/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200603.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 111

                            Headlines

AARON INC: Signs $5.1M Deal to End OT, Vacation Wage Claims
ADT INC: Accord Reached in State Court Litigation Over IPO
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit Against Defender Holdings
ADT INC: Settlement Agreement Reached in Shuheiber Suit
ADT INC: Settlement Agreement Reached in Villegas Class Suit

ADT LLC: Doty Says Home Security Systems Invades Privacy
ADTRAN INC: Burbridge Class Action Ongoing
ADVANCE AUTO: Discovery Ongoing in Delaware Class Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: PERS Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy et al. Sue Over 401(k) Plan Losses

AIR METHODS: Ballou Sues in Vermont Alleging Violation of ADA
AMBI PAVING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Hughes Claims
AMERICAN EAGLE: Myers et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Technicians
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Fire-Prone Generators
ANTERO RESOURCES: Faces Goodno Class Suit in D. West Virginia

ANZ BANK: Must Face $80MM Class Action Over RAM Ponzi Scheme
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Reinstates Mobile Device Memory Class Action
APPLE INC: Consumers Sue Over iPhone XR's Inferior Antenna
ARKANSAS: Prisons Sued Over Handling of Covid-19 Cases
ASSET RECOVERY: Manor Sues in E.D. Michigan Over FDCPA Violation

AT&T MOBILITY: Gunther Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & Labor Code
BASF METALS: Appeals Decision in Modern Settings Antitrust Suit
BBK HOLDINGS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
BINANCE: DOJ Lawyer Says Class Actions to Benefit Crypto Industry
BLUE SKY CBD: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation

C FU YANG ASIAN: Guarchaj Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces Business-Interruption Class Action
COSTA CRUISE: Cruise Ticket Legal Jargon May Affect Class Action
CURALEF INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
DENNIS KIRK INC: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York

DIANA USA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
EAGLES NEST: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
ENDO INT'L: Appeal in PERS Mississippi Lawsuit Underway
EXXON MOBIL: App Not Accessible to Blind, Lucius ADA Suit Alleges

FATBOY USA1: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
FLORIDA: Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits Delay Nixed
FLORIDA: Writ of Mandamus in Unemployment Class Action Denied
FORD MOTOR: Sued in Florida Over Defective Super Duty Fuel Pumps
GEO GROUP: Trial for Washington Detainees' Suits This Month

GEODIS LOGISTICS: Bran Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
GIRARD, OHIO: Class Cert. Ruling in Black Case Upheld
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Hannibal-Fisher Files Suit in D. Arizona
GRANITE GEAR: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

HARTFORD INSURANCE: GCDC Leads Business Interruption Class Action
HERON PRESTON: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA: Says 8th Cir. Has Sole Power Over Row
ICON BRICKELL: Settles Class Action Over Illegal Fees
IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Eight Cir. Appeal Filed in Myers FLSA Suit

JAY-BEE OIL: Smith Class Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Allows False Ad Class Action to Proceed
LEGG MASON: June 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Gociman Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid COVID-19
LYFT INC: Haider et al. Sue Over Deductions on Drivers' Share

MASSACHUSETTS: Lawsuit Seeks Release of Sentenced Prisoners
MELTECH INC: Grove Sues Over Unlawful Wages for Exotic Dancers
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Class Cert. Ruling Underway
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Perez FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup(TM)

NCAA: Strawbridge Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to N.D. Illinois
NIO INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits in New York
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Schott Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
PENNY LANE: Underpays Employees, Jackson Claims
PNC BANK: May Face Class Action Over PPP  

PPL CORP: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Set for June 24
SCWORX CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Merits Trial in Anderson Case Vacated
SI FINANCIAL: Karp Appeals D. Conn. Judgment to Second Circuit
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Colectivo Files Business Interruption Lawsuit

STEPHENS MATTHEWS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
SUEZ WATER: Four Jersey City Residents File Suit Over Water Outage
SYMPOZ LLC: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
TOURO COLLEGE: Faces Chapusette Class Suit in S.D. New York
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Bath Insurance Suit Moved to W.D. Washington

TURNKEY: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Cancellation Policy
U.S. SPECIALTY: Egg & I Files Insurance Class Action
ULTRA ENTERPRISES: Denies Ticket Refunds, Hernandez et al. Claim
UNIKRN INC: Wash. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial
UNITED STATES: ICE Sued on Behalf of Transgender Detainees

