations of the New York Labor Laws, brought on behalf of
individuals who are current and former "sales representatives" of
Defendants Goya Foods, Inc. and A.N.E. Services, Inc.

The Plaintiffs challenge the unlawful misclassification of them as
independent contractors instead of employees under the New York
Labor Laws, from April 28, 2014 to the present.

The Plaintiffs assert claims as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, alleging that Defendants violated
N.Y.L.L. by making unlawful deductions from their wages, and
failing to comply with the record keeping requirements and wage
reporting requirements of the N.Y.L.L.

Goya Foods, Inc. is an American producer of a brand of foods sold
in the United States and many Hispanic countries. The company
headquarters is in Jersey City, New Jersey.

A.N.E. Services, Inc. is a wholly controlled subsidiary of Goya
with headquarters in Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
          MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
          900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 306
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 824-1001
          Facsimile: (856) 414-1806
          Email: AMarchetti@MarchettiLawFirm.com

                   - and -

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP
          116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 454-0637

                   - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801

GROUPON INC: Barbuto & Johansson Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO"), reminds investors that they
have until June 29, 2020 to contact the Firm to learn more about
the class action filed against GROUPON, INC. (NASDAQGS: GRPN), and
appointment of lead plaintiff.

The Class Action, LAZAR MACOVSKI v. GROUPON, INC., et al., Case
No.: 1:20-cv-02581, was filed in the US District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of shareholders who
purchased GROUPON securities between November 4, 2019 and February
18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages against GROUPON and certain officers for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.  

The complaint alleges, in part, that throughout the Class Period,
GROUPON made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  It is alleged that the
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing
fewer customer engagements in its Goods category, which the Company
relied on to drive its sales.  On February 18, 2020, the Company
reported a 23% decline on sales, year-over-year, and announced a
"transformational plan to exit Goods" in North America by the third
quarter.  On this news, the Company's share price fell over 44%, to
close at $1.70 per share on February 19, 2020.  Since that time,
the stock has continued to decline, and traded as low as $1.06 per
share on today's date.

If you've suffered damages from investing in GROUPON and would like
to discuss your options, including petitioning the court for a
leadership position, you may, without obligation, contact Anthony
Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520 or via email at anthony@barjolaw.com.

BARJO follows the principles set forth in the case Berger v.
Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir, 2001) which states "[c]lass action
lawsuits are intended to serve as a vehicle for capable, committed
advocates to pursue the goals of the class members through counsel,
not for capable, committed counsel to pursue their own goals
through the class members." BARJO believes strongly that the choice
of qualified Lead Plaintiff(s) can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.

Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
www.barjolaw.com [GN]


GROUPON INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 29
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ:GRPN) between
November 4, 2019 and February 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Groupon
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Groupon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1847.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) the Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements in its
Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on its Goods category to drive
its sales, especially during the holiday season; (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced sales;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1847.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


GROUPON: Investors File Securities Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that investors of e-coupon retailer Groupon filed a
proposed securities class action against the company in Illinois
district court on April 28, alleging it misled investors about its
financial health before ending its sale of physical goods and
announcing the departure of two of its top executives. [GN]



GRUBHUB INC: Faces CO Craft Suit Over False Advertising Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
CO Craft, LLC dba Freshcraft v. Grubhub, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01327 (D. Colo., May 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated businesses against
Grubhub for employing a nationwide false advertising campaign to
steer patrons to its partner restaurants by falsely declaring that
its competitors are closed or not accepting online orders when they
are in fact open for business.

The Plaintiff contends that the false advertising tactics predate
the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the impact of its nationwide
practice is especially damaging to restaurants that are struggling
to keep afloat economically during the pandemic.

The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendant to discontinue
its false advertising campaign that suggests competitors'
restaurants as closed or not open for online ordering when they are
accepting orders and open for business; and pay damages and/or
restitution to the Plaintiff and Class members.

The Plaintiff is Colorado Limited Liability Company operating as a
family owned neighborhood beer bar and restaurant located at 1530
Blake Street in Denver, Colorado.

Grubhub is one of the largest restaurant delivery services in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Ziev, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROSS ZIEV, P.C.
          6795 East Tennessee Avenue, Suite 210
          Denver, CO 80224
          Telephone: (303) 351-2567
          Facsimile: (720) 669-6992
          E-mail: ross@helpincolorado.com

               - and -

          Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: lsheets@ldclassaction.com


H & M HENNES: Fails to Give Seating for Attendants, Martinez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL A. MARTINEZ, individually, and as a representative of all
others similarly situated v. H & M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV17354 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 6, 2020), seeks to recover civil penalties
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California
labor Code, arising from the Defendants' failure to provide seating
for attendants.

The Plaintiff contends that when he worked as an associate, checker
and/or cashier and fitting room attendant at H & M in the Commerce
location, the area is sufficiently spacious to provide adequate
room to provide suitable seating or can readily be modified or
reconfigured to provide suitable seating for associates. He adds
that H & M fitting room attendants' duties include several duties
where the fitting attendant works in place for substantial periods
of time. During these time periods, a seat is required by law. But
H & M has failed to provide seats to their employees in violation
of the Labor Code, he alleges

The Plaintiff has been employed by H & M as a fitting room
attendant and doing other duties in the County of Los Angeles.

H & M is a retail clothing company in California and worldwide
known for its fashion clothing for men, women, teenagers, and
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 247-9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247-9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


HANSEN & ADKINS: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss FCRA Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. --
Stephanie.Adler-Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- and Stephanie L.
Goutos, Esq. -- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, discuss that
the Plaintiff in Luna v. Hansen and Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.,
No. 18-55804 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020) argued on behalf of a class,
that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
presenting the FCRA disclosure at the same time the company
presented other separate documents.  The District Court granted
summary judgment and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The Ninth Circuit
recognized that plaintiff's argument was novel but was thwarted by
the statute itself.  

The FCRA does not allow procurement of a consumer report for
employment purposes unless "a clear and conspicuous disclosure has
been made in writing to the consumer . . . in a document that
consists solely of the disclosure." 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).

A former employee of a vehicle transportation business received a
Commercial Driver Employment Application. This application was a
multi-form, multi-page document that included notices and
authorizations permitting the company to retrieve safety history
and driving records and to conduct drug and background checks. Job
applicants signed two documents related to consumer reports. First,
the disclosure document appeared on a separate sheet of paper and
informed applicants, "[R]eports verifying [applicant's] previous
employment, previous drug and alcohol test results, and
[applicant's] driving record may be obtained on [applicant] for
employment purposes." The second document, the authorization,
indicated that an applicant's signature authorized the company or
their subsidiaries or agents to "investigate [applicant's] previous
record of employment." The authorization appeared at the end of the
application and included other notices, waivers, and agreements
that were not related to obtaining the consumer report.

The plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging the company's
hiring process violated disclosure and authorization requirements
of the FCRA. The plaintiff alleged that because the disclosure was
provided together with other application materials, the FCRA was
violated. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding this argument
"stretches the statute's requirements beyond the limits of law and
common sense."

Further, while acknowledging a disclosure form cannot contain
anything other than the disclosure itself, the Court held that no
authority suggests that a disclosure must be distinct in time as
well. The Court stated that if they were to accept the plaintiff's
argument that a FCRA disclosure cannot be presented together with
other employment documents, "it is difficult to see how an employer
could ever provide an applicant written application materials
without violating FCRA's standalone document requirement."

As FCRA class action lawsuits continue to be filed at an increasing
rate, the decision is worth a close reading by employers grappling
with complying with the highly technical statute. [GN]


HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the City of
Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood Police Officers
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein,
Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola
(Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM.

The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or
otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019
through August 12, 2019.

The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the
Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in
February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that
defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the
transaction were materially false and misleading because they
purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory
management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of
integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First
Choice, understated Covetrus's separation costs from Henry Schein,
and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly
large customer in North America just before the Separation and
Merger.  

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiff and
lead counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020.

Lead plaintiff added Steve Paladino, our Chief Financial Officer,
as a defendant in the action.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Order of Dismissal in Marion Diagnostic Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court's decision in
granting defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit
entitled, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton,
Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, and remanded
the case

On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion
Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson,
and Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc.
("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc.
("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor
Co-Conspirators.

The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical
conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term
exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide
markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV
catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to
above-competitive levels.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes
consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's
conventional syringes, (ii) Becton’s safety syringes, or (iii)
Becton’s safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient,
Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014.

The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same
allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc. as a defendant.

On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed
the District Court's decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. The parties argued the appeal on September 27, 2019.

On March 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege the necessary conspiracy by the
defendants, but should be provided an opportunity to amend their
complaint. The Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court's
judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent
with its opinion.

Plaintiffs' counsel have indicated that they intend to amend their
complaint.

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in NY Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the lead plaintiff in
the class action suit entitled, In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428, is seeking preliminary approval
of a proposed settlement.

On February 12, 2018, the United States Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") filed a complaint against Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry
Schein, Inc. and Patterson Companies, Inc. The FTC alleged, among
other things, that defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring, and entering into an agreement, to refuse to provide
discounts to or otherwise serve buying groups representing dental
practitioners. The FTC alleged that defendants conspired in
violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The complaint sought
equitable relief only and does not seek monetary damages.

The Company denied the allegation that it conspired to refuse to
provide discounts to or otherwise serve dental buying groups. A
hearing before an administrative law judge began on October 16,
2018 and the hearing record was closed on February 21, 2019. On
October 7, 2019, the administrative law judge issued his Initial
Decision, finding in relevant part that the "evidence fails to
prove a conspiracy involving Schein," and dismissing the complaint
as to Henry Schein. The Initial Decision became the decision of the
FTC on November 7, 2019 and is not subject to further appeal.

On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had
made materially false and misleading statements about Henry
Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class
Period, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported
class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein
securities.

Those alleged statements included matters relating to the issues in
the In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, which Henry Schein
settled and which the court dismissed in June 2019, and in the
United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") administrative
proceeding, in which an administrative law judge ruled in Henry
Schein's favor in October 2019 after a trial, as described in the
company's prior filings with the SEC.

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan)
on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class
Period.

It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that
period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its
dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent
profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even
though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in
collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain
Schein's margins, profits, and market share."

The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from
August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial
performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results
were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume
and margins through anticompetitive collusion," through February
13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry
Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust
laws.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially
granting and partially denying defendants' motion to dismiss the
securities action.

The court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Bergman and Paladino
as well as the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the
extent that that claim relied on the Company's financial results
and margins to allege a material misstatement or omission.

The court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against Henry
Schein to the extent that it relied on the Company's August 8, 2017
disclosure to allege loss causation.

The court otherwise denied the motion as to Henry Schein and Mr.
Sullivan.

Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan moved for partial reconsideration of
the court’s decision. Pursuant to all parties' request, the court
temporarily took the motion off the calendar after it was fully
briefed.

The parties later agreed to resolve this matter in exchange for a
cash payment of $35 million, which will be covered by the Company's
insurance and will have no earnings impact to the Company. The
proposed settlement is subject to various conditions, including
court approval. Lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement on April 30, 2020.

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HERSHEY CO: Metcalf Wants to Appear Pro Hac Vice in Mirzoyan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SUZANNE MIRZOYAN and RAYMOND
LEE, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the general public v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-583659 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Filed March 12, 2020), Jane Metcalf, Esq., will
submit an application on August 12, 2020, for an order granting her
permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the action.

Ms. Metcalf is one of the Defendant's attorneys.

Hershey Company, commonly known as Hershey's, is an American
multinational company and one of the largest chocolate
manufacturers in the world. The Company also manufactures baked
products, such as cookies, cakes, milk shakes, and drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq
          Lilach Haperin, Esq
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          641 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          Jane Metcalf, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2110
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2111
          E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
                  jmetcalf@pbwt.com

               - and -

          Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
          Brian H. Chun, Esq.
          LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Ste. 810
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 357-4600
          Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
          E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
                  bchun@lkclaw.com


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Overdraft Fees Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to overdraft fees on debit
card transactions.

On April 10, 2019, Hills Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit in
the Iowa District Court for Johnson County.  

The lawsuit seeks class action status for customers who had paid
overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized into
a positive account, but settled into a negative account.  

Plaintiff contends that these overdraft fees breached the terms of
Hills Bank's account documents.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract.  

The Bank disputes the merits of Plaintiff's claims and filed a
motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied.  

Hills Bancorporation said, "At this stage of the proceedings, it is
not possible for management of the Bank to determine the
probability of an adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount
of any potential loss."

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

Hills Bancorporation is a holding company principally engaged,
through its subsidiary bank, in the business of banking. The
company is based in Hills, Iowa.


HISCOX: Faces Class Action Over Business Interruption Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
James Booth, writing for City A.M., reports that a group action for
the hospitality sector launched on April 29 with the aim of
bringing claims against insurers which have failed to pay
coronavirus-related business interruption claims.

The hospitality insurance group action (HIGA) is open to businesses
such as pubs, restaurants, hotels and nightclubs which have been
forced to close because of the lockdown and are facing insurers
refusing to pay out on business interruption claims.

The claim is being run by law firm Mishcon de Reya which is also
handling a group action against insurer Hiscox on behalf of
aggrieved policyholders who argue the company should honour their
business interruption cover.

Mishcon said it had received external funding to bring the claim
and said it was working with Philip Edey QC, of Twenty Essex
Chambers.

The firm said any collective business interruption insurance claim
by the group is likely to run into the tens of millions of pounds.

Trevor Ayling, owner of five Renoufs Cheese and Wine Bars in Dorset
and Hampshire and HIGA registrant said: "In light of the difficult
circumstances, we decided to claim on our insurance policy and have
tried every way to get our insurer to respond -- to no avail. A
pay-out on our policy would go some way to making reopening a
reality, helping to secure Renoufs' future."

Fellow HIGA registrant Dan Fox, managing director of Craft Locals
(owner of three north London pubs), said: "If insurers don't come
through, this will have a devastating impact on not only the
business and its continued survival, but the livelihood of the
fantastic team members that we employ, and the local communities of
which we form such an integral part."

Sonia Campbell, partner and head of insurance disputes at Mishcon,
said: "I am hearing time and time again that insurers are either
stone-walling, unfairly limiting or simply point-blank refusing to
pay out under business interruption policies.

"This strikes us as something that is open to challenge. I look
forward to assisting all members of HIGA in exploring the
possibility of a group claim. There may well be some light at the
end of this industry's very dark tunnel." [GN]


HOLY SEE: Faces Blecher Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Holy See. The
case is captioned as Erik Blecher, James Bruno, Robert Burns,
Emmett Caldwell, Louis Castiglione, Kevin Cavanaugh, Brian
Compasso, Wayne Compasso, Vincent Dillard, John Gillen, Stephen
Hurn, Joseph Jockel, Marianne Agnello, Dianne Mondello, Vernon
Allen Jones, Michael Leonard, John O'Connor, Thomas O'Connor,
Daniel Rice, Joseph Russo, Tom Sparks, Peter Senatore, Matthew
Sexton, and Lawrence Smith on behalf of themselves and all persons
similarly situated v. The Holy See also known as: The Apostolic
See, Case No. 1:20-cv-03545-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

The Holy See also called the See of Rome, is the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart Samuel Mermelstein, Esq.
          HERMAN LAW
          5200 Town Center Cir., #540
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (305) 931-2200
          Facsimile: (305) 931-0877
          E-mail: smermelstein@hermanlaw.com


HONDA: Class Action Over Defective Window Can't Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a divided federal
appeals court on April 29 upheld a judge's decision to decline to
certify a class of consumers who alleged their Honda Pilots had
defective window mechanisms that could cause the windows to
suddenly drop into the door frame.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote ruled that the
plaintiffs in seeking to establish their vehicles shared a common
design defect relied on a "fatally flawed," unreliable opinion from
an expert witness. [GN]



HOOTERS III: Faces COVID-19 WARN Act Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew Korn, Esq. -- mkorn@fisherphillips.com -- and Alden Parker,
Esq. -- aparker@fisherphillips.com -- of Fisher Phillips, in an
article for JDSupra, report that it took less than a month for the
plaintiffs' bar to seize upon what is likely to be the first of
many COVID-19-related class action lawsuits alleging violations of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, also known
as the WARN Act. The first such lawsuit, filed against a popular
restaurant chain in Florida, highlights several important lessons
for employers who are considering or have recently implemented
layoffs due to government shut-down orders and a decline in
business. You need to pay particular attention to this expected
trend and prepare ahead of time to avoid facing a potentially
costly claim.

Mass Layoffs Lead To WARN Class Action

Like so many employers faced with the economic impact of this
unprecedent pandemic, including many in the hospitality industry,
Hooters III, Inc. made the difficult decision in March to conduct
layoffs at several restaurants in Florida. These locations were
forced to either shut down completely or close their dining rooms
and offer carry-out or delivery only.

According to a notice dated March 26, 2020, available on the WARN
Act webpage for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the
company provided notice that one of its locations would close
completely and another 10 locations (operated by separate legal
entities) would be subject to significant reductions in force. This
affected a total of 679 employees across all locations. This
notice, which likely informed the factual allegations of the class
action complaint, stated that all affected employees were provided
a separation notice.

The complaint filed in a Florida federal court contains sparse
facts, but alleges that the company conducted layoffs as early as
March 20 and failed to provide advance notice of the layoffs as
required by the WARN Act. The plaintiffs, who claim to be long-term
employees of the company, allege that the company "could have but
failed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 . . . as evidenced by the
fact that it gave no advance written notice whatsoever." The
plaintiffs also claim that Hooters III could and should have relied
on Paycheck Protection Program loans -- which did not become
available until April, about two weeks after the workers allege
they were laid off -- to raise funds that could have prevented many
or all of the layoffs.

It should be noted that Hooters III has not yet responded to the
complaint and is likely to raise several viable defenses to the
allegations. As most employers experienced in defending workplace
claims know, there are always two sides to every story. However,
even examining just the bare-bones complaint can help you plot a
strategy that will minimize your chances of being on the receiving
end of a lawsuit.

What Does The WARN Act Require?

On its face, the WARN Act appears fairly straightforward, but the
nuances of this federal law are complex. It requires covered
employers to provide 60 days' advance notice before a plant closing
or mass layoff. But there are many issues to unpack in this simple
sentence.

Covered employers include those with 100 or more employees
(excluding part-time employees), or those with 100 or more
employees, including part-time employees, who in the aggregate work
at least 4,000 hours per week, exclusive of overtime (under the
WARN Act, part-time means employees who work on average less than
20 hours per week, or have been employed fewer than six of the 12
months preceding the date notice is due, including those who work
full-time).

A plant closing is the temporary or permanent closure of a "single
site of employment," or one or more facilities or operating units
within a single site of employment, that results in an employment
loss during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees (excluding
part-time employees).

A mass layoff is a reduction in force, not the result of a plant
closing, and that results in an "employment loss" at a single site
of employment during any 30-day period for at least 50 employees
(excluding part-time employees) that constitute at least 33% of the
active employees (excluding part-time employees), or 500 or more
employees (excluding part-time employees), regardless the
percentage of active employees. In addition to the 30-day periods,
the WARN Act provides for aggregation of separate, but related
layoffs over a 90-day period.

An employment loss is defined as (1) an employment termination,
other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or
retirement, (2) a layoff exceeding six months, or (3) a reduction
in hours of work of individual employees of more than 50% during
each month of any six-month period.

Generally, separate buildings are considered separate employment
sites, but the WARN Act regulations provide that a single site of
employment can include separate buildings which are not directly
connected or in immediate proximity if they are in reasonable
geographic proximity, used for the same purpose, and share the same
staff and equipment (for example, an employer who manages a number
of warehouses in an area but who regularly shifts or rotates the
same employees from one building to another).

The WARN Act provides several exceptions to the 60-day advance
notice requirement. One exception is referred to as the
unforeseeable business circumstances exception, which allows for
less than 60 days' notice when the plant closing or mass layoff is
caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably
foreseeable at the time that notice would have been required. There
are also exceptions for natural disasters and faltering companies
(those actively seeking capital). Common to all of the WARN Act
exceptions is the requirement that the employer give "as much
notice as is practicable," although the regulations contemplate
that in certain cases this may be notice "after the fact."

Additionally, the WARN Act regulations provide an additional
requirement for employers who had previously announced and carried
out a short-term layoff (six months or less) which is being
extended beyond six months due to business circumstances (including
unforeseeable changes in price or cost) not reasonably foreseeable
at the time of the initial layoff. These employers are required to
give notice when it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the
extension is required.

Practical Considerations For Employers

In light of the lawsuit against Hooters III, if you are considering
layoffs in light of COVID-19 or have recently conducted layoffs,
you should consider whether WARN Act notices should be provided to
your employees. When evaluating the potential need for WARN Act
notices, you should consider the following questions:

Do we have to provide notice if the layoffs are caused by
COVID-related business closures? In light of the unprecedented
impacts of COVID-19, many employers are currently faced with
economic impacts on their business requiring sudden and dramatic
reductions in force. If you are dealing with these issues, you may
be able to rely on the unforeseeable business circumstances
exception, but you should still provide as much notice as is
practicable – even if circumstances dictate that notice is
provided after the layoff occurs. The notice should explain the
reason for the reduced notice period.

Do our planned actions constitute a plant closing or mass layoff?
Due to the 90-day aggregation period, you are required to plan
ahead and consider the potential for future layoffs. If a
subsequent round of layoffs related to the first round exceeds the
threshold for a plant closing or mass layoff, those impacted by the
first round should have been provided notice. There may be a
violation if you failed to provide such notice.

Did our employees experience an employment loss if we bring them
back within six months? Under the WARN Act, employees do not
experience an employment loss if they are subject to a temporary
layoff and are recalled within six months. Because many employers
do not know what the future holds, it may be safest to issue WARN
notice at the outset.

Does our notice contain all of the required elements? The WARN Act
regulations are very specific as to the information required in the
notice. You should be careful to ensure that all information
required be included in notices to employees, bargaining unit
representatives, and government officials.

Do we have to pay employees for 60 days after providing notice? The
WARN Act only requires notice -- it does not require severance pay
(though state law may). However, if you fail to provide the
required advance notice where an exception does not apply, you
could be liable to affected employees for 60 days of pay and
benefits, plus their attorneys' fees.

Does our state have a mini-WARN law? Several states have plant
closing and mass layoff laws commonly referred to as "mini-WARN"
laws. Many of these state requirements have lower thresholds for
employment losses, require a longer notice period, and require
additional information be provided in the notices. If you have
operations in these states, you should review these requirements
and ensure that notices comply with both the federal and state
laws.

Conclusion

Reductions in force raise a variety of potential legal issues and
you should seek legal guidance before implementing layoffs. You
should begin planning as soon as possible if layoffs are possible
and provide as much notice as is practicable in the event
unforeseeable business circumstances prevent a full 60-day notice
period. [GN]


HOPHAPCITY INC: Poltamai Seeks Minimum, OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHALERMKIAT POLTAMAI, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. HOPHAPCITY INC. (D/B/A BANGKOK CUISINE), BKK
THAI CORP. (D/B/A BANGKOK CUISINE), SUJITRA RUNGRUANGSURIYA, PUSIT
SIRIPRAKAISAK, and SOMSAK SIRIPRAKAISAK, Case No. 1:20-cv-03657
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, he contends.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general assistant at the
Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai Restaurant, located
at 1586 2nd Ave., in New York City. The individual Defendants serve
or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


IANTHUS CAPITAL: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of ServiceMaster Global
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SERV), iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc.
(OTC:ITHUF), iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ:IQ), and GSX Techedu, Inc.
(NYSE:GSX). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition
the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. (OTC:ITHUF)

Class Period: May 14, 2018 to April 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020

In May of 2018, iAnthus entered into the $50 million 2018 Debenture
Agreement with Gotham Green Partners ("GGP"). Among other things,
that agreement provided for the withholding and escrow of
$5,722,222.22 from the 2018 Debenture proceeds to pay one year's
interest on the 2018 Debentures in the event of iAnthus' inability
to make its interest payments under the agreement.