UNITED STATES: Jalbert Files Cert. Petition in Securities Suit
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Class Suits Over Tuition Refund
USA GYMNASTICS: Bank. Ct. Sustains Claim 531 Objection
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
VISIBILITY MEDIA: Loftus Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

WALMART: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Egg Price Inflation
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Objection to Atty.’s
Fee
WELLS FARGO: Merchants Appeal Settlement Approval Order
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Granted Final Approval
WWE: Faces Several Shareholder Class Actions

[*] COVID-19 Business Interruption Class Actions Filed in N.J.
[*] Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Actions
[*] Group of Jews Files Class Suit Over Canceled Passover Events

                            *********

AARON INC: Signs $5.1M Deal to End OT, Vacation Wage Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law 360 reports that Aaron's Inc. has agreed to pay $5.1 million to
settle a former employee's claims that the rent-to-own retailer
failed to properly calculate workers' overtime rates or correctly
pay workers for all their unused vacation time when they left the
company.  Former Aaron's sales maanger Arminda Sevilla asked a
california federal judge for final approval of the settlemnt as
part of her class action brought under California law and the
Federal Fair Labor Standard's Act.  [GN]

ADT INC: Accord Reached in State Court Litigation Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the parties in the class action lawsuit
related to the Company's initial public offering (IPO) are planning
to move in state court for settlement approval and certification of
a class for settlement purposes.

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the IPO in January 2018 were filed in the Circuit Court
of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and were consolidated for
discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.

The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders plaintiffs and sought to
represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"). The complaint alleges that the Company
defendants violated the Securities Act because the registration
statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO were false and
misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to
litigation involving the Company, the Company's efforts to protect
its intellectual property, and the competitive pressures faced by
the Company.

A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May
2018.

In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the state court and the federal court actions.

In connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo
action voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to
move in state court for settlement approval and certification of a
class for settlement purposes.

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

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit Against Defender Holdings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that  discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
initiated by Teddy Archer against Defender Holdings, Inc.

In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders Holdings, Inc.,
which is defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and
seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), breach of contract under state
law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in
California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.

The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA
collective action. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class
for unpaid wages.

The parties are actively engaged in discovery.

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

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Settlement Agreement Reached in Shuheiber Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the parties in Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC,
have reached a settlement agreement in principle.

In August 2017, Jabra Shuheiber filed civil litigation in Marin
County Superior Court on behalf of himself and two other
individuals asserting wage and hour violations against the Company.


The action is entitled Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC (Case Number CV
1702912, Superior Court, Marin County). Mr. Shuheiber was the
owner/operator of a sub-contractor, Maximum Protection, Inc.
("MPI"), who employed the other two plaintiffs in the litigation.

In August 2018, in response to the California Supreme Court's
decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, counsel for Mr. Shuheiber provided the Company with
a proposed amended complaint that modified the wage and hour claims
such that they were brought on a class basis.

The proposed class is not clearly defined but appears to be
composed of two groups of individuals: 1) individual owners of
sub-contractors who performed services for the sub-contractor; and
2) individuals with no ownership interest in a sub-contractor who
were employed by the sub-contractor and provided services pursuant
to a contract between the sub-contractor and the Company.

In October 2018, the Company answered Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff's
sub-contracting company for indemnification pursuant to the term of
ADT’s sub-contract.

In November 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
principle.

The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to
move for settlement approval and certification of a class for
settlement purposes.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Settlement Agreement Reached in Villegas Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that a settlement agreement in principle has been
reached in the class action suit entitled, Villegas v. ADT.

In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT. In this
complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated certain
provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the Company's favor in October 2014, which the
plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate
Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in January
2020.

The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to
move for settlement approval and certification of a class for
settlement purposes.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT LLC: Doty Says Home Security Systems Invades Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
SHANA DOTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
0:20-cv-60972-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its
intentional and negligent tortious acts in providing security
services to its customers with remote-viewing capabilities.

In April of 2020, the Plaintiff received a terrifying phone call
from the Defendant: the technician who had worked on her indoor
security camera system had granted himself remote access, and had
used that access an unknown amount of times to spy on her, her
husband, and her minor son in their most private moments. The
Plaintiff soon found out that hundreds of households had
experienced the same staggering invasion of privacy over at least a
seven-year period. At fault for this breach of trust: ADT's
unsecure and unmonitored "security" services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
security services its customers paid for by leaving large
vulnerabilities in the ADT Pulse application and, as a result,
compromised the safety and security of its customers' homes and
family members. The ADT vulnerability allowed any one of its
technicians to grant themselves (or for them to grant anyone else
for that matter) access to a customer's ADT Pulse application and
control every aspect of the customers' home security systems
including surreptitiously opening locks and viewing security camera
footage.

ADT Security Services is a home security company that touts its
longstanding expertise in security and claims to have been
providing security services since the 19th century.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karina D. Rodrigues, Esq.
          KELLEY | UUSTAL, PLC
          500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          Email: kdr@kulaw.com

                  - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          Email: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com
                 ewadescott@edelson.com

                  - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          N. Majed Nachawati, Esq.
          C. Bryan Fears, Esq.
          S. Ann Saucer, Esq.
          Misty A. Farris, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
          5473 Blair Road
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          Email: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com
                 mn@fnlawfirm.com
                 fears@fnlawfirm.com
                 asaucer@fnlawfirm.com
                 mfarris@fnlawfirm.com

                  - and -

          Amy M. Carter, Esq.
          Heather V. Davis, Esq.
          CARTER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          5473 Blair Rd.
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 390-4173
          Email: amy@clgtrial.com
                 hdavis@clgtrial.com

ADTRAN INC: Burbridge Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
ADTRAN, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No.
19-cv-09619.

On October 17, 2019, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its current
executive officers and one of its former executive officers. The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of purported purchasers
of ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019 and October 9, 2019.


The lawsuit claims that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about, the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically relating to the Company\s internal control
over financial reporting, excess and obsolete inventory reserves,
financial results and demand from certain customers.

The lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on January 7, 2020, and co-lead
plaintiffs have been appointed to represent the putative class.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2020. The
defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

ADTRAN said, "We deny the allegations in the complaint, as amended,
and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time,
we are unable to predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit."

ADTRAN, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services
a variety of high-speed digital transmission products. The
Company's products are used by telephone companies and corporate
end-users to implement advanced digital data services over existing
telephone networks. ADTRAN also offers a line of multiplexers which
provides modular flexibility. The company is based in Huntsville,
Alabama.


ADVANCE AUTO: Discovery Ongoing in Delaware Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 18, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial well-being,
business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class
Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On February 7, 2020 the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss. The surviving claims will now be
subject to discovery.

In addition, on April 29, 2020, a derivative complaint purportedly
on behalf of the Company was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, against the company's as nominal
defendant and certain of our current and former officers and
directors, related to similar allegations for the Class Period.

Advance Auto Parts said, "We strongly dispute the allegations of
the complaints and intend to defend the cases vigorously."

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.



ADVANCE AUTO: PERS Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00212-RGA (D. Del.), lead plaintiff
the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the
      following class:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
      between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017, inclusive,
      and were damaged thereby."

      Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Company; (ii)
      Starboard Value LP ("Starboard"); (iii) Thomas R. Greco,
      Thomas Okray, and Jeffrey C. Smith (the "Excluded
      Individuals"); (iv) members of the immediate families of
      the Excluded Individuals; (v) the Company's and
      Starboard's subsidiaries and affiliates; (vi) any person
      who is or was an officer or director of the Company,
      Starboard, or any of the Company's or Starboard's
      subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; (vii)
      any entity in which the Company, Starboard, or any
      Excluded Individual has a controlling interest; and (viii)
      the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns
      of any such excluded person or entity.

   2. appointing the Public Employees' Retirement System of
      Mississippi as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz MMeltzer& Check, LLP as Class
      Counsel and deLeeuw Law LLC as Liaison Counsel for the
      Class.

Advance Auto is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider.
Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff PERS is represented by:

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq.
          Mark C. Franek, Esq.
          Raphael Janove, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com
                  jneumann@ktmc.com
                  mfranek@ktmc.com
                  rjanove@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Tyler, Esq.
          GADOW TYLER, PLLC
          511 E. Pearl Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 355-0654
          E-mail: blake@gadowtyler.com

               - and -

          P. Bradford deLeeuw. Esq.
          DELEEUW LAW LLC
          1301 Walnut Green Road
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 274-2180
          E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy et al. Sue Over 401(k) Plan Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, STACEY PARKS KENNEDY, ANGELA BOZELL, and BRITTNEY
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC.; BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC.; THE PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03624
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breaches of
their fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the
BenefitsPlus 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, allege that during the
putative Class period from May 8, 2014 through December 31, 2018,
the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duties
they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants
of the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and maintaining
certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories. Moreover, the Defendants failed to utilize
the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the
Plan, and failed to consider collective trusts, commingled
accounts, or separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds
in the Plan, despite their lower fees.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of losses
due to excessive costs and lower net investment returns. Had
Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan
would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants would
have had more money available to them for their retirement.