Then, on September 30, 2019, iAnthus and GGP entered into the
Amended Debenture Agreement, which provided an additional $20
million to the Company. The Amended Debenture Agreement included
the provision from the 2018 Debenture Agreement that provided for
the withholding and escrow of $5,722,222.22 to pay one year's
interest under the Amended Debenture Agreement in the event that
iAnthus was unable to make the required interest payments.

Although iAnthus never disclosed that the $5.72 million in escrowed
funds was not available to fund iAnthus' interest payments, on
April 6, 2020, iAnthus announced that it had defaulted on $4.4
million in interest payments to GGP under the Amended Debenture
Agreement on March 31, 2020.

On this news, shares of iAnthus fell over 61%, closing at $0.179
per share on April 6, 2020.

The complaint, filed on April 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the
Company's ability to pay its interest obligations under various
debenture agreements. As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information on the iAnthus class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ITHUF

ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SERV)

Class Period: February 26, 2019 to November 4, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 9, 2020

On October 22, 2019, ServiceMaster announced disappointing
preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2019. The
company stated that it missed revenue and earnings estimates and
issued downward adjusted EBITDA guidance. The press release
attributed the disappointing results to "termite damage claims
arising primarily from Formosan termite activity," primarily in
Mobile, Alabama. The Company further stated that this had been a
known issue, having taken mitigating measures "starting in 2018."
Finally, the Company announced the sudden departure of Matthew J.
Stevenson in his role as President of Terminix Residential.

On this news, the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $11.44
per share or 20%, closing at $44.70 per share on October 22, 2019.

Then, on November 5, 2019, ServiceMaster released its third quarter
2019 financial results. In this press release discussing the
"challenging quarter," the Company revealed that it had been
impacted by certain "legacy risks," including "termite damage
claims." That same day, defendants held an earnings call with
analysts and investors to discuss ServiceMaster's third quarter
2019 financial results. On the call, defendants informed the market
that the increase in termite litigation—which had occurred "[i]n
the past few years"—had impacted termite revenue and these issues
would continue throughout 2020.

On this news, the price of ServiceMaster shares fell $1.42 per
share, or 3.5%, to close at $39.15 per share on November 5, 2019.
As the market continued to digest the disappointing news,
ServiceMaster shares further declined by $3.41, or 9%, to close at
$35.74 per share on November 6, 2019.

All told, following the November 5, 2019 disclosure, ServiceMaster
stock suffered a total decline of $4.83 per share from its November
4, 2019 closing price.

The complaint, filed on April 10, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants repeatedly assured the market that
ServiceMaster was successfully executing upon initiatives to
improve the performance in the Terminix segment. In addition,
defendants stated that Terminix would reach a positive "inflection
point" and was "definitely the driver" for positive trends expected
in the second half of 2019. Unbeknownst to investors, however, in
the past several years the Terminix segment had experienced an
adverse trend of costly termite litigation, primarily related to
Formosan termite activity. This negative trend, which would
ultimately impact ServiceMaster's current and future financial
results, was known to defendants throughout the Class Period, as by
their own later admission they had been taking mitigating measures
since 2018.

For more information on the ServiceMaster class action go to:
https://bespc.com/SERV

iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ:IQ)

Class Period: March 29, 2018 to April 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020

On April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing,
among other things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to
disclose pertinent information generally and in its March 2018
initial public offering Registration Statement, including: (i)
iQIYI overstating its user numbers; (ii) iQIYI inflating its
revenues; (iii) iQIYI inflating expenses and prices of assets to
conceal its revenue inflation; and (iv) iQIYI issuing misleading
financial reporting creating the appearance of a cash generative
company.

On this news, iQIYI's share price fell $0.99 per share over the
rest of the trading day and the next full trading day, or 5.6%, to
close at $16.51 per share on April 8, 2020.

The complaint, filed on April 16, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iQIYI inflated its revenue
figures; (2) iQIYI inflated its user numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated
its expenses to cover up other fraud; and (4) 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. According to the suit,
these true details were disclosed by a market research firm.

For more information on the iQIYI class action go to:
https://bespc.com/IQ

GSX Techedu, Inc. (NYSE:GSX)

Class Period: June 6, 2019 to April 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 16, 2020

On February 25, 2020, Grizzly Research LLC ("Grizzly") published a
report highlighting multiple alleged issues with GSX's business and
financial operations (the "Grizzly Report").  Specifically, the
Grizzly Report alleged, among other issues, that the Company "has
been drastically overstating its profitability in its US public
filings, especially for 2018"; Grizzly "found multiple strong
indications of past and current order 'brushing,'" which are
"essentially fake student enrollments to boost student count";
"many of GSX's reported students do not actually exist"; and
"[w]hile [GSX] touts its high-quality teacher recruitment
mechanism, [Grizzly] found a sign-up website that was not
functional, multiple allegations of GSX hiring teachers right out
of college with no prior experience, and fabricated teachers
profiles."

Following publication of the Grizzly Report, GSX's share price fell
$1.33 per share, or 2.93%, to close at $44.09 per share on February
25, 2020.

Then, on April 14, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a
report highlighting additional alleged issues with GSX's business
and financial operations (the "Citron Report"), including, among
other issues, that the Company's "2019 revenue was overstated by
70%," that "sales revenues are largely exaggerated," and that the
Company's "filings are riddled with suspicious transactions."

Following the publication of the Citron Report, GSX's share price
fell $0.20 per share, or 0.64%, to close at $31.20 per share on
April 14, 2020.

The complaint, filed on April 17, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GSX
overstated its profitability, revenue, student enrollment figures,
teacher qualifications, and teacher selection process; (ii) the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the GSX class action go to:
https://bespc.com/gsx

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


IKEA US: Faces Dukich Suit Over Defective Chests and Dressers
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA DUKICH and JOHN DUKICH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC and
IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02182 (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendants
manufactured and sold dangerous and defective chests and dressers
under the model name MALM and other model names to Plaintiffs and
the Class over a period of several years.

According to the complaint, the dangerously defective chests and
dressers were front-heavy, unstable and due to their poor design,
prone to tip over during normal and expected use, resulting in
death and injury to many children.

Plaintiffs, the parents of two young children, purchased MALM
dressers from IKEA, a national retailer, in or about 2012.   

The defective design of the subject chests and dressers was
admitted by IKEA when it publicly recognized that its dressers were
unsafe, unstable and unfit for use as freestanding furniture in a
voluntary recall initiated with the United States Consumer Products
Safety Commission on June 28, 2016, which IKEA "re-announced" on
November 21, 2017.

Despite knowledge that its chests and dressers were unstable,
unsafe and unfit for normal use, IKEA's recall efforts have been
woefully inadequate and ineffective in advising consumers of the
recall, removing these dangerous products from consumers' homes,
and reimbursing consumers for the full purchase price of the
subject defective and dangerous chests and dressers.

Plaintiffs and a Class of purchasers and owners of the defective
chests and dressers seek through a class action to compel IKEA to
honor the promise it failed to keep because of its anemic voluntary
recall.

IKEA US Retail LLC is a furniture retail company with headquarters
in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

IKEA North America Services, LLC is a Pennsylvania-based company
that provides functional home furnishing products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mann, Esq.
          Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER
            WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
          Email: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
                 dmann@feldmanshepherd.com
                 egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com

                    - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants in the class action suit
entitled, In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against
Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities.

On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially
similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court.

On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two
lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund
Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.

On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had
misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable
market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, rather than to deceptive
sales practices;  (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was
inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales;
and (iv) Inogen's decision to focus on sales over rentals of
portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the
Medicare market, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint with leave to amend. On January 9, 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint generally alleging substantially
similar claims as those in the previous complaint.

On January 23, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.

Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for
patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors
in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded
in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California.


INSPERITY INC: Proposed Findings of Fact Due June 15
----------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has
required the parties in the class action suit related to the
company's 401(k) plan, to submit proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by June 15, 2020, after which the court is
expected to render its judgment.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee
of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to
eligible worksite employees in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of
Plan participants.

The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of
the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan
participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to
pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by
failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent
investment choices.

The court certified a class defined as "all participants and
beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009
through September 30, 2017." The court dismissed the breach of
fiduciary duty claims relating to the selection of an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper of the Plan.

On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted Insperity's motion
for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the claims
concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees.

The court denied plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and set a
bench trial, which was held from March 2, 2020 to March 13, 2020.

The court has asked the parties to submit proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law by June 15, 2020, after which the court is
expected to render its judgment.

At trial, plaintiffs alleged damages up to approximately $146
million against all defendants.

Insperity said, "We believe we presented meritorious defenses, and
we intend to continue to vigorously defend this litigation in the
post-trial proceedings. As a result of uncertainty regarding the
outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in the
accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements."

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

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


IQIYI INC: Files First Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IQ) between March 29, 2018 and
April 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for iQIYI investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the iQIYI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1834.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) iQIYI inflated its revenue figures; (2) iQIYI inflated
its user numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated its expenses to cover up other
fraud; and (4) 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.
According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a
market research firm.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1834.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]

IQIYI INC: Hagens Berman Urges Investors to Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IQ) who have
suffered significant losses to submit their losses now.  A
securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors
may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Mar. 29, 2018 - Apr. 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/IQ
Contact An Attorney Now: IQ@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895
iQIYI (IQ) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
material facts about iQIYI's business and financial performance.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants inflated
iQIYI's revenue figures, user numbers and operational expenses to
cover up other fraud.

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
Apr. 7, 2020, when Wolfpack Research published a scathing report,
"iQIYI: The Netflix of China? Good Luckin."  According to Wolfpack,
the company was committing fraud well before its 2018 IPO and has
continued to do so ever since.  Wolfpack estimates that (a) iQIYI
inflated its 2019 revenue by 27% - 44%, (b) overstates its user
numbers by 42% - 60%, and then (c) inflates its expenses, the
prices it pays for content, and other assets and acquisitions in
order to burn off fake cash to hide the fraud from its auditors and
investors.

In addition, according to Wolfpack "[a]rguably one of the most
egregious examples of accounting fraud IQ commits is the inflation
of barter revenue" whereby barter sublicensing revenues are
determined by internal estimates of the value of traded content,
allowing management to unilaterally assign inflated values to the
transactions.

This news drove the price of iQIYI ADSs sharply lower during
intraday trading on Apr. 7, 2020.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving iQIYI misled
investors about the company's revenues, user numbers, and
operational expenses to appear more successful," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding iQIYI
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, contact:

         Reed Kathrein
         Tel: 844-916-0895
         E-mail: IQ@hbsslaw.com.
         Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. [GN]



IRISH MARKETING: Faces Yoshida Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irish Marketing LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as Monica Yoshida individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Irish Marketing LLC;
Kenny McGuffey; Ranslem Capital LP; David Ranslem; Rethink Direct
Inc.; Travis Smith; Vista Energy Marketing LP; Whale Family
Investments LP; Michael Whalen; and Does 1-2500, Case No.
2020-00277762-CU-FR-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 6,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Harker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
          268 Bush St., No. 3732
          San Francisco, CA 94104-3503
          Telephone: (415) 624-7602
          Facsimile: (415) 684-7757
          E-mail: harkerjacob@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Balsam, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES DANIEL BALSAM
          2601C Blanding Ave., No. 271
          Alameda, CA 94501-1507
          Telephone: (415) 869-2873
          Facsimile: (415) 869-2873
          E-mail: calbar@danbalsam.com


JOBCASE INC: Walter Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOBCASE, INC., a Delaware company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03502 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an unsolicited text
message from Defendant's telephone number 816-203-3426 on March 2,
2020 at 11:47 a.m. in an attempt to promote its job placement
services. Plaintiff has never provided prior express consent to
Defendant to send him text messages to his cellular phone number
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

The complaint asserts that Defendant's unsolicited text messages
were a nuisance to Plaintiff that aggravated him, wasted his time,
invaded his privacy, and caused him more injuries.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to cease all
unsolicited text messaging activity, statutory damages and costs.

Jobcase, Inc. is a recruiting company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5C
          New York, NY 10038
          Tel: (917) 336-0171
          Fax: (917) 336-0177
          Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

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


JOE MACHENS: Hail Damage Class Action Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that three auto
dealers are entitled to get a class action accusing them of falsely
marketing vehicles as "factory fresh" moved to arbitration, a
Missouri court ruled.

The plaintiffs claim that Joe Machens Automotive Group Inc., Joe
Machens Nissan Inc., and GRD Auto Sales Inc. marketed and sold
vehicles as "factory-fresh" and brand new, when these autos had
actually sustained hail damage that required repairs before they
were sold.

The case must be sent to arbitration under the "retail buyers
orders" the plaintiffs signed when purchasing their vehicles, the
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District said on April 28. [GN]



JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Web Sites Inaccessible to Deaf, Winegard Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY WINEGARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a www.jnj.com, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON INNOVATION LLC d/b/a
www.jnjinnovation.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-02132 (E.D.N.Y., May 11,
2020), is a class action for retribution for the Defendants'
actions against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in
New York and within the United States relating to their
deaf-inaccessible Web sites.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have denied the
Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf, and hard-of-hearing individuals'
access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals
through their Web sites http://www.jnj.com/and
http://www.jnjinnovation.com/,and in conjunction with their
physical location of offices, laboratories, innovation centers,
live events, advertising offices and hosting locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the American with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff contends that due to barriers that make it difficult
for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Web sites, he
and other deaf and hard of hearing individuals cannot understand
the audio portion of videos on the Web sites and cannot analyze and
learn about the COVID-19 crisis and global efforts to develop a
vaccine, and the innovation network to learn about transformational
healthcare solutions, blogs, and other video content that non-deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals can.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer
packaged goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 415-0100
          Facsimile: (516) 706-6631


KANKAKEE, IL: Crainic Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kolitwenzew, et al.
The case is styled as Florian Crainic, individually and on behalf
of a class of others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Chad
Kolitwenzew, Chief of Corrections of Jerome Combs Detention Center;
Robert Guadian, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal
Operations, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Matthew
Albence; Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary, US Department of Homeland
Security; United States of America; Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02138-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., May 21, 2020).

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

Chad Kolitwenzew is a Chief of Corrections, Kankakee County
Sheriff's Office.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Aaron J Siebert-Llera, Esq.
          Ana Lilia Torres, Esq.
          Juan P Caballero-Nieves, Esq.
          Rebecca Kim Glenberg, Esq.
          ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU INC.
          150 N Michigan Ave, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60601-7401
          Phone: (312) 201-9740
          Fax: (312) 288-5225
          Email: asiebert-llera@aclu-il.org
                 atorres@aclu-il.org
                 jcaballero@aclu-il.org
                 rglenberg@aclu-il.org

               - and -

          Catherine M. Masters, Esq.
          Colby Anne Kingsbury, Esq.
          Ehren Michael Fournier, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 212-6500
          Email: catherine.masters@faegredrinker.com
                 colby.kingsbury@faegredrinker.com
                 ehren.fournier@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          David B Sudzus, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          191 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 569-1000
          Fax: (312) 569-3000
          Email: david.sudzus@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Eunice H. Cho, Esq.
          ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
          915 15th St. NW, 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 393-4930
          Fax: (202) 393-4931
          Email: echo@aclu.org

               - and -

          Malita Vencienzo Picasso, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad St., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 549-2500
          Email: mpicasso@aclu.org

               - and -

          Michael King Tan, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad St., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 549-2660
          Fax: (212) 549-2654
          Email: mtan@aclu.org

               - and -

          Nusrat J. Choudhury, Esq.
          ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU INC
          180 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 201-9740
          Fax: (312) 288-5225
          Email: nchoudhury@aclu-il.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          W. Scott Simpson, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          318 S Sixth Street
          Springfield, IL 62701-1806
          Phone: (217) 492-4413
          Email: w.scott.simpson@usdoj.gov


KATERRA INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Washington Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL WASHINGTON and JONATHAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KATERRA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00278086 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 6, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and to
provide meal and rest periods, in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff class overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of all
current or former non-exempt, hourly employees, who performed work
for the Defendants in California.

Katerra is an American technology-driven offsite construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Galen Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin Rodriguez, Esq.
          Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733


KBR INC: Appellate Proceedings Postponed Sine Die
-------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the hearing on a class action appeal
that was scheduled for April 17, 2020, has been postponed
indefinitely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action
suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the
early 2000s.

Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case.

The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or
around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses.  

The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for
unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25
million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI.


The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed
by the Supreme Court of Chad.

The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims.  SSI's initial defense was
filed and a hearing was held in December 2018.  

A merits hearing was held in February 2019.  

In March 2019, the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the
plaintiffs approximately $34 million including a $2 million
provisional award.  

Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019.  

Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21,
2019 and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020. The
plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020 and a
hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020 but has been postponed
indefinitely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

KBR said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter, and therefore we have not
accrued any loss provisions. SSI is no longer an existing entity in
Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any amounts
ultimately paid to the former employees related to this adverse
ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the applicable
contract.  

KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is
basedin Houston, Texas.


KLEARY MASONRY: Faces Gomez Employment Suit in Calif. Super Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kleary Masonry Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as Ricardo Gomez Sr., on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kleary Masonry Inc. and Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2020-00278067-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
May 6, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Kleary is a masonry contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Rodriguez, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS
          106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., No. 412
          Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805
          Telephone: (213) 280-8908
          E-mail: justicelawpartners@gmail.com


KOHL'S CORP: Murphy Appeals S.D.N.Y. ADA Suit Ruling to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Murphy filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit styled Murphy v. Kohl's Corporation, Case No.
19-cv-9921, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Kohl's Corporation operates a chain of family-oriented department
stores. The Company's stores feature apparel, footwear and
accessories for women, men and children, soft home products such as
sheets and pillows, and housewares targeted to middle income
customers.

The appellate case is captioned as Murphy v. Kohl's Corporation,
Case No. 20-1608, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com

Defendants-Appellees Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl's
Corporation are represented by:

          Michael Keough, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1 Market Street Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 365-6700
          Email: mkeough@steptoe.com


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Securities Litig. Has Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2020, that the court has
preliminarily approved the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions against Leidos and several former
executives relating to a contract to develop and implement an
automated time and attendance and workforce management system for
certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime").

One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re:
SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that Leidos and individual defendants made
misleading statements or omissions about revenues, operating income
and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to
the CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from Leidos and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly
incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued
an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District
Court's ruling.

Leidos filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District
Court granted Leidos' request to stay all proceedings, including
discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an
agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount
to be paid by Leidos.

On October 2, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.

The amounts payable by Leidos are covered by an insurance policy.

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

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United
States and internationally. It operates through three segments:
Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LIBERTY OILFIELD: Klein Law Firm Notes of June 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc.
(LBRT).  There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc. (LBRT)
Class Period: securities pursuant and/or traceable to the documents
issued in connection with the Company's January 2018 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2020

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in LBRT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/liberty-oilfield-services-inc-loss-submission-form?id=6067&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

           J. Klein, Esq.
           Empire State Building
           350 Fifth Avenue
           59th Floor
           New York, NY 10118
           E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
           Tel: (212) 616-4899
           Fax: (347) 558-9665
           Web site: www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]



LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Sued for Denying Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business America, reports
that it's the turn of Miami Beach salon Atma Beauty to take Lloyd's
of London underwriters to court, with the all-risk insurance
policyholder serving as the lead plaintiff in a federal class
action lawsuit against certain Lloyd's syndicates as well as HDI
Global Specialty SE and AXIS Specialty Europe SE.

In the court document seen by Insurance Business, the plaintiff --
individually and on behalf of "all others similarly situated" --
alleged: "The class claims all derive directly from a single course
of conduct by defendants: their systematic and uniform refusal to
pay insureds for losses suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
the related actions taken by civil authorities to suspend business
operations."

According to the complaint, which was filed at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the defendants
include Syndicates AFB 2623, AFB 623, APL 1969, ARG 2121, BRT 2987,
BRT 2988, HIS 33, KLN 510, MMX 2010, MSP 318, NVA 2007, TRV 5000,
and XLC 2003.     

The class action argued: "Plaintiff's policy does not contain any
exclusion which would apply to allow defendants to deny coverage
for losses caused by COVID-19 and related actions of civil
authorities taken in response to COVID-19.

"Accordingly, because the policy is an all-risk policy and does not
specifically exclude the losses that plaintiff has suffered, those
losses are covered."

Represented by Podhurst Orseck, Atma Beauty is demanding a trial by
jury.   

"Atma Beauty purchased one of the clearest commercial insurance
policies written by any provider in the world, so Lloyd's of London
must be held accountable for its contractual obligations," asserted
Podhurst Orseck's Steven Marks in a statement sent to Insurance
Business.

"Atma Beauty paid a higher premium for an all-risk policy, which
provides coverage for all risks of loss, unless specifically
excluded in the policy, and this policy included no exclusions. As
a result of the coronavirus, the salon has completely shut down and
has had no means of revenue."

Marks added that if insurers continue to fail in fulfilling their
contractual obligations, the economic impact of the pandemic will
become even more dire. [GN]


LOYAL SOURCE: Ortega Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL ORTEGA, an individual,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00008677-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Feb. 14, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on May 11, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00879-LAB-NLS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages, failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to provide meal and
rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.

Loyal Source specializes in government contract staffing for a
number of US federal agencies.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin Harlow, Esq.
          Isabel Crosby, Esq.
          Breegan O'Connor, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 699 2700
          E-mail: kevin.harlow@dlapiper.com
                  isabel.crosby@dlapiper.com
                  breegan.oconnor@dlapiper.com


LUNDY MANOR: Faces Class Action Over Negligence
-----------------------------------------------
Shelby Knox, writing for iHeartRADIO, reports that a family has
stepped forward to act as the representative for families in a
class action lawsuit against a Niagara Falls retirement residence.

Lawyer and Managing Partner at Will Davidson LLP Gary Will says
they are close to finalizing a statement of claim against Lundy
Manor.

"The heart of this case is based on negligence. From what we've
discovered so far the owners of Lundy Manor fell way below the
standard of care. And that means that they should have been aware
that there have been problems."

Will says they have been contacted by 5 families so far and several
staff members.

"We've had so many calls from so many people. And some were
reluctant to be at the forefront of the litigation but everyone is
very interested in supporting a class action. And like I said, we
now have a family that is prepared to be the representative
plaintiff."

Former staff members have come forward voicing concerns with
activities within the facility when the COVID-19 pandemic started,
including serving meals in a crowded dining area.

18 people have died as COVID-19 swept through the facility.

According to Public Health's website, the outbreak at the building
continues. [GN]


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that  the company's
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint is still
pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four
current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT
Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the
Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material
misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures
concerning the Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability
of the Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.
On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and
seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as
defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice.

Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims
asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New
York.


MACROGENICS INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid in Hill Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has not
yet decided to appoint a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action suit initiated by Todd Hill.

On September 13, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by
Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Karrels, as defendants
for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements
regarding the Company's SOPHIA trial.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
February 6, 2019 to June 3, 2019.

On November 12, 2019, the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge sought appointment as
lead plaintiff, which motion remains pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

MacroGenics said, "However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this time and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action."

The case is Todd Hill v. Macrogenics, Inc. et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-02713-GJH (D. Md., Sept. 13, 2019).

MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.


MARTIN RESOURCE: Settles ERISA Class Action for $19.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that Wilmington Trust NA has agreed to pay
$19.5 million to settle a class action challenging its role in a
$375 million employee buyout of Martin Resource Management Corp., a
wholesaler of diesel fuel and lubricants.

The proposed agreement will resolve claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of 2,300 current and
former workers who accused Wilmington of engineering a transaction
that let MRMC shareholders unload their stock at hugely inflated
prices.

The company for which the employees paid $375 million in 2012 and
2013, through their stock plan, is now allegedly worth only $79
million. [GN]

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Holland, writing for Law Street, reports that plaintiff
David James Fister filed a class action complaint against the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on April 22, alleging
that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and
FCC regulations by sending an abundance of unwanted robocalls and
text messages. The case will be heard in the District of
Massachusetts.

Fister claimed to have received a number of telemarketing text
messages and robocalls from MIT despite never providing written
consent. The alleged communications began after Fister "engaged in
some internet research regarding . . .  MIT's 'Drug and Medical
Device Development Program' (DMDDP)." He was subsequently sent
various messages promoting webinars and reminding about
registration deadlines, among others. Fister believes that the
messages were sent automatically due to their "generic nature and
repetitive content."

As a foundation for this case, the complaint cites the TCPA and the
FCC's rules regarding automatic telemarketing calls. Among other
things, the TCPA regulates the usage of automated telephone dialing
systems (ATDS) to send text messages or make calls. According to
the complaint, "the TCPA prohibits the use of an automated
telephone dialing system to make any telemarketing call . . . to a
wireless number in the absence of an emergency or the prior express
written consent of the called party." The FCC additionally ordered
in 2013 that consumers must provide clear written consent to
receive telemarketing robocalls.

Fister filed the complaint on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated. The representative classes consist of those who
received one or more telemarketing messages from MIT, even after
replying, "stop."  The complaint details how all members of the
class were harmed, saying, "they were annoyed and harassed, and, in
some instances, they were charged for incoming calls. Plaintiff and
the Class Members were also harmed by use of their cell phone
battery and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied
it from receiving legitimate communications."

As a result of MIT's alleged telemarketing practices, Fister seeks
an award of damages amounting to $1,500 for each knowing or willful
violation, and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant from
further using an ATDS. [GN]


MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Filed to Free Prisoners in Pandemic
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Becker, writing for WBUR.org, reports that Prisoners Legal
Services of Massachusetts has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of 11 prisoners and "all others similarly situated." It asks
that the state take steps to get people out of correctional
settings, such as releasing those who have almost completed their
sentences, those approved for parole, those with health issues and
those civilly committed for addiction treatment.

The suit says because prisoners live in close quarters and many are
older or have health conditions, more people should be released to
mitigate the spread of the virus. While the Supreme Judicial Court
this month ruled that some prisoners are eligible to seek release,
the suit says more needs to be done.

"While a step in the right direction, that decision doesn't provide
enough relief to stop the virus from continuing to spread,
particularly in the crowded prison system," said Elizabeth Matos,
executive director of Prisoners Legal Services "We undoubtedly need
broader relief to meaningfully reduce the risk of COVID-19 for both
incarcerated people and correctional staff."

The defendants named in the suit are Massachusetts Department of
Correction Commissioner Carol Mici, Massachusetts Parole Board
Chair Gloriann Moroney, Massachusetts Executive Office of Public
Safety and Security Secretary Thomas Turco and Gov. Charlie Baker.

"Unlike other states, Massachusetts officials have failed to take
action to effectuate the release of prisoners despite their clear
authority to do so," the lawsuit reads. "The Governor has refused
to act on his near plenary emergency powers when it comes to the
health and safety of prisoners, publicly confirming his intention
to stick with a failing status quo. There have been no
commutations, no furloughs, no increase in earned good times, no
releases by DOC to home confinement, little if any increase in the
use of medical parole, and no effort by the parole board to
streamline the parole process or modify the criteria for release in
light of COVID-19."

The suit cites the rise in the number of infections and deaths in
state jails and prisons since the first COVID-19 case was reported
in a Massachusetts prison on March 21. There are now more than 170
positive corona virus tests among prisoners and staff at jails and
prisons. Five prisoners have died from the disease.

It is the first legal action to name those civilly committed to
addiction treatment. More than 100 men are civilly committed to
treatment at the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center
at MCI Plymouth and at the Hampden County jail. Men are sent to
those facilities if there are no beds in Department of Public
Health-run facilities. The suit says, because of the pandemic, much
of the addiction programming has paused and the men are being put
at risk by living in correctional settings, although they haven't
committed any crimes.

The suit also cites the parole board, alleging that although more
than 300 prisoners requests for parole have been approved, the
Massachusetts parole board has not yet acted on them. [GN]



MDL 2947: Lowe's Seeks Consolidation of 19 Actions to W.D.N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in lawsuit titled In re: LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. WAGE
& HOUR LITIGATION, MDL No. 2947, ask the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer 19 related cases for
centralized pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

Centralization of these 19 Actions would further "the convenience
of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient
conduct of the actions." The Panel should transfer the Actions to
Judge Kenneth D. Bell in the Western District of North Carolina,
who is presiding over the first-filed case--Danford--and who
already has developed familiarity with the issues and parties
involved, the Defendants say. No other court has yet invested
resources in the cases, and the Western District of North Carolina
also has favorable docket conditions, the Defendants add.

The Actions were filed by the same law firm on behalf of
overlapping sets of named plaintiffs and putative classes, alleging
that Lowe's supposedly failed to compensate its hourly store
managers for time spent opening and closing stores, and for time
spent reading and responding to electronic communications outside
their scheduled shifts.

The Defendants are Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC.

The 19 Actions include:

   -- Estes, et al. v. Lowes Companies Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 4:20-cv-00289 (E.D. Ark.);

   -- Grove, et al. v. Lowe's Companies Incorporated, et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-00586 (D. Ariz.);

   -- Bogaert, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-00695 (D. Colo.);

   -- Belaski v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 3:20-cv-00343 (D. Conn.);

   -- Fitzsimmons, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-01109 (C.D. Ill.);

   -- Anderson, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 3:20-cv-00189 (W.D. Ky.);

   -- Roy, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 4:20-cv-40029 (D. Mass.);

   -- Hyde, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-00678 (D. Md.);

   -- Neal v. Lowes Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 0:20-cv-01003 (D. Minn.);

   -- Nelson, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 4:20-cv-00190 (W.D. Mo.);

   -- Danford, et al. v. Lowe's Companies Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 5:19-cv-00041 (W.D.N.C.);

   -- GERBER, et al. v. LOWES COMPANIES, INC., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-02773 (D.N.J.);

   -- Martinez, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-00234 (D.N.M.);

   -- Ricks, et al. v. Lowes Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-00515 (D. Nev.);

   -- Tirado v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-01472 (E.D.N.Y.);

   -- Rumpke, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-01411 (S.D. Ohio);

   -- Forte, et al. v. Lowe's Company Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-01108 (D.S.C.);

   -- Cleavenger, et al. v. Lowes Companies Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 4:20-cv-05049 (E.D. Wash.); and

   -- Boyce, et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-00228 (S.D. W. Va.).

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
          Molly T. Senger, Esq.
          David A. Schnitzer, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: 202 955 8500
          Facsimile: 202 467 0539
          E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201-2911
          Telephone: 214 698 3100
          Facsimile: 214 571 2900
          E-mail: knelson@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: 949 451 3800
          Facsimile: 949 451 4220
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: 213 229 7000
          Facsimile: 213 229 7520
          E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com


METLIFE INC: Checks Mailed to Newman Class Members
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the nationwide class settlement of the case
styled, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill.,
filed March 23, 2016), is subject to a final fairness hearing.

According to the settlement Web site, checks were mailed to
eligible class members on May 22, 2020.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on
behalf of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a
Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature on their long-term care
insurance policies and whose premium rates were increased after age
65.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
action.  Plaintiff appealed this ruling and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceedings.

The parties reached an agreement on a nationwide class settlement
of the case, which the district court preliminarily approved on
November 7, 2019, subject to a final fairness hearing, which was
set on February 20, 2020.

The settlement agreement provides payment of $1.3 million to class
members who had been subjected to a premium rate increase after
they turned 65, who had reduced their coverage so as to avoid a
rate increase, or who had let their policies lapse as the result of
a rate increase.   The settlement also prohibits MetLife from
subjecting class members to further rate increases. Finally, the
settlement provides for $5 million in attorneys’ fees to
Newman’s counsel.

The Company accrued the full amount of the expected settlement
payment in prior periods.

Additional information is available on the case at:

     http://www.metlife-newmansettlement.com/

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


MICHAEL HUGHES: Criminal Defendants Class Certified
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as N.S., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL A. HUGHES, in
his official capacity as U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia
Superior Court, Case No. 1:20-cv-00101-RCL (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      and certifying a class of:

      "all indigent criminal defendants in the Superior Court
      for the District of Columbia: (1) who were, are, or will
      be detained by officers of the United States Marshals
      Service for suspected civil immigration violations, and
      (2) as to whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not
      effectuated a warrant of removal/deportation (a form I-
      205) and/or has not obtained an order of deportation or
      removal";

   2. granting the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
      injunction;

   3. preliminarily enjoining the Defendant and its agents,
      subordinates, and employees from seizing individuals for
      suspected civil immigration violations. The preliminary
      injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain
      in effect pending final resolution of this matter."; and

   4. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for discovery.

The Court said, "Although the plaintiff will be permitted to file
future discovery motions, the plaintiff filed this specific motion
seeking expedited discovery to support his request for a
preliminary injunction. Because there is sufficient evidence to
grant a preliminary injunction without expedited discovery,
ordering such expedited discovery would be unnecessary and
improper."[CC]


MICHIGAN: DOC Sued Over Coronavirus Response
--------------------------------------------
Angie Jackson, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that the
Michigan Department of Corrections (DOC) is facing a class action
lawsuit over its handling of the coronavirus outbreak inside its
facilities, where more than 1,400 prisoners are confirmed to have
the virus and 41 inmates have died as of late April 29.

A complaint filed on April 29 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan accuses the department of violating
prisoners' Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment by exposing them to risk of illness and death
from COVID-19.

"Despite the ticking time bomb that COVID-19 represents, MDOC has
failed to implement necessary or adequate policies and practices
throughout its prisons," according to the lawsuit filed by attorney
Daniel Manville, director of the Civil Rights Clinic at the
Michigan State University College of Law, and Detroit attorney
Kevin Ernst.

"Plaintiffs have been denied proper and equal access to vital
preventative measures to avoid the transmission of COVID-19, in
violation of federal law and the United States Constitution."

The lawsuit alleges that the department's policies in response to
the pandemic are "woefully inadequate" and don't meet the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for
correctional facilities. It argues that prisoners are not able to
practice social distancing in housing units where they're
double-bunked in a cell or confined in dormitory settings, during
meal times at the chow hall and during yard time.

When reached on April 29, MDOC spokesman Chris Gautz contended that
the department is following guidelines from the CDC and the
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

"The CDC has changed their guidance, and all along, we've continued
to follow it," he said.

The lawsuit requests a temporary restraining order and a permanent
injunction to require the department to implement 21 measures,
which range from the testing of all prisoners and staff within 14
days to the release of low-level security prisoners to home
confinement.

Gautz said the department has already implemented some of the
measures requested in the lawsuit, such as waiving medical co-pays
for prisoners with symptoms and sending prisoners with severe
symptoms to community hospitals -- he said 47 prisoners with the
virus were hospitalized as of April 29. He noted that, by law, the
department cannot release prisoners before they've reached their
earliest release date.

As of April 29, 1,412 prisoners at roughly half the department's 29
prisons were confirmed to have COVID-19. The department houses
roughly 38,000 prisoners.

The lawsuit states that infections within prisons don't only affect
inmates, saying that "prison health is community health." Health
experts have noted that boundaries between prisons and the
communities in which they're located are porous, with employees
coming and going across multiple shifts each day.

"An outbreak at any one prison could easily spread to the
surrounding communities through prison and medical staff. Time is
running out for proper protections to be put into place," the
lawsuit states.

'Constantly lives in fear'

The lawsuit names MDOC Director Heidi Washington and the wardens of
four prisons: Willis Chapman of Macomb Correctional Facility, Noah
Nagy of G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, Melinda Braman of
Parnall Correctional Facility, and Bryan Morrison of Lakeland
Correctional Facility.

The four prisons house the six plaintiffs who've filed grievances
during the COVID-19 outbreak.

A few of the plaintiffs have tested positive for COVID-19, and
others fear that their chronic health conditions will make them
susceptible to severe complications if they contract the virus.

Among other things, the prisoners allege that telephones and kiosks
are not disinfected between each use. They say social distancing is
not enforced when prisoners wait in line for meals. Some have
observed staff not wearing gloves or masks, according to the
lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs, prisoner Craig Seegmiller, is assigned to a
housing unit in a pole barn at G. Robert Cotton Correctional
Facility, a prison in Jackson where 140 inmates have tested
positive. He shares a 10-by-12-foot cube with seven other men, five
of whom had tested positive for COVID-19 as of April 20, according
to the lawsuit. Seegmiller, who is in prison for a 2017 conviction
of delivery/manufacture of methamphetamine in Midland County, said
he was not tested.

"He constantly lives in fear that he will die because of the lack
of treatment and testing provided to inmates even after they have
been exposed to inmates with known infections," the lawsuit states.


Another prisoner, Robert Reeves, said he contracted the virus at
Parnall Correctional Facility near Jackson, which has 170 known
cases among its prisoners and emerged as a hot spot for the virus
several weeks ago. Reeves, who is incarcerated for convictions of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct and armed robbery in Wayne
County in 1999, was moved to an isolation unit at Cotton. He said
he was not given supplies to clean his cell in isolation and was
not able to file grievances.

"He has not seen a doctor, nor did he receive medical instructions
on what to do if his symptoms get worse, despite complaining of
chest pain, coughing up blood, and having problems breathing,"
according to the lawsuit. "Reeves was told it was normal and to
just endure it."

Prisoner testing

Among the requests, the lawsuit makes is the testing of all
prisoners and MDOC staff.

Experts say mass testing to identify asymptomatic carriers of
COVID-19 is an important step to contain virus infection in
congregate settings such as prisons.

The department until recently only tested prisoners with symptoms
of the virus. MDOC began its first wave of widespread testing of
all prisoners at certain facilities, beginning at Lakeland
Correctional Facility in Coldwater.

Results for 785 prisoners, or 56% of the population at Lakeland,
were positive. About 80% of those confirmed to have the virus at
the prison were asymptomatic, Gautz said.

Eleven housing units at Lakeland are now dedicated to prisoners
with COVID-19, and those who tested negative are housed in seven
other units, Gautz said. Staff began delivering meals to prisoners
in the housing units on April 24, keeping inmates out of the dining
hall.

More than half of Lakeland's 1,400 prisoners are elderly or have
chronic health conditions. The facility leads the state with 14
prisoner deaths from COVID-19.

Mass testing began at Cotton -- another facility that houses many
prisoners with chronic health conditions -- and is about halfway
done, Gautz said on April 29, adding that results so far have shown
"a huge number" of negatives. Of the 792 prisoners tested as of
April29, 650 were negative.

In all, MDOC has tested 3,117 prisoners, or 8% of the total
population at the start of the outbreak in March.

Staff with symptoms of the virus must seek testing in their
communities, to the frustration of some employees. As of April 29,
268 staff have tested positive. Two have died.

"MDOC has acknowledged that staff members have also tested positive
for COVID-19 and some have died, yet has done nothing to thoroughly
test staff or otherwise prevent them from spreading the deadly
virus to inmates," the lawsuit states.

These are some of the other requests made in the lawsuit:

   -- Provide immediate referral to a hospital upon display of
severe symptoms for any prisoner with a positive test.

   -- Sanitize all commonly touched areas after every use.

   -- Stop all prisoner and corrections officer transfers except
those related to COVID-19.

   -- Make disinfectant available at all times, free of charge.

   -- Provide PPE and instruction materials on proper use.

   -- Release low-level prisoners to home confinement.

   -- Enforce social distancing of 6 feet at all times.

   -- Communicate changes in policies and practices about COVID-19
to prisoners.

   -- Provide an adequate supply of hand soap, paper towels and
disinfectant products to prisoners for free.

   -- Require that all staff wear PPE.

   -- Take prisoners' temperatures and assess for symptoms daily.

   -- Ensure that prisoners who test positive are quarantined in
non-punitive settings with access to showers, mental health
services and communication with loved ones. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Chuluunbat FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Unensaikhan
Chuluunbat, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02826 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras.

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

MCM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital, is a specialty
finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers
across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com


MIDWEST DIVERSIFIED: DeMastes Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MELISSA DEMASTES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MIDWEST DIVERSIFIED MANAGEMENT CORP. dba CARMEL MAINTENANCE LLC,
and PIPER GLEN APARTMENTS ASSOCIATES, LLC; MIDWEST DIVERSIFIED
MANAGEMENT CORP EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN AND TRUST; and DOES 100; Case
No. 3:19-cv-065-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the collective
      action and authorization to send initial and subsequent
      Court-supervised Notices to:

      "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who
      were employed by Midwest Diversified Management Corp., dba
      Carmel Maintenance, LLC, and/or Piper Glen Apartment
      Associates, LLC as leasing agents at any of its United
      States locations beginning February 8, 2016 to the
      present";

   2. approving her proposed Notice of collective action lawsuit
      and the corresponding consent to become party Plaintiff
      form;

   3. directing Midwest to produce to DeMastes' counsel, within
      seven days, a computer-readable data file containing the
      names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers,
      dates of employment, social security numbers and dates of
      birth for all Class Members; and

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the Notice and Consent,
      at her expense, by First Class U.S. Mail and email to all
      Class Members to inform them of their right to opt-in to
      the lawsuit, together with a postage paid return envelope
      addressed to Plaintiff's counsel.

DeMastes seeks payment of unpaid overtime wages owed to her and
other similarly situated hourly employees working as leasing agents
due to violations of the FLSA.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNER LAW, PLLC
          602 East Morehead
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the examination in the
Uberaba EHS class action is still pending.

In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that our predecessor company in Brazil did not
comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.

This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company was fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.

The company filed its defense, claiming that it complied with these
labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the
inspectors in 2010 was abusive.

Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations.

The examination is currently pending. The amount involved in the
proceeding is $27.9 million.

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

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MUELLER WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chapman Class Suit Still Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Chapman v. Mueller Water Products,
et al., is still pending.

In 2017, the company's warranty analyses identified that certain
Technologies radio products produced prior to 2017 and installed in
particularly harsh environments had been failing at higher than
expected rates. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the
company conducted additional testing of these products and revised
our estimates of warranty expenses.

As a result, the company recorded additional warranty expense of
$9.8 million in the second quarter of 2017. During the quarter
ended June 30, 2018, the comapny completed a similar analysis and
determined, based on this new information, that certain other
Technologies products had been failing at higher-than-expected
rates as well and that the average cost to repair or replace
certain products under warranty was higher than previously
estimated.

As a result, in the third quarter of 2018, the company recorded
additional warranty expense of $14.1 million associated with such
products. Related to the above warranty expenses, on April 11,
2019, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of our former and
current officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that
acquired the company's securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6,
2018 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that the company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects during
the proposed Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs but does not specify the amount.

Accordingly, the company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
any cost or liabilities related to this matter and therefore no
amounts have been accrued related to this matter as of December 31,
2019.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019 and
second motion to dismiss (in response to the second amended
complaint filed on December 24, 2019) on January 31, 2020.

Additionally, the parties have filed their respective briefs and
await the Court's decision.

Mueller said, "We believe the allegations are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the
outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty."

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

Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and
services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement
of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The
company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


NCL CORP: Faces COVID-19 Class Suits
------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated May 5, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in three class action
lawsuits related to its alleged false and misleading statements to
the market and customers about COVID-19.

Between March 12, 2020 and April 30, 2020, three class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging that the Company made false and
misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19.

In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced
an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the
COVID-19 outbreak.

Following the announcement of the investigation by the Florida
Attorney General, the company received notifications from other
attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are
conducting similar investigations.

NCL said, "We may be the subject of additional lawsuits and
investigations stemming from COVID-19. We cannot predict the number
or outcome of any such proceedings and the impact that they will
have on our financial results, but any such impact may be
material."

NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The
company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL
Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings Ltd.


NEW YORK: BOD Files Five Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 26, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1381;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1380;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1382;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1401; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1402.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Elvira Rossi, Antonio Rodriguez, Tuesday
Brown, Beverly Colburn and Theresa Millen are represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Pirone 'Handcuffing' Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as FRANK PIRONE v. THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 17 CV 03070-MKB-RER) (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. amending the hospitalized handcuffing policy claim to
      include a representative claim on behalf of a class;

   2. severing the hospitalized handcuffing policy class
      claim from all other individual claims in this case;
      and

   3. certifying a plaintiff class for both damages and
      injunctive relief consisting of:

      "all individuals who were or will be subjected to
      handcuffing during their hospitalization pursuant to
      the New York Police Department's policy of handcuffing
      all hospitalized arrestees regardless, and without an
      evaluation of, the necessity of handcuffing from May
      18, 2014 through the present.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Fitch, Esq.
          COHEN & FITCH LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374-9115

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter Brocker, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
          THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007


NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a a putative class action suit pending before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class
actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers.

Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent
misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.'s public disclosure concerning
the Penasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave
from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory
misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario).

By a consent order, the latter lawsuit will proceed, and the former
action has been stayed.

The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who
acquired Goldcorp Inc.'s securities in the secondary market during
an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot
reasonably predict the outcome.

Newmont Corporation engages in the production and exploration of
gold, copper, silver, zinc, and lead.  The Company has operations
and/or assets in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Dominican
Republic, Peru, Suriname, Argentina, Chile, Australia, and Ghana.
Newmont Corporation was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.


NEXTIER OILFIELD: Fails to Provide OT Pay, Kenworthy et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE KENWORTHY, CHAD HENSLEY, STEPHEN MAKANJU, TED WILLIAMS and
MICHAEL SPERLING, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated PLAINTIFFS vs. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC.,
NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 7:20-cv-111 (W.D. Tex., May 7, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated lawful overtime
compensation for hours in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have been
misclassified by Defendant as salaried employees and as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

Kenworthy worked for Defendant as a salaried Field Supervisor from
July of 2018 to the present.

Hensley, Makanju and Williams worked for Defendant as salaried
Field Engineers.

Sperling worked as a salaried Specialist II from July of 2017 to
January of 2018, and as an hourly Specialist II from January of
2018 to June of 2019.

NexTier Oilfield Solutions, Inc. is an oilfield services provider
based in Texas.

NexTier Completion Solutions, Inc. is a Texas-based oil and gas
field services provider.

C&J Energy Services, Inc. provides completion and production
services for oil and gas industry primarily in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in Missouri court.

In March 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the
predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal
court.

The Company successfully removed the case to federal court and is
currently vigorously defending the case.

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

Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.


PACCAR INC: Claims Over European Commission Probe Ongoing in UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
PACCAR Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend claims
related to an European Commission (EC) probe.

On July 19, 2016, the European Commission (EC) concluded its
investigation of all major European truck manufacturers and reached
a settlement with DAF.

Following the settlement, claims and lawsuits have been filed
against the Company, DAF and certain DAF subsidiaries and other
truck manufacturers in various European jurisdictions.

These claims and lawsuits include a number of collective
proceedings, including proposed class actions in the United
Kingdom, alleging EC-related claims and seeking unspecified
damages.  

Others may bring EC-related claims and lawsuits against the Company
or its subsidiaries.

PACCAR  said, "While the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses, such claims and lawsuits will likely take a significant
period of time to resolve. The Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any, that may result given the early stage of
these claims and lawsuits. An adverse outcome of such proceedings
could have a material impact on the Company’s results of
operations."

PACCAR Inc. is a global technology company whose Truck segment
includes the design and manufacture of high-quality light-, medium-
and heavy-duty commercial trucks. In North America, trucks are sold
under the Kenworth and Peterbilt nameplates, in Europe, under the
DAF nameplate and in Australia and South America, under the
Kenworth and DAF nameplates. The Parts segment includes the
distribution of aftermarket parts for trucks and related commercial
vehicles. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.


PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Denies Coverage of COVID Losses, Kahn Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD KAHN and AARK ENTERPRISE LLC d/b/a MAULDIN'S, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENNSYLVANIA
NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00781-YK (M.D. Pa., May 12, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's denial of insurance coverage for the
Plaintiff's business closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Kahn, like many Americans, is a small business owner devastated
by the impact of the pandemic, according to the complaint. He had
been the owner and operator of Mauldin's, a local "mom & pop"
restaurant in Mauldin, South Carolina, until the pandemic affected
South Carolina and the rest of the nation beginning in early March
2020. Unable to maintain his business operations--a sit-down,
family restaurant entirely reliant on in-person diners--his
business suffered extensive loss of profits and had to close the
restaurant down.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff expected coverage for
business income losses arising from interruption of business,
including coverage of extra expenses incurred to restore his
business and, thus, minimize his loss of business income. Instead,
the Defendant swiftly denied the Plaintiff's claim. Mr. Kahn
alleges that in denying his claim, the Defendant wrongfully
asserted that his losses were not "direct physical loss of or
damage" to his business. He also alleges that the Defendant has
breached its contracts with its insureds and has been unjustly
enriched.

Penn National operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
auto, home, life and other insurance services. Penn National
Insurance serves customers in the State of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: 610 642-8500
          Facsimile: 610 649-3633
          E-mail: BFJ@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310-474-9111
          Facsimile: 310-474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Kenwood Pools Balks at Denial of Waiver Application
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PARADISE CONCEPTS, INC. T/A KENWOOD POOLS, and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS W. WOLF, Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, RACHEL LEVINE, M.D., Secretary of the
Pennsylvania Department of Health, and DENNIS M. DAVIN,
Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02161-RBS (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2020)
arises after the Plaintiff was denied a waiver from the Business
Closure Orders through the Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED).

On March 19, 2020, Governor Thomas W. Wolf and Secretary Rachel
Levine issued respective executive orders shuttering all non-life
sustaining businesses. The stated purpose of these Business Closure
Orders was to slow or control the spread of COVID-19. The Business
Closure Orders stated that non-life sustaining businesses increased
the risk of transmission and community spread of COVID-19. Despite
this apparent increased risk, the Governor permitted non-life
sustaining businesses to apply for a waiver from the Business
Closure Orders through the Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED), which is the executive agency Governor Wolf
tasked with processing the waiver requests. If granted a waiver, a
non-life sustaining business would be permitted to operate.

According to the complaint, Governor Wolf and Secretary Levine
determined that businesses like Kenwood Pools business were not
life sustaining. Kenwood Pools complied with the Business Closure
Orders and closed immediately and remains closed. After Kenwood
Pools learned that two competitors had applied for and been granted
waivers under the Waiver Policy, Kenwood applied for a waiver too.
But the DCED denied its application without explanation.

The complaint asserts that the Waiver Policy lacked uniform
standards that applied equally to all applicants for waivers.

Kenwood Pools operates a retail store in Levittown that sells pool
and spa chemicals, filtration systems, heat pumps, gas heaters,
pool toys and accessories, and maintenance equipment to the
public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter S. Zimolong, Esq.
          ZIMOLONG, LLC
          PO Box 552
          Villanova, PA 19085-0552
          Telephone: (215) 665-0842
          Email: wally@zimolonglaw.com

PHOENIX TREE: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 29
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited
(NYSE:DNK) pursuant and/or traceable to prospectuses and
registration statements issued in connection with the Company's
January 22, 2020, initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Phoenix investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Phoenix class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1846.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, the Offering Materials were materially
incomplete and misleading because they omitted and otherwise
misrepresented the following facts: (1) Phoenix had received
customer complaints and negative press regarding questionable
business conduct before the IPO, including its widespread and
notorious practice of deceptively inducing renters to procure loans
whose proceeds financed the Company's business and operations; (2)
competition in the residential rental market in China had suffered
at the time of the IPO as the coronavirus ravaged the very
locations where Phoenix primarily operated, including Wuhan, the
epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic; (3) Phoenix's technological
capabilities were unable to enable the Company to overcome the
complications and erosion of business resulting from the spread of
the coronavirus throughout China at the time of the IPO; (4)
Phoenix was contending with extraordinarily adverse developments in
China at the time of the IPO due to the coronavirus that presented
events, risks and uncertainties that were reasonably likely to
materially affect Phoenix's business, operations and financial
condition, including a material increase in renter complaints and
negative press and the prospect that renters could not continue to
pay rent and service fees under conditions then existing as of the
IPO; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Phoenix was positioned no
differently than its competitors in managing the fallout from
customer complaints or adverse implications stemming from the
coronavirus in China; and (6) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 26,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1846.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


PIXELOGIC MEDIA: Misclassifies Workers, Gabriel Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA GABRIEL and TAMU DESKINS, on behalf of themselves and other
current and former aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act v. PIXELOGIC MEDIA PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV18085 (Cal. Super., May 12, 2020), alleges that
Pixelogic subjects its employees to unlawful practices, including
misclassifying them as independent contractors and salaried exempt
employees.

The Plaintiffs also accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
overtime pay; failing to pay minimum wages; and failing to provide
uninterrupted off-duty meal periods and/or required penalties in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as project managers.

Pixelogic provides media services. The Company offers language,
localization, audio, and distribution services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George S. Baseluos, Esq.
          Jonathan Yong, Esq.
          John T. Greenway, Esq.
          BASELUOS, GREENWAY & YONG, LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 2050
          Irvine, CA, 92614
          Telephone: 855 320-1700
          Facsimile: 949-627-2480

               - and -

          Robert Odell, Esq.
          ODELL LAW, PLC
          1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA, 92614
          Telephone: 949 833-7105


POLAR CORP: Ginger Label Misleading, Fitzgerald Says
----------------------------------------------------
THERESA FITZGERALD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. POLAR CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10877 (D. Mass., May 7, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for common law fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of
Massachusetts General Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive labeling, advertising, marketing, and sale of its soft
drinks, which include Polar Ginger Ale, Polar Green Tea Ginger Ale
and Polar Pomegranate Ginger Ale. The Defendant's representation of
the products as made from real ginger leads the Plaintiff and all
others consumers believe that the soft drinks are made using real
ginger root and that consumers who drink the soft drinks will
receive the health benefits associated with consuming real ginger.
However, in reality, Polar's soft drinks are not made from real
ginger. Instead, it is made from carbonated water, high fructose
corn syrup and/or sugar, citric acid, caramel color, and natural
flavoring.

Polar Corp., doing business as Polar Beverages, is a soft drink
manufacturer with its principal place of business in Worcester,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
         Matthew T. McCrary, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         265 Franklin St, Suite 1702
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (214) 502-2171

               - and –
         
         Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94114
         Telephone: (415) 639-9090

POSTMATES INC: Altounian Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Couriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARSEN ALTOUNIAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
and in their Capacities as Private Attorney General Representatives
v. Postmates, Inc., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-584366 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 7, 2020), seeks
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code, for failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

Due to the Defendant's misclassification of couriers as independent
contractors, the Defendant failed to pay couriers the required
minimum wage for all hours worked and has not paid appropriate
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day
or 40 hours per week in violation of the Labor Code, the complaint
says.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals
have worked for Postmates as couriers in California.

The Defendant provides on-demand delivery to customers at their
homes and businesses through its mobile phone application and Web
site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Flinn T. Milligan, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  flinn.miligan@zimmreed.com


POWER HOME REMODELING: Warner TCPA Suit Removed to D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kegan Warner, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Power Home
Remodeling Group, LLC, Case No. 2020CV30753, was removed from the
Colorado District Court, Arapahoe County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on May 21, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01452-NYW to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Power Home Remodeling is an American corporation headquartered in
Chester, Pennsylvania, that provides services predominantly related
to energy and cost-saving exterior remodeling products such as
replacement windows, roofing and vinyl siding.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ezra Dodd Church, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: (215) 963-5000
          Fax: (215) 963-5001
          Email: ezra.church@morganlewis.com


POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2020, for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020, that, at the
Company's behest, the Court in the class action suit initiated by
Jerome Treadwell has  stayed the case pending the Illinois
Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare.

In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois. In December 2018, NOVAtime removed
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019.

The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss.

In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the
court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal question that would be
potentially dispositive in this matter.

In February 2020, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay.

On April 1, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
and stayed the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling
in McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Power Solutions said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or meaningfully
quantify how the final resolution of this matter may impact its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.


PRIDE MANAGEMENT: Wahl Suit Seeks to Recover Back and Front Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANDY WAHL v. PRIDE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-01423-JTM-DMD (E.D. La., May 12, 2020), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated, seeking to recover back and front pay and
general damages, as well attorney's fees and costs associated with
this litigation.

The Plaintiff contends that that PMI implemented and adhered to an
unofficial recordkeeping policy and practice that sometimes
required housekeeping and other employees to work hours in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek but prohibited employees from properly
recording all hours worked so that the Defendant could avoid paying
overtime compensation to its nonexempt employees.

The Plaintiff was hired in 2013 as a front desk agent. She was
promoted to Food and Beverage manager in October 2017.

Pride Management is in the business of managing hotel properties
for national chains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale E. Williams, Esq.
          Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DALE EDWARD WILLIAMS
          212 Park Place
          Covington, LA 7 0433
          Telephone: (985) 898 6368
          Facsimile: (985) 892-2640
          E-mail: chad@daleslaw.com


PROVIDENCE, RI: Tran Suit Challenges Unlawful Private Tax Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN TRAN, HELEN TRAN, LUIS CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUTATED PERSONS v. JAMES LOMBARDI AS
TREASURER OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, AND JOHN MURPHY AS CITY
COLLECTOR FOR THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE AND ARCHON INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00210-MSM-PAS (D.R.I., May 11,
2020), alleges that the Defendants have improperly attempted to
authorize a private entity to conduct a computerized private tax
sale without any Rhode Island statutory authority for such
authorization.

As alleged in this complaint, the Rhode Island General Laws do not
provide for a private tax sale, which takes property from the
Plaintiffs and the Class. The notices provided to the Taxpayers and
Class by mail indicated that a public auction would occur in the
City Council Chambers on May 14, 2020. The April 23, 2020
advertisement in the Providence Journal was not consistent with the
Notice mailed to the Plaintiffs and Class in that it did not
indicate that there would be a public auction in the City Council
Chambers, the Plaintiffs assert.

The existence of the Coronavirus pandemic does not permit the City
of Providence to sell the property of the Plaintiffs and the Class
without complying with the due process of law set forth in the
statutory scheme of the Rhode Island General Laws, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the actions of the
Defendants are contrary to law and contrary to due process of law
and will result in their being deprived of property by a private
process not permitted by State law without due process of law.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and Class have incurred economic
damages attributable to the scheduling of a private and secret
online tax sale in contravention of the statutory authority of the
City and City Collector in violation of due process of law
necessary before selling the Plaintiffs' and Class' property for
taxes.

The Plaintiffs are taxpayers and property owners, whose properties
will be allegedly taken without due process of law by the online
tax sale in contravention of the Rhode Island General Laws. Shawn
Tran and Helen Tran are property owners of the property located at
34 Calhoun Avenue, in Providence, referenced by the City of
Providence Tax Assessor as Plat 43 Lot 971. Tran owes the City of
Providence real estate taxes in the amount of $5436.38 for this
property.

Mr. Castillo is a property owner of the property located at 523
Prairie Avenue, in Providence, referenced by the City of Providence
Tax Assessor as Plat 53 Lot 102. Mr. Castillo owes the City of
Providence real estate taxes in the amount of $7,438.15 for this
property.

Providence is the capital city of the U.S. state of Rhode
Island.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John B. Ennis, Esq.
          1200 Reservoir Avenue
          Cranston, RI 02920
          Telephone: (401)9343-9230
          E-mail: Jbelaw75@gmail.com


QANTAS: Class Action Mulled Over Refusal to Provide Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Chamberlin, writing for Executive Traveller, reports that
Melbourne-based law firm Slater and Gordon is sizing up class
action lawsuits against airlines, travel agencies, cruise operators
and tour companies over their refusal to provide travellers with
refunds for cancelled trips.

Qantas, Jetstar, Flight Centre and Webjet are among the businesses
called out by the firm for pushing travel credits or vouchers
instead of a full refund.

Also in Slater and Gordon's cross-hairs is the practice of airlines
selling seats on international flights from Australia that are
highly unlikely to depart.

When those flights are ultimately cancelled by the airlines, the
customer may again be faced with the prospect of receiving a travel
credit or voucher rather than a cash refund.

"We understand that everyone is doing it tough at present,
including the major airlines and travel companies," acknowledges
Slater and Gordon Practice Group Leader Andrew Paull, "but that
doesn't give them an excuse to take advantage of their customers."

"We believe cash refunds should be returned to customers, who
almost certainly need that money right now, rather than (remaining)
in bank accounts gathering interest for airline shareholders."

The firm believes tens of thousands of Australians may be affected
by these travel industry practices, which could make them eligible
to participate in an eventual class action claim, seeking to
convert their existing travel credit into a cash refund.

Slater and Gordon is inviting would-be travellers who have received
travel credits or vouchers in lieu of cash refunds to register
their interest in a possible class action claim against their
travel provider, to recover their cash.

What have travel providers done wrong?

Slater and Gordon holds that many travel providers, "including
Qantas and Jetstar, may have breached their legal obligations by
putting in place travel voucher schemes that significantly
disadvantage their customers."

Some airlines were also believed to be holding onto customers' cash
by accepting payment for highly questionable international leisure
flights, which would inevitably be cancelled.

One example given is both Qantas and Jetstar recently selling
flights from Australia to Bali with departure dates as soon as June
1 2020, despite Government travel bans and the recent implication
that even trans-Tasman travel may not resume until late June or
early July at the earliest, let alone broader overseas flying.

"We call on businesses like Qantas and Jetstar to do the right
thing and honour their obligations to their customers. If they
won't do so, then it's only reasonable for those customers to look
at recovering their money through a class action," Paull
elaborates.

It is "not acceptable for Qantas shareholders to treat the money it
owes to ordinary Australians like its own," he adds.

The day after Paull's comments were made on May 4, Qantas announced
it would be blocking ticket sales on international flights set to
depart before August 1, except for trans-Tasman routes, which are
currently on sale from July 1.

How to register your interest in a class action claim

If your travel plans have been impacted by the coronavirus and
you've received a travel voucher instead of a refund, you can
register your details on the Slater and Gordon website.

Slater and Gordon is seeking people affected by flight
cancellations from Australian airlines, as well as those impacted
by airline cancellations on journeys to or from Australia operated
by overseas-based carriers.

This includes not only Qantas and Jetstar, but also Air New
Zealand, Emirates, Singapore Airlines and more.

While Virgin Australia and Tigerair are both currently in voluntary
administration, submissions from customers of these brands are
being accepted too.

However, these airlines have temporarily paused issuing new refunds
-- and even new travel credits -- until otherwise directed by the
administrator, as part of that administration process.

Customers of tour companies and cruise operators whose voyages were
similarly axed are also invited to register their details.

There's no cost to register your interest via the Slater and Gordon
website, where further information is available. [GN]


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit related to the 2018-2019 AMCA Data Security Incident,
is pending.

On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA")
had informed the Company and Optum360 LLC that an unauthorized user
had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30,
2019 (the "AMCA Data Security Incident"). Optum360 provides revenue
management services to the Company, and AMCA provided debt
collection services to Optum360. AMCA first informed the Company of
the AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019. AMCA's affected
system included financial information (e.g., credit card numbers
and bank account information), medical information and other
personal information (e.g., social security numbers). Test
results were not included. Neither Optum360's nor the Company's
systems or databases were involved in the incident. AMCA also
informed the Company that information pertaining to other
laboratories' customers was also affected. Following announcement
of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA sought protection under
the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Following the AMCA Data Security Incident, 39 lawsuits were filed
against the Company related to the incident; two of those suits
subsequently have been dismissed.

All but one of the remaining lawsuits are putative class actions in
which the plaintiffs purport to represent various classes of
consumers. In the pending cases, (most of which also name other
defendants), plaintiffs assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security
Incident. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases to, and consolidated them for pre-trial
proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.

On November 15, 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict
proceeding filed a consolidated putative class action complaint
against the Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals
as plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and
statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security
Incident.

On January 22, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

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

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey.


QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Benesch Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq., of Benesch, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that text messages are becoming an ever-increasing way for
companies to communicate with their customers. However, if text
message campaigns are not crafted properly, companies can run afoul
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), which regulates
text message marketing and the types of consent necessary to obtain
from consumers.

Critically, when a text message introduces an advertisement, the
sender must obtain the prior express written consent of the call
recipient, including making certain mandatory disclosures in
getting that written consent. Failure to comply with these
requirements can allow a consumer to recover up to $1,500 per text
message from companies that fail to comply, and these damages can
become staggering when lawsuits are filed as class actions.

Further, while the TCPA has different consent requirements for
informational or transactional text messages versus advertisements,
this line is not always clear to courts, as evidenced by the recent
decision in Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, No. 19-12235, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 45481 (D. Mass. March 16, 2020).

QuoteWizard is a website that allows consumers to enter their
information to receive quotes for auto and other insurance
products. QuoteWizard sent two text messages to Joseph Mantha,
stating:

"Hey, it's Amanda following up. When's a good day for us to talk
Joe? You requested a quote on auto insurance. Message me if you're
still interested!"

"Hi this is Amanda! Are you looking for an accurate estimate, Joe?
We can review your options together. Call me when you're free, it
won't take long!"

In response, the plaintiff, Joseph (Joe?), sued QuoteWizard for
alleged violations of the TCPA, and sought to represent other
similar consumers in a class action. The plaintiff alleged that
QuoteWizard violated the TCPA in two ways. First, by calling him
without his prior express written consent using an "automatic
telephone dialing system," and second by sending two solicitations
to him, even though his telephone number is on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. QuoteWizard moved to dismiss the complaint,
arguing that the plaintiff did not plead adequate facts to suggest
the use of an ATDS and that the messages were not solicitations,
but merely informational.

First, the good out of Mantha. The court held that general
allegations that a message was sent with a long code and
allegations regarding "mass texting services" is not enough to
plausibly allege the use of an ATDS. That result particularly makes
sense here, given that the messages were not impersonal or generic,
but were specifically addressed to "Joe" and "following up" on the
fact he "requested a quote for auto insurance." The court didn't
take any position on the hotly contest issue of what functionality
dialing equipment must have to constitute an ATDS, but did, at the
very least, hold the plaintiff to a meaningful pleading standing.
So, Count I dismissed!

Unfortunately, the court missed the mark on Count II, and concluded
that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the messages were
solicitations. In reaching this conclusion, the court looked back
to a 2003 FCC order, which found that messages sent "for the
purpose of encouraging the purchase of goods and services and
therefore fall within the statutory definition of telephone
solicitation."

However, the court missed that a few years after that FCC order, in
2006, the FCC further made a distinction between messages that
constitute advertisements versus transactional messages, and
clarified that messages "whose purpose is to facilitate, complete,
or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has
previously agreed to enter into with the sender are not
advertisements." (While the FCC was specifically addressing faxes
in that 2006 Order, courts have routinely applied the same analysis
to telephone calls and text messages.)

In fact, in 2006, the FCC even noted that "bids in response to
specific solicitations would not be covered by the rules, as such
communications are presumably to facilitate a commercial
transaction that the recipient has agreed to enter into by
soliciting the bids." That seems to fit the text messages here
perfectly -- they were specifically addressed to Joe, and were
"following up" on the fact he "requested a quote for auto
insurance."

Now, in some fairness to the court, the plaintiff did allege that
he never requested a quote for auto insurance. To that end, it's
important to keep in mind that the court's decision was merely at
the pleading stage and not a decision on the merits -- given the
specific nature of the text messages, it seems likely that there is
more to this story than the one-sided portrayal by plaintiff that
will come out as litigation proceeds.

Regardless, Mantha illustrates just how tricky ferreting through
TCPA regulations and FCC orders can be, and how it is imperative
for businesses to use best practices in obtaining prior express
written consent for text messages for contacting consumers,
regardless of the intended purpose of the campaign and the platform
used for making context. [GN]


RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Coulter Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RAMSEY COULTER, as
Administrator of the Estate of JOSHUA CHAD-AUSTIN COULTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Case No. 2:17-cv-03970-JS (E.D.
Pa.), the parties seek an order certifying the case to proceed as a
class action, and granting final approval of their settlement on
behalf of the following class:

   "all consumers who were sent an initial collection letter
   from Defendant, with an address in Chester County,
   Pennsylvania, during the period of September 5, 2016 to
   present, attempting to collect a consumer debt, which
   stated:

      "If you feel that this balance may be due from your
      insurance carrier, please contact your carrier prior
      to contacting the  representative at the extension
      listed below.""

Receivables Management is a financial services company.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

RESOLUTE ENTERPRISES: Faces Morris Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resolute Enterprises
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Dandrea Morris, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Resolute Enterprises LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00278078-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 6,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Resolute is doing business in staffing services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Rodriguez, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS
          106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., No. 412
          Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805
          Telephone: (213) 280-8908
          E-mail: justicelawpartners@gmail.com


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Charleau Sues Over Unpaid Work-Related Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAAVEED CHARLEAU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10864-IT (D. Mass., May 6, 2020), is a class action lawsuit
against the Defendant for violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act
arising from its failure to reimburse work-related expenses.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other workers
regularly incur work-related expenses for gas, vehicle
maintenance/repair, and insurance. The Defendant allegedly does not
reimburse Plaintiff and other workers for such expenses, which are
directly related to the work they perform for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff estimates that, during the applicable limitations
period, the monetary value of his individual deductions and
expenses referenced above exceeds $25,000 exclusive of statutory
penalties. For example, the Defendant deducts approximately $477
from his wages each week just for route payments and equipment
fees, he contends.

The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and other Massachusetts workers to
deliver/distribute Snyder's-Lance food products to retail stores
and other outlets within specific geographic areas referred to as
"routes" or "territories."

The Defendant, according to its Web site, "is a wholesale
distributor of various snack food products manufactured by
subsidiaries and affiliates of Snyder's-Lance, Inc." Since 2018,
Snyder's-Lance Inc. has been owned by Campbell Soup Company and has
operated within Campbell's Snacks segment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com
                  zrubin@llrlaw.com


SB DIRECTIONAL: Approval of Field Workers Class Notice Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CLAYTON FOUTCH, CLINT
STALLWORTH, JOBIN SIMS and Robert F. Winters II, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. SB DIRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, and SCOTT BURCH, Case No.
5:19-cv-00362 (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order approving their proposed notice and consent form, and opt-in
procedures on behalf of:

   "Field Workers and completions Field Workers employed by,
   or working on behalf of, SB Energy Corp. as independent
   contractors and paid a day-rate any time between three
   years prior to the date of the Court's order granting
   conditional certification and the present."

SB allegedly maintained a uniform pay practice of paying their
Field Workers a day-rate without any overtime compensation. Because
the relationship between the Field Workers with SB rise to that of
employee/employer relationship, SB's day-rate independent
contractor classification flagrantly violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the complaint says.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacque Pearsall, Esq.
          PEARSALL LAW GROUP, LLC
          920 Majestic Avenue
          Yukon, OK 73099
          Telephone: (405) 354-5536
          Facsimile: (405) 673-5785
          E-mail: JacquePearsall@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tanya S. Bryant, Esq.
          Mary P. Snyder, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          Braniff Building
          324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-7700
          Facsimile: (405) 239-6651
          E-mail: tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com

SEALED AIR: UA Local 13's Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund.

On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the Company's tax deduction in connection with its 2014 settlement
for asbestos-related liabilities related to the Cryovac acquisition
and the Company's subsequent hiring of Ernst & Young LLP as its
independent auditors.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 5, 2014 and August 6, 2018.


The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, and attorneys fees and costs.

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

Sealed Air Corporation provides food safety and security, and
product protection solutions worldwide. It was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Action Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiffs' appeal from
a court order dismissing a federal securities class action suit
remains pending.

A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal
securities laws was filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its
officers in July 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

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

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: June 24 Trial Postponed Sine Die
-----------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the initial trial
previously scheduled for June 2020 for a small number of randomly
selected individual plaintiffs has been postponed, with a new trial
date to be determined by the court.

On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San
Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is
one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage
facility.  SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's
leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, the
California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf
of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility as a result of the Leak.

As of April 29, 2020, 393 lawsuits, including approximately 36,000
plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas related to the Leak, some
of which have also named Sempra Energy.

All these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney and the federal securities class action
discussed below, are coordinated before a single court in the LA
Superior Court for pretrial management.

In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, individuals and
business entities filed a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case
Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate
lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and
violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes
of action also naming Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint
seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost
wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in
property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical
monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties associated with
Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of requirements for
warning about certain chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees.

SoCalGas is engaged in settlement discussions in connection with
these actions and has recorded a related accrual of $277 million,
inclusive of estimated legal costs, in Reserve for Aliso Canyon
Costs on SoCalGas' and Sempra Energy's Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

The initial trial previously scheduled for June 2020 for a small
number of randomly selected individual plaintiffs has been
postponed, with a new trial date to be determined by the court.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Agar Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Sensient
Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) is seeking dismissal of the remaining
claim in the class action suit by a former employee.

On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a
Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On May 22, 2019, Agar filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI (the Complaint).


Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on
employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which
concern the wage statements.

The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.

SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office.

Finally, SNI contended that certain of the state law claims are
subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in
the case in December 2019, which was not successful.

On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted
was subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

SNI filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking
dismissal of the remaining claim, on May 1, 2020.

SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this
issue. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests, absent a
reasonable resolution.

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.


SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Notes of June 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Servicemaster Global
Holdings, Inc.. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Servicemaster Global Holdings, Inc. (SERV)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/servicemaster-global-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6069&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 9, 2020
Class Period: February 26, 2019 to November 4, 2019

Allegations against SERV include that: (a) ServiceMaster had failed
to properly inspect and treat for Formosan termite activity; (b) as
a result thereof, the Company was and continued to experience a
material adverse trend of costly litigation from injured customers
which was not disclosed to investors; (c) in an unsuccessful
attempt to mitigate this trend, Defendants had been taking remedial
measures since at least 2018, including drastically raising prices
for termite treatments in Mobile, Alabama to deter contract
renewals; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, ServiceMaster's
financial results were reasonably likely to be impacted, and would
continue to impact the Company into 2020.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



SK ENERGY: Fricke-Parks et al. Sue Over Gas Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRICKE-PARKS PRESS, INC.; JUSTIN LARDINOIS; and VINCENT CENDEJAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL
CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-03148 (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who purchased gasoline at gas stations
in California after the Torrance refinery incident in February
2015, allege that the Defendants took advantage of the temporary
supply shortage following the explosion of a gasoline refinery in
Torrance, California. The Defendants entered into contracts to sell
refined gasoline in California and, pursuant to a horizontal
agreement among them: (1) artificially increased the prices for
refined gasoline sold in California; and (2) maintained those
prices at artificially high levels. The Defendants engaged in a
complex series of coordinated trading activities, including: (1)
engaging in sham transactions to obfuscate the true nature of the
supply and demand dynamic in California's gasoline market; (2)
trading with each other with the purpose and effect of creating
spikes in the spot market price; and (3) entering into prearranged,
unreported buy and sell transactions with each other to share
profits from the scheme. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful
acts, the Plaintiffs and Class members paid supra-competitive
prices at the pump for many months after the market effects of the
Torrance explosion subsided.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is an energy company based in Houston,
Texas.

SK Trading International Co., Ltd. is the parent of SK Energy
International and the indirect parent of SK Energy. It is based in
Seoul, South Korea.

Vitol Inc. is a subsidiary of Vitol Holding, B.V., an international
energy and commodities company, and a trading firm operator, with
principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
         Jordan Elias, Esq.
         Adam E. Polk, Esq.
         GIRARD SHARP LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 981-4800
         Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
         E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                 jelias@girardsharp.com
                 apolk@girardsharp.com

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Sued for Denying Business Interruption Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit led by a Monroe County eatery joined a growing
number of lawsuits over business closures related to the COVID-19
pandemic, and whether losses from those closures are covered by
business interruption insurance.

The lawsuit filed on April 29 by Badger Crossing Pub & Eatery, a
Cashton business that would be the lead plaintiff in the class
action if it's approved by a judge, demands that Society Insurance
cover business losses that happened as a result of business closure
orders issued by Gov. Tony Evers as part of a strategy for
combating the spread of COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by
the new coronavirus.

The lawsuit, filed in Dane County Circuit Court, also demands a
finding that Fond du Lac-based Society Insurance was in breach of
its contracts with businesses when it denied coverage for losses
related to COVID-19.

The lawsuit is not the first filed against Society over COVID-19
business claims. Earlier in April, Madison Sourdough and a group of
Minnesota taverns sued Society in federal court in Milwaukee. Also,
two restaurants filed lawsuits in federal court in Illinois,
including Chicago's famous Billy Goat Tavern, alleging Society
breached contracts to cover them in the event of a
government-imposed shutdown. And earlier in April, Al Johnson's
Swedish Restaurant in Sister Bay also sued Society in Door County
Circuit Court over its business interruption coverage.

According to guidance from the state Office of the Commissioner of
Insurance, business interruption coverage generally requires that
businesses suffer some physical injury or damage in order to file a
claim. Some policies might have exclusions for viral infections, so
OCI advises businesses to consult their policy to see if they're
covered in the event of a pandemic.

Badger Crossing's lawsuit claims the presence of COVID-19 at
Badger, either in the air or on surfaces, constitutes physical
damage.

The eatery closed completely as a result of the state's orders to
prevent the spread of COVID-19. Its policy with Society included
coverage for "business income," "extra expense," "civil authority"
and "contamination," which kicked in if it incurred losses and
extra expenses because of an involuntary business interruption.

The lawsuit states Badger Crossing's policy did not specifically
exclude losses from viruses or pandemics, so its business losses
should have been covered.

Instead, the lawsuit states, Society "has issued a blanket denial
to (Badger) for any business income losses or other covered
expenses related to COVID-19 or the closure orders, without first
conducting a meaningful investigation."

Society Insurance spokeswoman Rebecca Kollmann said Society "does
not comment on ongoing litigation. We look forward to a favorable
resolution of this situation in the near future."

Brief timeline

Evers issued an order on March 17 that closed all bars and
restaurants except for take-out or delivery service. Evers' "safer
at home" order, issued on March 24, further restricted bars and
restaurants selling alcohol, barring the delivery of alcohol to
customers. On April 16, Evers extended the "safer at home" order to
May 26.

The closure orders, the lawsuit states, triggered the business
income, extra expense, civil authority and contamination coverages
under Badger's policy.

And because there were people present at Badger Crossing who
carried COVID-19, and COVID-19 particles were both airborne and on
surfaces there, Badger Crossing sustained a direct physical loss or
damage to its property, the lawsuit asserts.

Badger Crossing submitted its claim to Society Insurance on March
31. It was denied the next day.

Warning issued

The lawsuit claims that on March 16, Society had circulated a
memorandum to "agency partners" concluding Society policies would
not likely provide coverage for losses due to any governmental
shutdown for COVID-19. It instructed brokers to discourage
policyholders from filing claims.

Society contends, the lawsuit states, that the presence of
coronavirus does not constitute "direct physical loss or damage"
and that no government authority has barred Badger access to its
premises because of contamination, as it's defined by the policy.
The lawsuit states Society provided no basis for its conclusions.
[GN]


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Securities Suit Against Legacy Unit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020, that Spectrum Brands'
Legacy, Inc. continues to defend an amended consolidated class
action suit initiated by Public School Teachers' Pension &
Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge Retirement.

On July 12, 2019, an amended consolidated class action complaint
filed earlier in 2018 was filed in the United State District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin by the Public School
Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge
Retirement against Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions in Spectrum
Legacy's financial statements.  

The amended complaint added HRG Group, Inc. as a defendant and
asserted additional claims against the Company on behalf of a
purported class of HRG shareholders.  

The class period of the consolidated amended complaint is from
January 26, 2017 to November 19, 2018, and the plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
and expert fees and costs.  

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.  

Spectrum Brands said, "Based on information currently available,
the Company does not believe that any other matters related to this
complaint will have a material adverse effect on its business or
financial condition."

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded
consumer products company. The company manage the businesses in
four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware
& Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet
Care , and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets
and/or distributes its products globally in the North America,
Europe, Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
regions through a variety of trade channels, including retailers,
wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and
construction companies. The company is based in Middleton,
Wisconsin.


STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: Pinkney Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE PINKNEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK and THE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02048 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2020) is a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
academic semester at schools operated by Defendant SUNY Corp., and
who, because of Defendants' response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their
fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to
them.

As a result of the closure of Defendants' facilities, Defendants
have not delivered the educational services, facilities, access
and/or opportunities that Plaintiff and the putative class
contracted and paid for. The online learning options being offered
to students of SUNY Schools are subpar in practically every aspect,
from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty.
Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote
learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person
education that Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted
and paid for.

Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund
of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Defendants have not provided. Even
if Defendants claims they did not have a choice in cancelling
in-person classes, they nevertheless have improperly retained funds
for services they are not providing.

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

The State University of New York operates the SUNY Schools and is
responsible for, among other things: (i) providing for higher
education supported in whole or in part with state moneys, (ii) the
care, custody, control and management of the lands, grounds,
buildings, facilities and equipment used for SUNY Schools, and
(iii) the implementation of statutorily mandated rules for charging
tuition to SUNY Schools students.

The State University of New York at Albany is a public university
located in Albany, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                 - and -

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

TAMPA BAY SPORTS: Court Okays $2.25MM TCPA Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a
federal district court in Florida recently approved a $2.25 million
TCPA class action settlement with approximately $800,000 in
attorneys' fees.

The $2.25 million resolves claims on behalf of 181,000 class
members for a text message marketing program that obtained consumer
information through promotional giveaways.  According to the
plaintiff, the defendant created sweepstakes offering prizes to
consumers who provided their telephone numbers and agreed to
receive general information through texts related to these
programs.  Rather than receiving updates regarding these programs,
the complaint alleges that consumers received daily advertising and
telemarketing messages that advertised ticket pricing.  The
complaint alleged that the program violated the TCPA by contacting
each consumer through the use of an ATDS about unrelated
advertising and promotions, thereby exceeding any consent provided
by the consumer to the initial giveaway program.  

In addition to the settlement amount, the agreement requires the
defendant to cease its text message marketing program, implement
new compliance measures for the marketing program, and begin
training staff on compliance with the TCPA.

The plaintiff's attorneys sought $787,500 in attorneys' fees
representing 35% of the total settlement amount.  The plaintiff
also sought $27,452 in costs and a $10,000 award for the named
plaintiff.  The court granted both requests after a brief motion
hearing.

The case is Hanley v. Tampa Bay Sports and Entm't LLC, 19-cv-00550
(M.D. Fla.). [GN]


TD BANK: Galgano Balks at Out-of-Network ATM Fees
-------------------------------------------------
DENISE GALGANO DBA SHEAR ENVY HAIR STUDIO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05623-RBK-AMD (D. N.J., May 6,
2020) is a class action seeking monetary damages and other relief
against the Defendant arising from its policy of charging Plaintiff
and both consumer and business customers fees for use of non-TD
Bank owned automated teller machines (or "ATMs").

According to the complaint, TD Bank charges its customers this $3
balance-inquiry fee separate and in addition to the fees the ATM
owner and TD Bank charge the customer for withdrawing cash from the
ATM after checking the balance to confirm an account has enough
money to cover the withdrawal. But the balance-inquiry fee, as well
as the other fees for use charged by TD Bank at non-TD owned ATMs,
was not disclosed at the ATM at the time that Plaintiff performed
her transaction.

TD Bank had assessed Plaintiff more than $600 in overdraft fees.
In just the few days before the transaction that triggered the
balance inquiry fee (February 3 – February 11, 2016), TD Bank had
assessed Plaintiff $140 in overdraft fees.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank chartered and supervised by the
federal Office of the Comptroller of Currency, and is headquartered
in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                      - and -

          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          MCCUNE • WRIGHT • AREVALO LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          Email: esk@mccunewright.com

                      - and -

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

                      - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com

TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Prause v. TechnipFMC, et
al., No. 4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Tex.).

A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company.

The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's restatement of our first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in the company's internal
control over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.

On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
("Securities Act").

A remaining claim for alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act in connection with the reporting of certain
financial results in the Company's Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed in 2016 is pending and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company is vigorously contesting the litigation and cannot
predict its duration or outcome.

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

TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on April 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Tetraphase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TTPH)
common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Tetraphase by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx") and
Consolidation Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), announced on March
16, 2020 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Tetraphase, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), AcelRx, and Merger Sub, is
captioned Plumley v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-00496 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-tetraphase-pharmaceuticals-inc,join.

On March 15, 2020, Tetraphase entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with AcelRx and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Tetraphase will receive 0.6303 shares of AcelRx common stock and
one contingent value right for each share of Tetraphase common
stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and AcelRx's
financial projections and the analyses performed by Tetraphase's
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of Tetraphase common
stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 29, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.

CONTACT:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
(888) 969-4242 (Toll-Free)
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com [GN]


TILRAY INC: Gross Law Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm on April
29 issued the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the
following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased
shares in the following companies during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.

Tilray, Inc. (TLRY)

Investors Affected: January 15, 2019 - March 2, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Tilray, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the purported advantages of the marketing and
revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group (the "ABG
Agreement")were significantly overstated; (ii) the under
performance of the ABG Agreement would foreseeably have a
significant impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tilray-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=6247&from=1

Intelsat S.A. (NYSE:I)

Investors Affected: November 5, 2019 - November 18, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Intelsat SA. The complaint filed against BC Partners, its
individual partners and directors of Intelsat Raymond Svider and
Justice Bateman, and Silver Lake Group, L.L.C. (and its related
entities) alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made
false and misleading statements to the market. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Silver Lake and its fellow defendants
violated the Exchange Act by selling a block of Intelsat's shares
while holding material non-public information, including the fact
that the Company had met with the Federal Communications Commission
(the "FCC") on November 5, 2019 to discussed the sale of spectrum
controlled by Intelsat for future "5G" use (the "C-Band"). The FCC
opposed Intelsat's proposal for a private sale of the C-Band,
preferring a public auction. The FCC announced a public auction of
the C-Band on November 18, 2019, contrary to Intelsat's wishes, its
stock dropped 40%.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/intelsat-s-a-loss-submission-form/?id=6247&from=1

iQIYI, Inc. (IQ)

Investors Affected: March 29, 2018 - April 7, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
iQIYI, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) iQIYI inflated its revenue figures; (2) iQIYI
inflated its user numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated its expenses to cover
up other fraud; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/iqiyi-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=6247&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


TRACY PAI: Weeks et al. Sue Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Weeks and Joy Johnson and Ronnie Mullins and Larry
Kocherhans and Michael Applebaum and Philip McNamee and Doug
Lichtinger and Sharon Plett and Glen Ingvalson and Chris Jacks
Plaintiffs, v. Tracy PAI Management LTD d/b/a Glenridge Capital
d/b/a Bee Options d/b/a Rumelia Capital SERVE AT: David Cartu,
Hatehila 12c, Natanya, 4272012, Israel and David Cartu, an
individual SERVE AT: Hatehila 12c, Natanya, 4272012, Israel
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00622 (E.D. Mo., May 7, 2020) is a
mass tort action wherein Plaintiffs were defrauded of money though
a scheme perpetrated by Tracy PAI Management, an Israeli firm, and
its principal, individually, and through its agents, claiming to
assist vulnerable American clients with the sale and purchase of
highly speculative binary options.

According to the complaint, the Tracy PAI operated a "bucket shop"
through Glenridge Capital, Bee Options and Rumelia Capital where
these unlicensed and unregulated binary options were purportedly
being sold.

The trading platform did not actually purchase any security, merely
taking the investors' money. Since binary options are extremely
speculative, and a wrong choice results in total loss of
investment, the victim's account went to zero value rather quickly.
The only way the victims knew they were the victim of a scam was
when they appeared to be winning, and tried to withdraw their
winnings, and it was impossible.

The Defendants transacted business in Missouri by soliciting
Missouri residents through both telephone and internet of things
(IOT) and by taking money from Missouri residents. They used
Internet advertisements to draw in potential victims. These
advertisements falsely promised high qualified staff and advisors
and state of the art trading systems, as well as guaranteed
profits. The Defendants encouraged victims to trade until many
victims lost everything, and were left destitute. The typical
victim lost their entire savings in a matter of months. This caused
additional mental and emotional suffering.

The Plaintiffs were damaged as a result of the false
representations of Defendants as they lost all monies invested with
Defendants and were left financially strained and in debt.

Tracy PAI Management Ltd. is an Israeli binary options
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mayer S. Klein, Esq.
          FRANKEL, RUBIN, KLEIN, SIEGEL, PAYNE & PUDLOWSKI, P.C.
          231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1111
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-8000
          Facsimile: (314) 726-5837
          Email: mklein@frankelrubin.com

TRANSDIGM GROUP: Plaintiff Seeks to Revive Ohio Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
class action suit entitled, In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN, have taken an appeal from
the court's order of dismissal.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The cases were originally filed on August 10, 2017, and September
18, 2017 and were consolidated on December 5, 2017.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On February 19, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and the case was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed the
decision on March 18, 2020.

The company intends to continue to vigorously defend the
consolidated securities class action on appeal and believe it is
without merit. The company also believes it has sufficient
insurance coverage available.

Therefore, the company do not expect these matters to have a
material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of
operations.

TransDigm said, "If we were to lose the appeal of the Court's entry
of dismissal, it would be difficult at this time to estimate a
range of any potential loss."

TransDigm Group designs, produces, and supplies aircraft components
in the United States and internationally. The company operates in
three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and Non-aviation.
TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.



TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Chaves Wants Refund, Not Travel Voucher
-----------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIO CHAVES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. TRANSPORTES AEREOS PORTUGUESES, S.A. d/b/a
TAP AIR PORTUGAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02086 (E.D.N.Y., May
7, 2020) alleges that the Defendant breached its contracts with
thousands of paying customers including the Plaintiff by offering
credits for future travel on the airline instead of providing
refunds for flights canceled by the airline in response to
declining demand in light of COVID-19 that severely impacts TAP Air
Portugal's operation.

On or about January 26, 2020, Plaintiff purchased tickets for
round-trip travel from New York, New York to Lisbon, Portugal for
travel on February 1, 2020, with a return date of April 7, 2020.
Plaintiff was able to travel to Portugal, but prior to the
scheduled return date, Defendant cancelled the return flight. At
first, Plaintiff was rebooked on a flight back to the United States
on April 8, only one day after his scheduled return date. However,
the April 8th flight was also cancelled, along with all other
flights through May 1.

Plaintiff contacted TAP's customer service via its online chat
function and asked for a refund, which TAP refused.  

The Defendant informed Plaintiff that they could reaccommodate him
on May 1, 2020, over three weeks after his scheduled return date.
With Plaintiff needing to get home to his job and having nowhere to
stay in Portugal, Plaintiff told TAP that the reaccommodation TAP
offered was not acceptable. Plaintiff again requested a refund so
that he could find another way to return to New York.

The Defendant again insisted that no refund is available and that
his only option was rebooking. However, TAP was not able to rebook
Plaintiff's flight to Plaintiff's satisfaction, and he was forced
to book a return flight to New York on another airline.  

According to the complaint, despite the fact that Plaintiff could
not take the flight he booked because TAP canceled it, TAP failed
to provide a refund to Plaintiff and, instead, only offered
Plaintiff a voucher for use on a future TAP flight.

Transportes Aereos Portugueses is the flag carrier airline of
Portugal. TAP is Portugal's leading airline and has been a member
of the global airline Star Alliance since 2005. The airline is
headquartered at Lisbon Airport and operates, on average, 2,500
flights a week to 90 destinations in 34 countries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 419-0156
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
                 jshah@sfmslaw.com

                     - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd. Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com

                     - and -

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

                     - and -  

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: choover@tzlegal.com

                     - and -  

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

TROIA BROTHERS: Garcia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TROIA BROTHERS INC., (DBA AS ROSA'S PIZZA) AND
ALESSANDRO TROIA AND ERASMO TROIA, Case No. 1:20-cv-02131
(E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked, failed to
pay him appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the
straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the required "spread of
hours payment for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a
day, he adds.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants. He was primarily
employed to perform various duties of a cook at the Pizzeria.

The Defendants own, operate or control a Pizzeria located at 374
Metropolitan Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "ROSA'S
PIZZA." The Individual Defendants serve or served as owner,
manager, principle, or agent of the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Klein Law Firm Notes of June 5 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Tufin Software Technologies Ltd.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (TUFN)
Class Period: securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Tufin's April 2019 initial public offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 5, 2020

The TUFN lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (2) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (3) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

Learn about your recoverable losses in TUFN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=6067&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

           J. Klein, Esq.
           Empire State Building
           350 Fifth Avenue
           59th Floor
           New York, NY 10118
           E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
           Tel: (212) 616-4899
           Fax: (347) 558-9665
           Web site: www.kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle Antitrust
Litigation, is pending.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well
as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district
courts.

All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019.


Tyson said, "We have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
in the class action suit entitled, Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company
Holdings, et al., is still pending.

On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information
services provider, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state antitrust
and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims
against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second
amended complaint on November 22, 2019.

Tyson said, " We have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as
Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al."

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Turkey Purchasers Suits in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit in Illinois
initiated by turkey purchasers.

On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and
John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class
action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants entered
into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information
regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans, all with the
intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in violation of
the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of all commercial
and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that purchased
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, alleging claims
based on the Sherman Act and various state law causes of action.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Price-Fixing of Pork Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Pork
Antitrust Litigation.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. Subsequent to the
filing of the initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar
claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation. Since the original filing, a putative class member is
proceeding with an individual direct action making similar claims,
and others may do so in the future.

The individual complaint has been filed in the District of
Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with
the consolidated actions. The complaints allege, among other
things, that beginning in January 2009 the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork
and pork products in violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The
plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in which
the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork
and pork products in violation of state and federal antitrust,
consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws, and the
plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on
behalf of the putative classes.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This
lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an amended
complaint was filed on December 6, 2019.

Tyson said, "On January 15, 2020, we moved to dismiss the amended
complaints."

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Must Defend Against Okla. Broiler Chicken Grower Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the case styled, In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, has been denied.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of the
company's poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share
detailed data on [g]rower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation
below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Review on Suit v. Hillshire Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the Philippine Supreme
Court's review of the case where The Hillshire Brands Company, a
company subsidiary, is a respondent, is still pending.

The company's subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly
named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases
filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the
Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National
Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC") from 1998 through July 1999.

The complaint was filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories
Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the
"respondents"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with
the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines in
1995 by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The
Hillshire Brands Company.

In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and
awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately U.S. $68
million) in damages and fees.

The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was
subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent to
the NLRC's decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions
for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which
remained outstanding for several years. While various of those
appeals, motions and/or petitions were pending, The Hillshire
Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without admitting liability,
filed a settlement motion requesting that the Supreme Court of the
Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all claims against it
and certain other respondents in exchange for payments allocated by
the court among the complainants in an amount not to exceed
PHP342,287,800 (approximately U.S. $6.7 million).

Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to
the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the
Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents' settlement
motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme
Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC's
December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases were remanded back
before the NLRC to rule on the merits of the case.

On December 15, 2016, the company learned that the NLRC rendered
its decision on November 29, 2016, regarding the respondents'
appeals regarding the labor arbiter's 2004 ruling in favor of the
complainants. The NLRC increased the award for 4,922 of the total
5,984 complainants to PHP14,858,495,937 (approximately U.S. $291
million).

However, the NLRC approved a prior settlement reached with the
group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984
complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed
to pay each settling complainant PHP68,000 (approximately U.S.
$1,300). The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to
the NLRC, which is responsible for distributing the funds to each
settling complainant.

On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for
reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside.
The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a
resolution received on May 5, 2017 and entered a judgment on the
award on July 24, 2017.

Each of Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee
Philippines, Inc. appealed this award and sought an injunction to
preclude enforcement of the award to the Philippines Court of
Appeals. On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ
of preliminary injunction that precluded execution of the NLRC
award during the pendency of the appeal. The Court of Appeals
subsequently vacated the NLRC's award on April 12, 2018.
Complainants have filed motions for reconsideration with the Court
of Appeals.

On November 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied claimants'
motions for reconsideration and granted defendants' motion to
release and discharge the preliminary injunction bond. Claimants
have since filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme
Court of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has accepted the case
for review.

Tyson  said, "We continue to maintain an accrual for this matter."

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.
Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation.

Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.


All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions. The operative
complaints, which have been amended throughout the litigation,
allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the
defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes. Decisions on class certification and summary
judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are currently
expected in late calendar year 2020 and 2021.

If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on class certification
and any summary judgment motions in calendar year 2022. On April
26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") Antitrust Division issued a grand
jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties
in the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to
intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil
action, which the court granted in part.

Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the
DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the
chicken industry. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ's request.
On October 16, 2019, the court extended the limited stay of
discovery in the civil action through June 27, 2020, and on
December 18, 2019, the court shortened the stay until March 31,
2020.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other poultry processing companies
alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust
laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


U.S. IMMIGRATION: ACLU, 4 Firms Seek Release of NH Jail Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union and four law firms filed a class
action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeking
the immediate release of all ICE civil detainees from the Strafford
County jail in Dover, New Hampshire.

Medical authorities say maintaining a social distance of six feet
is crucial to preventing the spread of COVID-19, which the suit
claims is impossible at the jail.

Nixon Peabody LLP, Whatley Kallas LLP, Shaheen & Gordon PA, Newman
Law Office PLLC, and Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP filed the suit in
U.S. District Court with the ACLU's New Hampshire and national
chapters.

"I am bringing this lawsuit because I want to protect not only
myself, but the other immigration detainees at the Strafford County
Department of Corrections," said José Nolberto Tacuri-Tacuri,
plaintiff in the case. "I am afraid of the coronavirus because I
learned from the news that people are infected in detention across
the country. I am concerned that the same thing can happen here."

"The failure by ICE to release detainees in Dover puts detainees,
staff and the broader community at grave risk of death or serious
injury," Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU-NH, said in
a statement. "The virus is already spreading through correctional
facilities across the country with devastating consequences. We are
demanding immediate action to stem this outbreak and save lives."

ACLU argues conditions at the center that demand release for these
inmates include:

* Bunk beds placed only 2 to 3 feet apart.

* Detainees share sinks, toilets, counters and showers.

* Food service is communal, with many people eating at the same
table.

Because of these conditions, immigrants detained at Strafford
County are at a heightened risk of exposure to the virus, which the
ACLU says is inhumane and violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

"The ACLU is filing these cases around the country because, for our
clients, a COVID-19 infection would likely be a death sentence,"
said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's National
Prison Project.

"Our clients are not detained for criminal activity, but only to
await civil immigration action," said David Vicinanzo, leader of
Nixon Peabody's Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
practice.

Nathan Warecki, an attorney with Nixon Peabody in Manchester who
specializes in complex immigration litigation, added, "ICE has a
long-standing practice of releasing detainees for humanitarian
reasons, and regularly uses options like GPS and electronic
monitoring to maintain custody and control over non-citizens."

"Detaining people for immigration violations during a pandemic is a
completely unacceptable and irresponsible game of public health
Russian Roulette," said Ron Abramson, counsel at Shaheen & Gordon
PA. [GN]

UNITED FINANCIAL: Korsakov Files Insurance Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Financial
Casualty Company. The case is styled as Oleg Korsakov, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. United Financial
Casualty Company, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-04579 (C.D.
Cal., May 21, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

United Financial Casualty Company operates as an insurance firm.
The Company offers a wide variety of products including auto, home,
property, and motorcycle insurance, as well as provides claims
assistance, insurance discounts, and comparison tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Litvak, Esq.
          DAPEER RONSEBLIT AND LITVAK LLP
          11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (310) 477-5575
          Fax: (310) 477-7090
          Email: wlitvak@drllaw.com


UNITED STATES: Barber Seeks to Certify Loan Borrowers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH BARBER, et al, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as United States
Secretary of Education, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01137-CJN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all borrowers of Department issued and/or held student
      loans whose wages are being garnished by the Department or
      have been garnished by the Department since March 27,
      2020, and whose wages garnished during that time period
      have not been fully refunded"; and

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

The case alleges that the United States Department of Education, by
and through its Secretary, Elisabeth DeVos, has not complied with
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in
connection to garnishing wages of federal student loan borrowers.

The United States Department of Education is a Cabinet-level
department of the United States government.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Zibel, Esq.
          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
          NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
          1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 734-7495
          E-mail: dan@defendstudents.org
                  eric@defendstudents.org
                  alex@defendstudents.org

               - and -

          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          Persis Yu, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: srossman@nclc.org
                  pyu@nclc.org

UNITED STATES: CARES Act Is Bias Against Immigrants, Doe Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his individual and official capacity as
President of the United States; MITCH MCCONNELL, in his individual
and official capacity as a Senator and Sponsor of S. 3548 CARES
Act; and STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his individual and official capacity as
the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury; CHARLES
RETTIG, in his individual and official capacity as U.S.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
the U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; and THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00430-jdp (W.D. Wis., May 6, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' unconstitutional deprivation of the
rights, privileges, benefits and protections provided to United
States Citizens, via the enactment and subsequent enforcement of
the S. 3548-Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act,
both enactment and enforcement of which evidence the discriminatory
purpose and intent of the Act.

CARES Act provides for payments to State, Local, and Tribal
governments navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who possesses a social security
number and whose spouse lacks a social security number. Pursuant to
the Exclusion Provision of the CARES Act, she receives no recovery
payment even though she and her children are U.S. citizens, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Exclusion Provision of
the CARES Act is unconstitutional. The Plaintiff further seeks
class-wide relief enjoining enforcement of 26 U.S.C. section 6428
(g)(1)(B), as enacted by Section 2101 of the CARES Act, as written
and further requiring the Defendants to treat her and those
similarly situated, the same as other married individuals.

Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States who signed
the CARES Act into law on March 27, 2020. Mitch McConnell is the
Sponsor of S. 3548-CARES Act, and introduced it in the United
States Senate on March 19, 2020. Steven Mnuchin is the Acting
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 448-6602
          Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
          E-mail: tjnitschke@blaisenitschkelaw.com

               - and -

          Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
          Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
          Elisabeth A. Gavin, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 448-6602
          Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
          E-mail: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

               - and -

          Vivian Khalaf, Esq.
          Omar Abuzir, Esq.
          KHALAF & ABUZIR, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Suite 720
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (708)-233-1122
          Facsimile: (708)-233-1161
          E-mail: vkhalaf@immigrationjd.com


UNITED STATES: Class Suit Seeks to Free Transgender ICE Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Fitzsimons, writing for NBC News, reports that a coalition of
LGBTQ and immigration activists filed a class action lawsuit
demanding the immediate release of all transgender detainees in
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, alleging that
because of the rapid spread of the coronavirus in these facilities,
"ICE's failures have made detention centers death traps for
transgender people in civil immigration detention."

The federal suit, filed on April 23 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia by the Transgender Law Center, Ballard
Spahr LLP and the Rapid Defense Network, alleges that conditions
inside ICE facilities are woefully inadequate to stop the spread of
COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and that detainees
cannot practice social distancing. It claims that transgender
prisoners in civil immigration detention constitute a "class" and
seeks a class action injunction ordering their immediate release.

They constitute a class, the suit claims, in part because "as a
group they are more likely to have underlying medical conditions
making them vulnerable, such as infection with HIV, diabetes and
high blood pressure."

Ballard Spahr partner Leslie E. John -- john@ballardspahr.com --
said class action is a good strategy to secure relief for a
constantly shifting at-risk group, like those who move in and out
of civil immigration detention.

"I think you can show that there are common failures in these ICE
detention centers that make it an efficient way for the court to
deal with it as a class action," John said. The suit estimates that
there are somewhere 60 to several hundred transgender people
currently in ICE detention and says that community organizations
are prepared to receive them in the case of a mass release.

Sworn statements from over a dozen petitioners, whose names were
redacted for privacy reasons, were included in court documents:
C.G.B., a trans woman, said she was alarmed when a new detainee
placed in her bunk bed began "coughing uncontrollably" and was
later "returned to the general population." C.G.B. said she was
tested for COVID-19 after displaying symptoms but her results were
never given to her.

"She is being held in a pod with a dozen other detainees suffering
from COVID-19 symptoms, two of whom have confirmed cases of the
disease," the lawsuit alleges.

Many of the declarations allege that there are few, if any, social
distancing procedures in place at ICE detention centers.

Several HIV-positive detainees at the Nevada Southern Detention
Center -- including K.M., a Haitian transgender woman who has been
detained there since March 2019 -- allege that staff at the
facility sometimes do not provide them with medically necessary HIV
medication, causing missed doses.

"We have known for years and years and years that transgender
people are not getting the medically necessary care they need in
immigration detention, so that wasn't a surprise," Lynly Egyes, the
Transgender Law Center's legal director, said of the claims out of
the Nevada center.

Egyes said she and her organization started hearing reports from
detainees about inadequate COVID-19 prevention measures over the
past two months and connected with the Sante Fe Dreamers Project, a
group in New Mexico whose social workers and attorneys investigated
the claims inside several facilities scattered throughout the
Southwest.

The declarations, many collected by Santa Fe Dreamers, paint a
picture of crowded, unsanitary facilities where it is largely
impossible to practice any form of social distancing. Detainees
cannot frequently wash hands, detention staff do not wear masks and
people who are visibly ill are housed close to those who are not,
according to the declarations.

In an email sent to NBC News, ICE said it could not comment on
pending litigation but said the issue of medical decisions and
humanitarian releases are an ongoing issue.

"Due to the unprecedented nature of COVID-19, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement is reviewing cases of individuals in detention
deemed to be at higher risk for severe illness as a result of
COVID-19," ICE said in an email. "Decisions to release individuals
in ICE custody occur every day on a case-by-case basis."

NBC News did not receive a response to a request for comment from
the Department of Justice.

ICE's own statistics show that the coronavirus is spreading rapidly
throughout its detention facilities. The first infection was
reported on March 19, and by late April there were over 400
confirmed COVID-19 cases in dozens of immigration detention centers
across the country.

R. Andrew Free, an immigration attorney based in Tennessee, said he
is alarmed by estimates of the rate of infection of COVID-19 in
ICE's crowded facilities. Free cited a forthcoming study in the
Journal of Urban Health that modeled the virus' r naught (a measure
of how many people each single contagious person infects) in ICE
facilities under "optimistic" and "pessimistic" scenarios of 2.5
and 7 people infected respectively, and forecast that nearly three
quarters of ICE detainees would be infected with the coronavirus
within 90 days under the most optimistic scenario possible. The
pessimistic scenarios forecast 100 percent infection rates in ICE
centers well before three months.

Traci Green, the lead author of the forthcoming study and a
researcher at Brandeis University, said that the data show ICE
detention facilities, in terms of social distancing, are "even
worse than prison or jail, and they're not equipped for COVID-19."

"It's pretty stunning to see without doing anything, nearly every
facility will have a pretty high infection rate," Green added,
calling these "totally unnecessary hospitalizations" that will
likely overwhelm surrounding hospitals. The study, reviewed by NBC
News before publication, predicted that COVID-19 outbreaks at nine
ICE detention centers would fill all the ICU beds at hospitals in a
50-mile radius.

Free said he and other immigration attorneys will be looking
carefully at whatever filings the federal government submits in
response to the Transgender Law Center suit by the May 1 deadline,
because of an alleged pattern of mismatching COVID-19 data from
ICE.

Gregory Copeland, co-legal director of Rapid Defense Network, a
legal services group that provides pro bono representation to
people facing deportation, said this suit could help watchdogs.
"One of the benefits of these types of litigation is it creates, at
a minimum, some kind of oversight of ICE and the government and
what they're doing," he said.

In January, just before the coronavirus outbreak began, a group of
45 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter calling on ICE to release all
transgender detainees after a string of deaths of trans people held
in immigration detention.

"This already vulnerable population faces a heightened and unique
set of injustices while in immigration detention," the letter
stated. "Transgender migrants and asylum seekers are particularly
vulnerable to sexual harassment, solitary confinement, physical
assault and medical neglect."

At least two transgender migrants have died in ICE custody in the
past two years. Roxsana Hernandez Rodriguez, a Honduran, died of
complications from untreated HIV in 2018. Rodriguez did not receive
antiretroviral therapy while in ICE custody, despite guidelines
mandating that all detainees receive the minimum standard of care,
which for HIV infection is antiretroviral therapy. Last year,
another HIV-positive transgender migrant, Johana Medina León from
El Salvador, died shortly after being released from ICE custody,
where she had requested medical assistance.

After reports of serious health care lapses, all transgender
detainees that had been at ICE's dedicated transgender facility in
Cibola, New Mexico, were transferred to other locations in January.
[GN]



UNITED STATES: Minors Allege Bias in Cash Assistance Program
------------------------------------------------------------
The case R.V., a minor, by and through his mother and next friend,
N.R.; N.R.; E.V., a minor, by and through her mother and next
friend, C.V.; C.V.; H.A.G., a minor, by and through his mother and
next friend, H.G.T.; J.G., a minor, by and through her mother and
next friend, H.G.T.; B.G., a minor, by and through her mother and
next friend, H.G.T.; I.G., a minor, by and through her mother and
next friend, H.G.T.; H.G.T.; R.R., a minor, by and through her
parents and next friends, M.M. and J.R.; M.M.; and J.R., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,1 Plaintiffs, v.
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20220,
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01148-PWG (D.
Md., May 5, 2020) alleges intentional and discriminatory denial to
U.S. citizen children of the benefits of emergency cash assistance
distributed in response to the coronavirus pandemic, based solely
on the fact that one or both of their parents are undocumented
immigrants.

In an effort to stem the tide of this nationwide emergency,
Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Among
other relief, the CARES Act provides a financial lifeline to
millions of people by distributing through the tax system immediate
means-tested cash assistance, which the federal government calls
"economic impact payments." The Act gives to certain eligible
individuals up to $1,200 per adult and up to $500 for each of the
adult's children under age 17, and it directs Defendant Secretary
of the Treasury Mnuchin to distribute these payments "as rapidly as
possible."

But the CARES Act discriminates against and excludes from this
expansive aid program one of the country’s most vulnerable
groups: U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents. The CARES
Act denies these children desperately needed assistance by making
the payments through the tax system only to those who are eligible
for, and file tax returns using, a social security number—U.S.
citizens and immigrants with work authorization.

The refusal to distribute this benefit to U.S. citizen children
undermines the CARES Act's goal of providing assistance to
Americans in need, frustrates the Act's efforts to jumpstart the
economy, and punishes citizen children for their parents'
status—punishment that is particularly nonsensical given that
undocumented immigrants, collectively, pay billions of dollars each
year in taxes. More fundamentally, this discrimination violates the
equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan L. Backer, Esq.
          Robert D. Friedman, Esq.
          Amy L. Marshak, Esq.
          Mary B. McCord, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION
          Georgetown University Law Center
          600 New Jersey Ave., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-9835
          Email: jb2845@georgetown.edu

                   - and -

          Leslie Book, Esq.
          Villanova University
          Charles Widger School of Law
          299 N. Spring Mill Rd.
          Villanova, PA 19085
          Telephone (610)519-6416
          Email: book@law.villanova.edu

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Refund of Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Imran Ali Malik, writing for KALW, reports that across California,
students are seeking to recoup money paid for a college experience
that has been dramatically transformed by the pandemic. A student
at UC Davis has filed a class action lawsuit against the UC system.
The lawsuit accuses the university of profiting from the pandemic.

The plaintiff claims that it is unfair and unlawful for the school
to keep money paid for general campus expenses, in a semester when
students are not on campus. The suit alleges at least 280,000
students are affected by the fees. The plaintiffs agree with the
decision to close campuses, but argue that it's unfair for students
and their families to bear the brunt of the financial losses
related to the pandemic.

At California State University another student has filed a nearly
identical suit. CSU said they vehemently disagree with the claim
and will fight the case. CSU said that campuses continue to operate
and provide student services remotely, such as counseling,
advising, office hours, and even telehealth medical care. They've
also set up a system for students to apply for refunds of dorm and
parking fees. [GN]


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Handling of Tuition Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Mariah Timms and Brinley Hineman, writing for Nashville Tennessean,
report that a Vanderbilt University student is suing the Nashville
institution to get back the tuition, fees and housing costs he
feels should be refunded after he left campus amid the COVID-19
shut down.

The freshman student, unnamed in the suit filed on April 28 in
federal court, moved back to Illinois mid-March when the school's
chancellor closed residence halls and encouraged students to
prepare for online learning.

When he reached out to the school for information on how to obtain
a refund for any of the fees he'd paid, he was told that "all
students who left campus by March 22 will receive adjustments for
housing and meals," according to the suit.

The student, referred to in the suit as John Doe, said he left most
of his belongings behind in his dorm room and has no ability to
retrieve them.

The suit was filed as a class action in lieu of the possibility of
each of the thousands of Vanderbilt students -- the university
reported more than 13,000 students across all levels of learning
this year -- filing separately.

"The well-being and success of our students and community is our
top priority, and Vanderbilt University remains steadfast in our
commitment to our teaching and research mission," a spokesperson
said, in part, on behalf of the university, declining to comment
further.

An undergraduate could expect to pay more than $35,000 in tuition,
room and board, fees and other charges for the Spring 2020
semester, according to the suit. The lawsuit estimates that
Vanderbilt has received over $5 million from students for spring
semester tuition and other fees.

"So while students enrolled and paid Defendant for a comprehensive
academic experience, Defendant instead offers Plaintiff and the
Class Members something far less: a limited online experience
presented by Google or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer
interaction, separated from program resources, and barred from
facilities vital to study," the complaint states.

Some refunds of meal plan and housing fees have been announced,
which aren't prorated, but the complaint calls those "arbitrary"
and insufficient to the losses taken by students who had to leave
their residences and pivot to online learning for the foreseeable
future.

If students left housing by March 17, they were told they'd receive
a $1,380 refund, but if they left by March 30 or later, they didn't
receive any money for vacating their residence.

Vanderbilt received $2.8 million from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief
and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the lawsuit says, but students
with a financial need can only expect to receive $1,110 from the
federal funds.  

Students have been pressuring the university to issue partial
tuition and fee refunds since March in the form of a student
government resolution calling upon the institution to hand out
refunds and an online petition requesting reimbursement.

"A college or university cannot in good faith continue to collect
millions of dollars from its students while failing to offer them
the service they've paid for," Steve Berman, one of the student's
attorney, said in a statement. "We will do everything we can to
hold them accountable for the parents, guardians and students left
holding the bill amid a global health crisis."

How other universities are handling refunds

The University of Tennessee System, with campuses in Knoxville,
Chattanooga and Martin, has refunded over $40 million to its
students due to shutdowns because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Over $28 million in refunds was for housing and dining costs for
the spring semester. The university is adjusting summer fees, too.


Because most students moved off campus, UT is giving prorated
refunds for on-campus housing, dining, study abroad fees,
transportation fees and parking permits. The Knoxville campus alone
handed out more than $15 million in refunds.

Of the $15.6 million given in refunds:

   -- Housing refunds make up the bulk of refunds at 55.3%.
   -- Dining refunds make up 37.1% of the total.
   -- Parking refunds make up 4.1%.
   -- Study abroad and transportation fees make up 3.5%.

Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro is refunding some
fees as well.

For unused meal plans, MTSU announced the institution would eat the
costs so students could be refunded through two options:

   -- Students who stopped using their meal plan before 8 p.m. on
April 5 are eligible for a refund that represents 60% of the
average daily rate for the five-week period of April 5 to May 10.


   -- Students who stopped using their meal plan before 8 p.m. on
April 19 are eligible for a refund that represents 60% of the
average daily rate for the three-week period of April 19 to
May 10.  

MTSU also announced that Flex Bucks, credit to use on food, will
roll over for next year. The funds typically expire at the end of
the spring semester.

Students who vacated their on-campus dormitories were able to
collect a portion of their housing costs depending on when they
left. [GN]


VISA INC: Approval of 2018 Amended Settlement Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that an appeal has been made regarding a
court's grant of final approval of the 2018 Amended Settlement
Agreement related to claims by the Damages Class in the Interchage
Multidistrict Litigation.

On November 20, 2019, the district court denied the bank
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims brought against them by
the putative Injunctive Relief Class.

On December 13, 2019, the district court granted final approval of
the 2018 Amended Settlement Agreement relating to claims by the
Damages Class, which was subsequently appealed.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

VISA INC: Nuts for Candy Class Action Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit related to Nuts
for Candy has been dismissed.

On December 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss and for
attorneys' fees and costs based on the settlement reached between
the parties and the grant of final approval of the 2018 Amended
Settlement Agreement in Interchange Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL).

On February 25, 2020, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
dismiss and for attorneys' fees and costs.

The case has been dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff Alleged that Visa has one unmitigated goal: to eliminate
cash based transactions with card transactions, and thereby take a
cut on every single dollar spent by consumers, including every
California citizen merchant transaction in the State of California.
As a direct result of Visa's anti-competitive rules, most
consumers are entirely unaware of the burdens placed on merchants
by choice of payment decisions. Visa incentivizes its
cardholders to use the products that are the most costly for
merchants, thereby causing billions in damages to California
citizens who are merchants.  Plaintiff sought to challenge what it
considered as illegal the horizontal agreements entered into by
Visa and its member banks that restrain  trade in the
general-purpose credit card services market
in the State of California under California's Antitrust Law.
Plaintiff also Alleged unfair and unlawful business practices under
California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VMWARE INC: Vincent Wong Notes of June 1 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in VMware, Inc. (VMW).
If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.

VMware, Inc. (VMW)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/vmware-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=6069&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2020
Class Period: March 30, 2019 to February 27, 2020

Allegations against VMW include that: (i) VMware's reporting with
respect to its backlog of unfilled orders was not in compliance
with all relevant accounting and disclosure requirements; (ii) the
foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened
regulatory scrutiny and/or investigation; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         E-mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Campbell Sues Over Cars With Defective Sunroofs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
corporation, and VOLKSWAGEN AG, a foreign corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-00518-FJS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020), is brought on those
who purchased or leased the class vehicles with defective sunroofs
that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold
or leased by the Defendants.

The Class Vehicles include 2015-present Audi A1 Mk2, Audi A3 Mk3,
Audi TT Mk3, Audi Q2, Audi Q3, Volkswagen Arteon, Volkswagen
Atlas/Teramont, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen
Passat, Volkswagen Polo, Volkswagen Tiguan, Volkswagen Touran, and
the Volkswagen Touareg vehicles. The Vehicles' sunroofs were
specifically and especially designed, manufactured, and approved by
the Defendants to be installed in the Vehicles. The defective
sunroofs in all of the Vehicles are substantially similar in design
and manufacture with the same or similar defects, the Plaintiff
alleges.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew or should have
known that the Vehicles' sunroofs have defective seals and water
drainage systems. The Defects include pinched drain tubes, cracks
resulting from expansion of steel reinforcement plates surrounding
the sunroof, and a failure of the sunroof seal to properly adhere
to the body of the vehicle. As a result of the defects, the
sunroofs are prone to leak water into the interior o the Vehicles,
distracting the Plaintiff and interfering with the safe driving of
the Vehicles. This water intrusion also results in damage to the
interior, promotes the growth of harmful molds, and interferes with
Vehicles' electronic systems, the complaint adds.

Mr. Campbell purchased a 2016 Volkswagen Golf. This vehicle was
designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, advertised, marketed,
and/or warranted by the Defendants.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of importing, marketing,
distributing, warranting, servicing, repairing and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310 474-9111
          Facsimile: 310 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com


WALMART INC: Ellebracht Suit Removed to Western Dist. of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Shelby Ellebracht,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Walmart Inc. (Filed March 24, 2020), was removed from the the
Missouri Circuit Court, Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on May 6, 2020.

The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00361-BP to the proceeding.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914-5365
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Playter, Esq.
          Chris R. Playter, Esq.
          PLAYTER & PLAYTER, LLC
          400 SW Longview Blvd., Suite 220
          Lee's Summit, MO 64081
          Telephone: (816) 666-8902
          Facsimile: (816) 666-8903
          E-mail: eric@playter.com
                  chris@playter.com

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          1900 W. 75th Street, Suite 120
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220-2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Beth C. Boggs, Esq.
          BOGGS, AVELLINO, LACH & BOGGS, L.L.C.
          9326 Olive Blvd., Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63132
          Telephone: (314) 726-2310
          Facsimile: (314) 726-2360
          E-mail: bboggs@balblawyers.com


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit in Evidentiary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
in Argentina against Western Union Financial Services Argentina
S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), is still in evidentiary stage.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds.

In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class
members has been completed and the case is currently in the
evidentiary stage.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTJET: Class Action Seeks Refund of Cancelled Flights
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P Martins, Esq., and Emma Romano, Esq., of Bersenas Jacobsen
Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that Canada, WestJet, Air Transat, Sunwing, and Swoop are facing a
proposed class action for offering vouchers and credits in lieu of
refunds for flights that were cancelled due to the COVID-19
pandemic.

Basis of claim

On March 27, 2020 a proposed class action was filed in the Federal
Court of Canada alleging that these airlines must provide cash
refunds for itineraries that were cancelled due to COVID-19
pursuant to their contracts with passengers and their international
and domestic tariffs incorporated into those contracts.

The claim further alleges that it is a term of the airlines'
contracts of carriage or tariffs that passengers have a right to a
refund of the fare paid (if they do not wish to accept a voucher or
credit) if the carrier is unable to transport them for a reason
outside of the passenger's control.

The claim describes each of the policies put in place by the
airlines in response to COVID-19 with respect to cancelled flights
and the provision of vouchers or credits, subject to certain
restrictions (eg, they must be redeemed within 24 months).

The claim further states that, because each of the named airlines
has announced lay-offs, they will not be incurring certain
operating costs, including labour, fuel and landing fees.
Therefore, it would be unconscionable for the airlines to retain
the funds paid by the class members while not incurring the
operating costs that those funds were meant to cover.

The claim further alleges that the airlines' conduct in
implementing these new policies is unconscionable, as the class
members run the risk of the airlines becoming insolvent and the
credits provided becoming worthless.

Moreover, the claim states that the airlines' policies are forcing
class members "to spend their monies with the same [air carrier] in
the future to purchase travel that the Class Members may not wish
to undertake any longer, and likely at a substantially different
price".

Representative plaintiff

The representative plaintiff, Janet Donaldson (a resident of
British Columbia), is alleged to have purchased a return ticket
from WestJet from Vancouver to New York with a stopover in
Toronto.

Proposed class

The proposed plaintiff class is described in the statement of claim
as follows:

All persons, residing anywhere in the world, who before March 11,
2020 entered into a Contract of Carriage (defined below) with any
of the Defendants for travel on a flight operated by a Defendant on
a trip that was scheduled to commence between March 13, 2020 until
the date the Government of Canada withdraws travel advisories for
COVID-19, and have not received a refund in the original form of
payment:

A further subclass of Class Members whose flights from March 13,
2020 until the dates listed below were cancelled and/or suspended
by the Defendant in response to the COVID-19 situation (hereafter
the Cancellation Sub-Class).

May 31, 2020 (for Westjet and Swoop);
April 30, 2020 (for Sunwing, Air Transat, and Air Canada); or
Any other date to be determined by the Court.
The statement of claim notes that "it is estimated that the Class
includes tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of
affected passengers".

The class counsel's website states that "if your flight tickets
were . . . included as part of a vacation package, it may not be
included as part of this proposed class action". The website states
that the law firm is reviewing and will provide further information
on this aspect of the claim at a later date.

Class period

The statement of claim states that the class period will be between
13 March 2020 and the date that the government withdraws travel
advisories relating to COVID-19.

The claim describes the reason for selecting 11 March 2020 and 13
March 2020, respectively, as key dates for defining the class
period. On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organisation declared
COVID-19 a global pandemic and on 13 March 2020 the government
issued a blanket travel advisory against non-essential travel
outside Canada and restricting the entry of foreign nationals.

Relief sought

The proposed class action seeks, among other things, an order
requiring the airlines to provide monetary refunds to class members
and pay damages (including punitive damages).

The statement of claim also seeks various declarations from the
court, including that:

   -- the contracts of carriage between each class member and the
relevant airline was terminated based on the doctrine of
frustration as of 13 March 2020;

   -- contracts of carriage between each of the class members and
the airlines include an expressed or implied term that entitles the
class members to a full refund if carriage is no longer possible
for reasons outside the control of the class member, and that each
of the airlines breached this term; and

   -- the airlines breached the duty to perform the contracts of
carriage in good faith.

The statement of claim also outlines a number of other orders
sought, including an order that:

   -- funds that were received by the airlines from the class
members be paid into court pending a final disposition (ie, a
settlement or judgment);
   -- the airlines' communications with class members, including
messages posted on websites, "prominently refer to the fact that
there is a pending class action seeking various relief"; and
the airlines process refunds in the original form of payment made
by the class members.

Comment

Air carriers have spent the past few weeks reacting to an
unprecedented situation, including attempting to respond to
government directives from all over the world and assist in
repatriating those citizens stranded far from home.

It remains to be seen whether a class action in Canada's Federal
Court with such a wide scope -- as opposed to a government bailout
or coordinated response from regulators -- will be considered the
most efficient way to deal with the claims of those whose flights
have been cancelled due to COVID-19.

Notably, the Canadian Transportation Agency (the body responsible
for regulating air carriers in Canada), released a statement on 25
March 2020 regarding the use of vouchers in light of COVID-19,
which states in part that:

[A]n appropriate approach in the current context could be for
airlines to provide affected passengers with vouchers or credits
for future travel, as long as these vouchers or credits do not
expire in an unreasonably short period of time (24 months would be
considered reasonable in most cases). [GN]


WHISPERTEXT INC: Database Breach Exposes Secrets, Ogburn et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
NAJA OGBURN, AMBERLYN JOHNSTON, and CAMILLE LAUREL, for themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WHISPERTEXT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04124 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2020)
arises as a result of a breach of the security of Defendant's
database which left years of users' most intimate confessions
exposed on the Internet.

The Defendant owns and operates an application (or app) known as
"Whisper" which allows users to post and share photos and video
messages anonymously. Whisper has hundreds of millions of users.

According to the complaint, the data exposure allowed anyone to
access all of the location data and other information posted to the
popular social app. The records were viewable on a
non-password-protected database open to the public Internet.

The exposed data included, but was not limited to, the users'
stated age, ethnicity, gender, hometown, nickname, any membership
in groups, many of which are devoted to sexual confessions and
discussion of sexual orientation and desires, and location
coordinates of the users’ last submitted post, many of which
pointed back to specific schools, workplaces and residential
neighborhoods.

Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged by the exposure of
their Personal Information. They have suffered anxiety, emotional
distress, and loss of privacy, and are at an increased risk of
future harm.

WhisperText, Inc. is a Los Angeles, California-based mobile social
networking company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com

                   - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          4849 North Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

                   - and -      

          Christopher L. Rudd, Esq.
          THE RUDD LAW FIRM
          4650 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 205
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 663-0705
          Facsimile: (310) 359-0258
          E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawpc.com

WHITEPAGES INC: Can't Shake Suit Over Personal Information Misuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that an Illinois federal judge ruled
background report providers Whitepages Inc. and Instant Checkmate
LLC must face proposed class actions brought by individuals who
said the companies improperly used their personal information in
advertisements in violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.


Stephanie Lukis and Robert Fischer filed suit against Whitepages
and Instant Checkmate, each alleging violations of the IRPA, which
prohibits use of an individual's identity for commercial purposes
without consent. Both companies collect personal information from
public records for background reports, and use data of unaffiliated
individuals to market those reports and other services to potential
buyers. [GN]

WIDEOPENWEST INC: All Discovery in Kirkland Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that all discovery has been
stated in the class action suit entitled, Kirkland. et al. v.
WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., 653248/2018., until the trial court
decides on the omnibus motion to dismiss.

Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five
separate class-action lawsuits against the company (WOW), certain
individual defendants, and the private equity sponsors and
underwriters of the May 2017 initial public offering.

The actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
1933 Securities Act.  

The three actions filed in New York state court have been
consolidated as Kirkland. et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
653248/2018.  

The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado state court,
have been stayed by agreement until final resolution of the
Kirkland action.  

The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that Defendants made or caused
misstatements to be made in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus ("Offering Materials") issued in connection with the
Initial Public Offering (IPO).  

On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
all claims for failure to state causes of action with the court
hearing oral arguments on the motion on July 10, 2019.  

WideOpenWest said, "Given the complexity of the case and the impact
of the coronavirus pandemic resulting in the closure of many
court-related activities, we cannot predict when a decision will be
issued. All discovery is stayed until the Court decides the motion.
The Company believes plaintiffs claims to be without merit and is
vigorously defending against them."

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


WILLIAMS CO: Appeals Ruling in Sulfolane-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has filed a
notice of appeal from the Alaska Superior Court's final judgment
finding in favor of the State of Alaska and Flint Hills Resources
Alaska, LLC (FHRA).

The company is involved in litigation arising from its ownership
and operation of the North Pole Refinery in North Pole, Alaska,
from 1980 until 2004, through its wholly owned subsidiaries,
Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI) and MAPCO Inc.

The company sold the refinery to Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC
(FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., in 2004.

The litigation involves three cases, with filing dates ranging from
2010 to 2014.

The actions primarily arise from sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the refinery. A putative class action lawsuit was
filed by James West in 2010 naming the company, WAPI, and FHRA as
defendants. The company and FHRA filed claims against each other
seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging
that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination.

In 2011, the company and FHRA settled the claim with James West.
Certain claims by FHRA against the company was resolved by the
Alaska Supreme Court in the company's favor. FHRA's claims against
the company for contractual indemnification and statutory claims
for damages related to off-site sulfolane were remanded to the
Alaska Superior Court.

The State of Alaska filed its action in March 2014, seeking
damages. The City of North Pole (North Pole) filed its lawsuit in
November 2014, seeking past and future damages, as well as punitive
damages.

Both the company and WAPI asserted counterclaims against the State
of Alaska and North Pole, and cross-claims against FHRA. FHRA has
also filed cross-claims against the company.

The underlying factual basis and claims in the cases are similar
and may duplicate exposure. As such, in February 2017, the three
cases were consolidated into one action in state court containing
the remaining claims from the James West case and those of the
State of Alaska and North Pole.

The State of Alaska later announced the discovery of additional
contaminants per- and polyfluoralkyl (PFOS and PFOA) offsite of the
refinery, and the Court permitted the State of Alaska to amend its
complaint to add a claim for offsite PFOS/PFOA contamination. The
Court subsequently remanded the offsite PFOS/PFOA claims to the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for investigation
and stayed the claims pending their potential resolution at the
administrative agency.

Several trial dates encompassing all three cases have been
scheduled and stricken. In the summer of 2019, the Court
deconsolidated the cases for purposes of trial. A bench trial on
all claims except North Pole's claims began in October 2019.

In January 2020, the Alaska Superior Court issued its Memorandum of
Decision finding in favor of the State of Alaska and FHRA, with the
total incurred and potential future damages estimated to be $86
million.

The Court found that FHRA is not entitled to contractual
indemnification from the company because FHRA contributed to the
sulfolane contamination. On March 23, 2020, the Court entered final
judgment in the case.

Filing deadlines were stayed until May 1, 2020. However, on April
21, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Appeal.

The Williams said, "We also expect to file post-judgment motions.
These post-trial motions will be resolved before the appeal. We
have recorded an accrued liability in the amount of our estimate of
the probable loss. It is reasonably possible that we may not be
successful on appeal and could ultimately pay up to the amount of
judgment."

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial in the putative
class action suit pending before the Wisconsin federal district
court is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, its former
affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.

Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court
for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company
had agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this
matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one
of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to the company, entering final judgment in its favor.
Farmland appealed.

On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district
court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the
defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court,
which was denied on May 9, 2018.

The case was remanded to the Nevada federal district court and
subsequently has been remanded to its originally filed court, the
Kansas federal district court.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.

On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying
class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal
district court.

The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and
on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily
approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and
Missouri class members.

The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred August 5,
2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered
the same day.

Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been
remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal
district court.

Trial is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021.

The Williams said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining
pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible
that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related
indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that
may be material to our results of operations. In connection with
this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance
associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to
future developments."

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Gregg Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARROLL GREGG, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00421-SLP (W.D. Okla., May 6, 2020) is a collective action
that seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed
by the Defendant to Plaintiff and putative class members under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Gregg worked for Williams as an Officer Manager/Field Accountant in
Pennsylvania.

The Williams Companies, Inc. is an American energy company based in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. Its core business is natural gas processing and
transportation, with additional petroleum and electricity
generation assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                      - and -

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

XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Putative Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that briefing on defendants'
motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062, is ongoing.

On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.) was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the company and some of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged
material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local
272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the "Pension Funds")
filed a consolidated class action complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court dismissed the
consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing
of an amended complaint.

The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint against us and a current
executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020.

Briefing on defendants' motion is ongoing.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's
intermodal drayage subsidiaries remain parties to litigation
brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these
subsidiaries.

Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are
defendants in several multi-plaintiff and putative class action
litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California
who contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these cases, the contract carriers, and in some instances the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for
missed meal and rest periods, and reimbursement of the contract
carriers’ business expenses.

XPO Logistics said, "We are unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may
incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that
the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by
future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of
the claims."

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


ZENDESK INC: Consolidated Reidinger Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Zendesk, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Reidinger v.
Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB.

On October 24, 2019 and November 7, 2019, purported stockholders of
the Company filed two putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al.,
3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., No.
3:19-cv-07361-WHA, respectively, against the Company and certain of
the Company's executive officers.

The complaints are nearly identical and allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and
October 1, 2019, inclusive. The claims are based upon allegations
that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material
information in certain of our prior public filings.

To this point, no discovery has occurred in these cases.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the
various lawsuits into a single action (Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB),
and lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on April 14, 2020
asserting the same alleged violations of securities laws as the
initial complaints.

The class action is still in the preliminary stages, and it is not
possible for the Company to quantify the extent of potential
liability to the individual defendants, if any.

Management believes that the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to
vigorously defend the actions.

Zendesk said, "We cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the
possible loss or range of loss from the above described matter."

Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer
support platform. The Company offers applications that allow
clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from
any Internet connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


ZOOM VIDEO: Kehoe Law Firm Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making investors aware that on April 7,
2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of Zoom Video
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZM) investors who purchased, or
otherwise acquired, Zoom securities between April 18, 2019 and
April 6, 2020, both dates inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by the Zoom Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Zoom investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Zoom
securities in March 2020 or during the Class Period April 18,
2019-April 6, 2020 are encouraged to contact:

         Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
         Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
         Tel: (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
         E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
                 info@kehoelawfirm.com
         John Kehoe, Esq.
         Tel: (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801
         E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com

According to the class action complaint:

Throughout the Class Period, [Zoom] Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, [Zoom]
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security
measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom's assertions, the Company's video
communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a
result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom's communications
services were at an increased risk of having their personal
information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook;
(iv) usage of the Company's video communications services was
foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to
light; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The truth about the deficiencies in Zoom's software encryption
began to come to light as early as July 2019. However, due in large
part to the Company's obfuscation, it was not until the COVID-19
pandemic in March and April of 2020, with businesses and other
organizations increasingly relying on Zoom's video communication
software to facilitate remote work activity as governments
increasingly implemented shelter-in-place orders, that the truth
was more fully laid bare in a series of corrective disclosures. As
it became clear through a series of news reports and admissions by
the Company that Zoom had significantly overstated the degree to
which its video communication software was encrypted, and
organizations consequently prohibited its employees from utilizing
Zoom for work activities, the Company's stock price plummeted,
damaging investors.

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

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.  [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Shareholders of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, is notifying all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Zoom Video
Communications, Inc. ("Zoom") (ZM) between April 18, 2019 and April
6, 2020, that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zoom-video-communications-inc-loss-form?wire=1

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security
measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom's assertions, the Company's video
communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a
result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom's communications
services were at an increased risk of having their personal
information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook;
(iv) usage of the Company's video communications services was
foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to
light; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Zoom you have until June 8, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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



ZUORA INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in CASEY ROBERTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ZUORA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-03422-SI (N.D. Cal.).

The securities fraud case is brought by Lead Plaintiff New Zealand
Methodist Trust Association on behalf of itself and a class of
those who purchased securities from Zuora in the period from April
12, 2018 to May 30, 2019.

Defendant Zuora is an enterprise software company providing
subscription commerce, billing and finance systems to its
enterprise clients on a subscription basis.  Also named as
Defendants are CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors Tien
Tzuo, and CFO Tyler Sloat.

Zuora coined the phrase "Subscription Economy" when it was founded
in 2006, predicting a new business environment in which traditional
product or service companies would shift toward subscription
business models.  The Zuora Central Platform offers five software
products, including Zuora Billing which is the "primary and most
widespread" of the products.  Billing was launched in 2008 and
"provides customers with the flexibility to bill in multiple ways,
calculate proration when needed, group customers into batches for
different billing and payment operations, set payment terms,
consolidate invoicing across multiple subscriptions, and collect
revenue.

The Zuora Central Platform also includes the software product
RevPro, which Zuora acquired when it purchased another company,
Leeyo Software, Inc., in May 2017.  Similar to what Billing does
for managing subscription model processes, RevPro automates the
range of internal, multi-departmental processes required to comply
with the new Accounting Standard Codification 606/International
Financial Reporting Standards 15 ASC 606.  ASC 606 obligated
companies to adopt new standards for allocating and recognizing
revenue; public companies were required to adopt such standards by
the start of their fiscal year beginning after Dec. 15, 2017, and
private companies were required to do so by the start of their
fiscal year beginning after Dec. 15, 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges that Zuora's acquisition of Leeyo "paved the
way" for the company to go public.  In preparation for an initial
public offering ("IPO"), Zuora released an Investor Presentation in
April 2018, which emphasized its "Cross-Sell Flagship Products,"
Billing and RevPro, and a registration statement, prospectus, and
prospectus supplement that became effective on April 12, 2018.  As
described in the Complaint, the Registration Statement highlighted
the functionality and integrated features of Zuora's solutions,
stating their solution functions as an intelligent subscription
management hub that automates and orchestrates the entire
subscription order-to-cash process.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Registration Statement's representations about Zuora's solution
made the IPO a rousing success.  On April 16, 2018, the Company
announced that it had closed its IPO selling 12.65 million shares
of its common stock, including full allotment to underwriters
raising over $162.2 million in net proceeds.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Zuora and
the individual defendants made numerous false or misleading
statements promoting the platform's functionality.  The Plaintiff
alleges that Zuora's statements about its platform and products
were well-received by securities analysts, with analysts noting,
inter alia that RevPro was a "New Beachhead with Significant
Near-Term Revenue Opportunity," and the significant cross-sell
opportunity between over 850 Zuora Billing customers, many of which
face ASC 606 compliance challenges, and over 100 RevPro customers
at the end of fiscal 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants materially misrepresented
the functionality of the platform and omitted to disclose a
fundamental technical challenge: that customers "could not
successfully integrate the data from Billing and RevPro.  In
support of this allegation, it relies primarily on statements by
four confidential witnesses ("CWs") about this challenge, customer
responses, and Zuora's internal responses.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants knew of the integration
failure before and throughout the Class Period based on Zuora's
failure to effectively integrate and implement RevPro internally.
It alleges that Zuora's highest executives were informed of the
integration failure occurring on the ZoZ project.  The integration
failure adversely impacted revenue.  The failed RevPro-Billing
integration problems ultimately resulted in reputational damage and
reduced demand for all of Zuora's products, including RevPro, the
Central platform, and other homegrown Zuora products.

Claiming that the Defendants committed fraud by making materially
false statements and omissions throughout the Class Period, the
Plaintiff brings the securities fraud claim pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC").

The Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  They
contend that all of the statements that the Plaintiff identifies as
misleading are either inactionable statements of corporate optimism
or forward-looking statements protected from liability by the "safe
harbor" or bespeaks caution doctrine.  They also contend that the
Plaintiff does not plead any contemporaneous facts showing that any
of the actual statements were false or misleading at the time that
they were made.  They further contend that Zuora expressly advised
investors of the risks that the Plaintiff claims were concealed.

Judge Illston finds that although the Defendants characterize all
of the challenged statements as vague, high-level statements of
corporate optimism or forward looking, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants did not have a reasonable basis to believe that the
Billing and RevPro products were integrated or would work
"seamlessly" or "easily" with each other because they were aware of
undisclosed facts such as the failed Zoz and Keystone projects and
customer integration issues.  Similarly, for the same reasons the
challenged statements about growth and cross-selling and upselling,
which were predicated on the successful integration and
implementation of RevPro, are actionable.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
scienter through the CW allegations.  The Court is not persuaded by
the Defendants' assertion that the CW allegations are deficient
because the CWs did not work at Zuora for the entire class period.
CW-1 left Zuora in April 2019, one month before the end of the
thirteen-month Class Period; CW-2 left in September of 2018, five
months into the Class Period; CW-3 joined in June 2018, two months
into the Class Period; and CW-4 left in January 2019, eight months
into the Class Period.  That none of the CWs was employed at Zuora
during the entire Class Period does not in itself render their
statements unreliable as a matter of law, the Court opines.
Moreover, the CWs' personal knowledge of integration projects and
customer feedback comes as a direct result of their positions in
Zuora.

Finally, the Court holds that the control person claim under
Section 20(a) requires a predicate primary violation.  Because the
Court has found that plaintiff has stated a Section 10(b) claim, it
further finds that the Plaintiff has stated a claim under Section
20(a).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/WjOMEy from Leagle.com.


[*] 25 Universities Hit with Tuition Fee Refund Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that as the coronavirus started sweeping across the
U.S. in March, universities moved classrooms online and locked the
doors. Many students, however, don't feel they are getting a return
on their tuition investment and have launched lawsuits demanding
reimbursement.

Although some schools have issued refunds for room and board, most
are not returning tuition money, according to a May 6 report in
CNBC. Parents and students charge that the online learning
experience offered by universities pales in comparison to in-person
classes and doesn't have the same monetary value.

Class-action lawsuits have been filed against more than 25 private
and public universities, including Ivy League schools like Brown,
Columbia, Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, according to
a report in the Associated Press on Monday (May 4). Public
universities named in the lawsuits also include big, well-known
schools like Boston University, Michigan State, Purdue and the
University of Colorado, Boulder.

By way of example, one complaint charges that some professors at
the University of California, Berkeley, are not even doing online
classes and instead are merely uploading assignments.

"You cannot keep money for services and access if you aren't
actually providing it," Roy Willey, a lawyer for the Anastopoulo
Law Firm in South Carolina, told the AP. His firm is representing
students in over 12 suits. "If we're truly going to be all in this
together, the universities have to tighten their belts and refund
the money back to students and families who really need it."

Aside from the growing trend of lawsuits, universities are also
grappling with how to best predict cash flow as deposits for the
2020 fall semester start coming in.

Flywire CEO Mike Massaro discussed in a PYMNTS interview on
Wednesday (May 6) that higher education is facing a unique
predicament that makes for challenging cash flow management and
forecasting in the time of the coronavirus. [GN]


[*] Arent Fox Attorneys Discuss COVID-19-Related Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Fiorentino, Esq. -- lynn.fiorentino@arentfox.com -- Benjamin
Greene, Esq. -- benjamin.greene@arentfox.com -- Adam Littman, Esq.
-- adam.littman@arentfox.com -- and
Nicholas Nesgos, Esq. -- Nicholas.Nesgos@arentfox.com -- of Arent
Fox, in an article for JDSupra, report that as the fallout from the
COVID-19 pandemic continues across the nation, consumers and
businesses alike are resorting to class action litigation to air
their grievances. Since the onset of the pandemic, a wide range of
class action cases have been filed arising out of everything from
government loan programs, price gouging, anti-competitive conduct,
canceled events, college campus closings, and more.

Class action lawsuits are a popular choice for such claims of
widespread harm as they aggregate numerous claims of similarly
situated plaintiffs against one or more defendants in a single
case.

Arent Fox summarizes below some of the more noteworthy cases thus
far. We anticipate filings will steadily increase over the coming
months in a variety of industries as the pandemic continues to
impact business operations across all sectors of the economy.

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Cases

Under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) established by the
Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act),
over one million businesses received forgivable loans in the first
round of program funding to pay employees and other operating
expenses during the pandemic. On the first day banks began
accepting loan applications, certain applicants filed a putative
class action against Bank of America in Maryland federal court
alleging the bank denied them access to the program, in violation
of the eligibility requirements under the CARES Act, because they
lacked a pre-existing lending or depository relationship with the
bank. Two copycat class actions soon followed against other lenders
in Texas federal court. The theory of liability was quickly
rejected, however.

In an April 13, 2020 decision denying the plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction in the Bank of America case, Judge Stephanie
Gallagher held that the CARES Act does not include an express or
implied private right of action. In the absence of such a right of
action, companies cannot sue for alleged violations of the CARES
Act.

Within a week of the decision, new class actions were filed in
California, New York, and Texas alleging PPP lenders violated state
consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Such laws, unlike
the CARES Act, generally have private rights of action. As grounds
for the state law claims, the plaintiffs claim lenders failed to
administer the program on a "first-come, first-served" basis, as
allegedly required by regulations governing the program, by
prioritizing customers eligible for larger loans (which resulted in
more lucrative origination fees). The plaintiffs claim they would
have applied for loans with other institutions had they known the
lenders were not processing their applications on a first-come,
first-served basis. Lenders may argue that the applicable
regulations do not require lenders to process applications in any
particular order.

Additional class action cases are likely to follow as lenders
implement the second round of PPP funding.

Price Gouging and Antitrust Cases

As discussed in Arent Fox's previous alert, many state laws
prohibit excessive price increases for certain goods and services
during and immediately after a declared state of emergency. When
the pandemic began, class action cases were filed in Florida and
Alaska alleging retailers illegally raised the price of cleaning,
sanitation, and personal protective products. More recently,
consumers in California filed a putative class action in federal
court alleging producers of eggs, wholesalers, and supermarkets
violated the state's Unfair Competition Law by increasing the price
of eggs by more than 180% since the onset of the pandemic.

In another food industry case, meal delivery apps, including
GrubHub and DoorDash, were sued in a proposed class action in New
York federal court alleging the apps have a monopoly over the meal
delivery market and impose unlawful price restraints in violation
of the Sherman Act. Specifically, in their contracts with
restaurants, the delivery apps impose provisions requiring uniform
prices for menu items across all platforms (dine-in, take-out, and
delivery). The cost of meals sold through delivery apps is higher,
however, due to the apps' service fees. Those fees, in turn, are
priced into all menu items due to the uniform price provisions,
causing restaurants to charge higher prices to consumers who order
directly from the restaurant.

Consumer Refund Cases

Consumers across a wide range of industries have filed class action
lawsuits seeking refunds for purchases of services, events, and
trips that could not proceed as scheduled due to COVID-19. Many of
these cases have received widespread coverage by mainstream media.

Airlines

Numerous airlines, including Southwest, JetBlue, Delta, and United,
are facing class actions for failing to refund customers for
canceled trips. In most of these cases, plaintiffs claim that
instead of providing refunds, as allegedly required by government
regulations and/or the companies' refund policies, customers were
given the option to rebook their trip for future dates or accept
travel vouchers (which would expire in a year). While all of the
cases assert claims for breach of contract, several claim the
airlines violate consumer protection laws by misrepresenting
customer refund options.

Ticketing companies, including Ticketmaster and StubHub, are facing
class actions for failure to provide refunds for canceled concerts
and events. Consumers allege Ticketmaster retroactively changed its
refund policy in reliance on an "unconscionable" provision in its
terms of service allowing Ticketmaster to update or change its
terms of service at any time. Similarly, StubHub has been accused
of breaching the terms of its "FanProtect" guarantee. In a March
12, 2020 statement about COVD-19, the company had said this
guarantee would still allow customers to receive a refund for any
canceled event. Class claims also have been brought against
operators of canceled music festivals, conventions, and even Major
League Baseball, which is accused of refusing to provide refunds to
season ticket holders under the "pretext" that games have merely
been postponed.

Colleges and Universities

After switching to online classes and requiring students to leave
campus, universities across the country are now faced with class
action suits alleging the schools failed to provide proper refunds
or credits for unused room and board, tuition, and other student
activities and campus fees. Students argue that online-only
instruction is not what they paid for and should cost less. At some
schools where students were not formally mandated to move out of
on-campus housing, class members allege that the offer of continued
housing was "illusory" given state and federal social distancing
restrictions coupled with the cancellation of live classes.

Gyms, Ski Resorts, and Other Membership Venues

Venues such as gyms and ski resorts that offer memberships or
season passes are facing class actions for either preventing
members from canceling memberships timely or failing to provide
pro-rated refunds after the venues had to close due to shelter in
place orders. In Massachusetts, members of Boston Sports Club claim
the chain violated state consumer protection laws by making "it
nearly (if not) impossible for consumers to cancel their
memberships or avoid charges" before the gym automatically
processed their monthly dues. Similarly, Vail Resorts, Alterra
Mountain Company, and Ikon Pass, which offer season passes to a
collective of ski resorts, face claims that they breached their
contract with pass holders and an express warranty in which they
promised "unlimited access" throughout the ski season.

Business Interruption Insurance Cases

Numerous class actions have been brought involving business
interruption insurance and these will be covered in detail in a
second alert.

Takeaways

Businesses in a wide array of industries are falling victim to
class actions filed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the
pandemic continues, we expect that companies across all sectors of
the economy will be susceptible to class action claims arising from
COVID-19 disruptions. The ultimate test for these cases will be
whether the plaintiffs can obtain class certification. Once a case
becomes certified, its value increases exponentially, potentially
causing substantial business, economic, and reputational risks for
the defendant. It is critical to engage experienced class action
counsel to navigate the thorny issues involved in these complex
matters and to develop strategies early on to mitigate the
potential scope of exposure. [GN]


[*] Class Actions Against Cannabis Companies Doubled in 2019
------------------------------------------------------------
TG Branfalt, writing for Ganjapreneur, reports that the number of
class action lawsuits filed against publicly traded cannabis
companies more than doubled from 2018 to 2019.

The number of class action lawsuits in the U.S. against publicly
traded cannabis companies more than doubled from 2018 to 2019 from
six to 13, according to a report from global law firm Goodwin. Most
of the legal actions focused on company disclosures related to
operations, transactions, or financial restatements and internal
controls, the report says.

More than half of the class action lawsuits against cannabis
companies filed in the U.S. have been against Canadian firms traded
on U.S. stock exchanges. Class action lawsuits in the cannabis
industry from 2018 to 2019 include:

-- The 2018 lawsuit against Paragon Coin Inc. who were sued over
their initial crypto coin offering -- PRG Tokens -- after
plaintiffs alleged that the tokens were unregistered securities.
That case is ongoing.

  -- The 2018 lawsuit against CV Sciences, a CBD company accused of
making false and misleading statements about its infused chewing
gum product's patent application. That case is ongoing.

  -- The 2018 lawsuit against licensed Canadian producer Cronos
Group over alleged misleading and false statements over the size of
its distribution agreements and positive statements about the state
of its businesses. That case was ultimately consolidated with
another case and dismissed.

  -- The 2018 lawsuit against Namaste Technologies Inc. over their
claim that they were close to selling U.S. subsidiary Dollinger
Enterprises US Inc. and, instead, just sold the company to other
Namaste executives. That case was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff.

  -- The 2018 lawsuit against India Global Capital, Inc. over false
and misleading claims about the quality of one of the company's
manufacturers of a CBD-infused beverage. That case is ongoing.

  -- The 2018 investor-led lawsuit against Canadian-based licensed
producer Aphria over false and misleading statements over its Latin
American assets. The case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against Liberty Health Sciences Inc., a
Canadian company that serves as the U.S. operational entity for
Aphria that was sued over false and misleading statements in
connection with the company's investments and transactions. That
case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against 22nd Century Inc. over alleged false
and misleading statements about the company's attempt to raise
capital. The case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against KushCo Holdings Inc. accusing current
and former business officers and the company auditor about
misleading and false statements about the firm's financial
position. That case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against Pyxus International Inc. which
accuses the company's CEO and CFO of false and misleading
statements about the firm's financial position. That case was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.

   -– The 2019 investor-led lawsuit against CannTrust Holdings.
Inc., over failure to disclose that the company's Pelham, Ontario
facility was out of compliance with Health Canada rules. That case
is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against Curaleaf Holdings Inc. over false and
misleading statements about the company's CBD products. The case is
ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against Greenlane Holdings, Inc. claiming the
company made false and misleading statements about its e-cigarette
business. The company also distributes CBD and vaporizers. That
case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against Sundial Growers Inc. over alleged
U.S. Securities Act violations. The case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 case against Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc. over false
and misleading statements and failing to disclose events adverse to
its business. The case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 case against Canopy Growth Corp. which alleges that
the company filed to disclose to investors that the company was
experiencing weak demand for its soft gel and oil products. The
case is ongoing.

   -- The 2019 lawsuit against Canada's Aurora Cannabis Inc. over
its alleged failure to disclose it was planning to pause
construction at one of its facilities. That case is ongoing.

   -- The 2019 lawsuit against Hexo Corp. alleged that the Canadian
firm made false and misleading statements about its inventory and
internal revenue figures. The case is ongoing.

  -- The 2019 lawsuit against Trulieve Cannabis Corp. over false
and misleading statements about the value of its biological assets.
The case is ongoing.

Michael Jones, partner in Goodwin's securities and shareholder
litigation, white collar defense, and cannabis practices, said that
cannabis companies might be a "bigger target for securities class
action lawsuits" due to "regulatory uncertainties and overall
market volatility in the industry." [GN]


[*] Travel Industry Hit with COVID-19-Related Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Llamas, writing for Drugwatch, reports that as COVID-19
case numbers climb across the United States, so do the numbers of
class action lawsuits for consumer fraud, misleading the public and
other types of alleged wrongdoing.

Cruise lines, airlines, insurance companies and federal and state
governments are among those on the list facing legal battles
stemming from the pandemic. American small businesses and health
care workers have even sued China for allegedly spreading
misinformation and medical supply hoarding.

"This early litigation is really, from our vantage point, the tip
of the iceberg. The level of litigation could really go into so
many different directions," Harold Kim, president of the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, told USA Today.

Some notable lawsuits hit travel industry giants Norwegian Cruise
Lines, Carnival-owned Costa Cruises, Princess Cruise Lines Ltd.,
Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines.

Cruise Lines Hid Truth About Coronavirus from Passengers

In one of the first lawsuits filed mid-March, shareholders accused
Norwegian of providing a misleading positive outlook of its
financial results in spite of the coronavirus outbreak. According
to the lawsuit, leaked employee emails said Norwegian "asked sales
staff to lie to customers about COVID-19 to protect the company's
bookings."

Suggested talking points included, "The only thing you need to
worry about for your cruise is do you have enough sunscreen?" And,
"The Coronavirus can only survive in cold temperatures, so the
Caribbean is a fantastic choice for your next cruise."

In April, passengers sued Carnival's Costa Cruises and Princess
Cruise Lines subsidiaries.

Paul Turner's class action complaint filed on April 7 against Costa
claims the company kept the truth about COVID-19 from passengers
aboard the Costa Luminosa, and "they were dragged across the
Atlantic in a ticking coronavirus time bomb."

"Costa concealed information surrounding the coronavirus from
passengers by blocking out news channels on stateroom TVs that had
previously been available to passengers during the beginning of the
cruise," the complaint said.

Princess Cruise Lines was hit with a class action on April 8 filed
by Robert Archer and other passengers aboard the Grand Princess.

According to the complaint, "Defendants did not notify passengers
who were scheduled to board the vessel on February 21, 2020, that
passengers from the prior Mexico trip had reported COVID-19
symptoms, or of the fact that passengers remaining aboard the Grand
Princess had been exposed to and might be infected with and/or
carrying the virus."

Airlines Sued over Cancelled COVID-19 Flights, Lack of Refunds

United, Southwest and Delta face a cluster of class actions for
cancelling flights and issuing travel vouchers instead of refunds.
Plaintiffs claim the companies denied refunds even as airlines are
set to receive a $58 billion bailout as a part of the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

On April 6, Jacob Rudolf filed a class action against United
Airlines claiming the company violated consumer protection laws by
refusing to issue refunds to passengers after canceling flights.

"Now is not the time for United to change its promises and deprive
customers of a refund, even the more so as United has benefited
from a generous government bailout," Rudolph's attorney, Steve W.
Berman, told Law360.

Similarly, Adrian Bombin sued Southwest on April 16. His suit says
the airline failed to provide a refund after canceling his flight
in spite of an enforcement notice from the U.S. Department of
Transportation that said customers were entitled to a refund for
cancellations because of coronavirus.

Delta faces a class action filed by Elliot Daniels on April 17.
Daniels said Delta is refusing to refund passengers' tickets and
"is misleading passengers about their rights by making it difficult
to locate information about refunds."

These lawsuits ask for a refund of ticket prices plus attorney's
fees. [GN]


[*] Tuition Refund Class Actions Hit College and Universities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- and
Melanie A. Conroy, Esq. -- mconroy@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce
Atwood LLP, in an article for National Law Review, report that
April was a cruel month for higher education. After most colleges
and universities closed their campuses in mid-March to protect
students, faculty, and staff from the coronavirus, some students
began requesting partial refunds of tuition, room, board, and other
fees. Many schools refunded room and board, but not tuition. It did
not take long, however, for lawyers to begin filing class action
lawsuits against universities, demanding class-wide awards of
prorated tuition refunds.

At first, only two or three firms were behind the lawsuits. Before
long, other firms joined the fray. The vast majority of cases have
been filed in federal court, basing jurisdiction on the relaxed
diversity requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Two of the earliest cases were filed in the plaintiffs' home
districts against universities located in different states, a
procedural blunder that will likely elicit challenges to personal
jurisdiction regarding the claims of putative, non-resident class
members. Most cases, however, have been filed in the universities'
home states.

Each lawsuit asserts two or three substantive claims; all assert
claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and some add
claims for conversion. None of the cases allege that the schools
were wrong to close down their campuses as the pandemic spread.
Rather, they claim that, while the campus closures were
appropriate, the schools should not be allowed to retain class
members' tuition dollars for a full semester after switching to
online education formats midstream. (Some include claims for
prorated refunds of room and board as well.) Plaintiffs' principal
theory is that an online education is not worth as much as an
education received on campus. In support of their theory, they cite
materials from the universities' admissions offices that tout the
benefits of the on-campus experience.

The legal and economic theories advanced in the complaints are
typical of most class actions in one significant respect -- they
craft a simple argument from a complex situation. Simplicity works
to the plaintiffs' lawyers' benefit, because the more complex and
individualized a case becomes, the less likely a court will certify
it as a class action. The job of defense counsel will be to
identify for the court the nuances and individualized circumstances
that make it both unwise and inappropriate to treat every student's
claim the same.

Examples of the individualized complexities of the cases appear on
the face of some of the complaints. In one case, an engineering
student complains that the campus closure prevented him from
completing his senior project. The project was to build an
airplane, for which he needed to be on campus. Other students who
did not have projects that required their on-campus presence will
not be able to raise the same concern. The plaintiff in another
case is a graduate student in counseling psychology. The complaint
cites accrediting guidelines from the American Psychological
Association suggesting that doctoral programs in professional
psychology should not be taught substantially or completely through
distance education because that clinical discipline requires
face-to-face interaction. Even assuming that the student's claim
has potential merit, the claims of students in non-clinical
disciplines will be very different.

Many examples of individualized issues do not leap off the pages of
the complaints but are easily imagined. They include each student's
individual course of study, their relationships with their
professors, their in-person attendance records and course
attendance requirements, their financial and family circumstances,
their access to the internet from off-campus locations, the extent
of their engagement with sports and other activities when on
campus, the degree of engagement with their online course work,
their summer internships or job arrangements, and countless other
details. No doubt, experts in the economics and delivery of higher
education will be able to identify still more individualized issues
that would make it inappropriate to adopt a one-size-fits-all
approach.

These are some of the issues that would likely be contested at the
all-important class certification stage of the proceedings.
Numerous merits issues also would arise, either at the motion to
dismiss stage, the summary judgment stage, or both. At the outset,
defendants will challenge the breach of contract claims on the
grounds that they never guaranteed that instruction would be
provided in a specified format, and students received the education
they were owed.  Some may also focus on the extraordinary efforts
institutions have undertaken to continue delivering high-quality
education to their students.

Apart from the many variations in experiences across a student
population, the differences in any given student's experiences
going from on-campus to online learning do not necessarily
translate to a difference in value in the education they have
received. Many schools have swiftly and very ably transitioned to
online learning in order to fulfill their commitments to students
despite the disruptions that all campus constituencies have
endured. Most faculty members quickly received training (or
provided training to their faculty colleagues) in online teaching -
mastering new technology, developing new skillsets, and reshaping
their instruction for an online environment.

Not only were they not compensated for this additional work, but at
some institutions they also face the prospect of salary reductions
because of their schools' losses of voluntarily refunded room and
board revenue this year and anticipated losses of net tuition
revenue next year. A strong case can be made that schools that
stepped up to deliver on their promises earned all the tuition
revenue they received. At the very least, their retention of
tuition was not in breach of contract or "unjust."

It is, of course, appropriate to sympathize with students who were
unable to complete their spring semesters on campus. It is
especially heartbreaking to think of the seniors who lost those
precious final months with their friends and whose commencement
ceremonies were canceled or postponed. Colleges and universities
should do everything they reasonably can to ameliorate the
students' understandable disappointment. But we should not lose
sight of the heroic efforts of faculty and staff who stepped up to
ensure that these students received instruction online that
approximated as closely as possible, and in some instances may even
have equaled or surpassed, the quality of the instruction they
would have received in the classroom.

We also need to recognize that many colleges and universities were
struggling financially before the pandemic struck, and some may
have to close their doors if the class actions succeed. Many likely
will find ways to help their current and prospective students,
either through across-the-board financial decisions or through
decisions tailored to each student's individual circumstances.

But those solutions should come from the institutions themselves,
and not be imposed on them through the pressures that are brought
to bear when a college or university is faced with potentially
devastating legal exposure. Who will benefit, after all, from
lawsuits that threaten to make higher education less available to
many, and at their core call into question the value of the degrees
received by the very people on whose behalf they purportedly have
been brought? [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 ***