Aegis Media Americas, Inc. is a global media and digital marketing
communications company, with its principal place of business
located at 150 East 42nd Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER PC
         2933 North Front Street
         Harrisburg, PA 17110
         Telephone: (717) 233-4101
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and –
         
         Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER PC
         312 Old Lancaster Road
         Merion Station, PA 19066
         Telephone: (610) 890-0200
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

AIR METHODS: Ballou Sues in Vermont Alleging Violation of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Methods
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Robert Ballou, and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Air Methods Corporation, Rocky
Mountain Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00077-cr (D. Vt., May 22,
2020).

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

Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical
services to 70,000-100,000 patients every year, and operates in 48
states and Haiti, and air medical continues to be its primary
business focus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Soule, Esq.
          PAUL FRANK + COLLINS PC
          1 Church Street
          P.O. Box 1307
          Burlington, VT 05402-1307
          Phone: (802) 658-2311
          Fax: (802) 658-0042
          Email: ssoule@pfclaw.com


AMBI PAVING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Hughes Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
DARYL E. HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMBI PAVING, LLC and DHARAM DEOCHAND,
Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00910 (M.D. Fla., May 27, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged unlawful compensation practice in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Hughes was employed by Defendant from approximately July
2018 until January 2020 as an hourly-paid laborer for laying and
repairing asphalt.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours
a week during numerous weeks. But, Defendant did not compensate him
at a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate for
all hours worked in excess of 40.

Moreover, Defendant willfully failed to maintain and keep accurate
time records of laborers, including Plaintiff.

Dharam Deochand is the owner and manager of AMBI who is involved in
the day-to-day operations and had control over the financial
affairs of the company.

AMBI Paving, LLC operates an asphalt paving, repair and sealcoating
business in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Adams, Esq.
          N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
          LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
          2300 East Concord Street
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Tel: (407) 835-8968
          Fax: (407) 835-8969
          https://www.labaradams.com/


AMERICAN EAGLE: Myers et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA MYERS and RAYMOND TOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN EAGLE
PLUMBING & DRAIN CLEANING, LLC; AMERICAN EAGLE PLUMBING AND DRAIN
CLEANING OF DAYTON INC; AMERICAN EAGLE PLUMBING AND DRAIN CLEANING
OF FLORIDA, LLC; BASHIR SALEM; and NAZEK SALEM, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00429-MWM (S.D. Ohio, May 27, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly-situated employees appropriate minimum wages
and overtime pay for all hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff Myers was employed by the Defendants as a commissioned
plumbing service technician and commissioned plumbing supervisor
beginning in or around May 2016 until May 2020.

Plaintiff Tompkins was employed by the Defendants as a commissioned
plumbing technician beginning in or around February 2017 until July
2018.

American Eagle Plumbing & Drain Cleaning, LLC is a domestic limited
liability company that provides residential and commercial plumbing
services in Ohio, with principal place of business located at 120
Ewing Dr. Apt. B, Fairfield, Ohio.

American Eagle Plumbing and Drain Cleaning of Dayton Inc. is a
corporation for profit that provides residential and commercial
plumbing services, with principal place of business located at 7280
Wheatland Meadow Court, West Chester, Ohio.

American Eagle Plumbing and Drain Cleaning of Florida, LLC is a
limited liability company that provides residential and commercial
plumbing services with principal place of business located at 501
Mandalay Ave., Unit 501, Clearwater, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:           
         
         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
         Columbus, OH 43207
         Telephone: (614) 949-1181
         Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
         E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Fire-Prone Generators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that American
Honda Motor Co. hasn't done enough to make purchasers of
dangerously defective generators whole, a would-be class
representative alleges in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.

The complaint, filed on May 5, claims Honda violated the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws when
it knowingly sold consumers defective portable generators prone to
leaking fuel and catching fire.

Honda issued a recall of the generators at issue in March 2019 and
offered to inspect and repair the machines at no cost to their
owners. [GN]


ANTERO RESOURCES: Faces Goodno Class Suit in D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Antero Resources
Corporation. The case is styled as Sandra Goodno, Anthony Rebholz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Antero Resources Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00100-JPB (N.D.W.
Va., May 22, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Antero Resources Corporation is an independent oil and natural gas
company engaged in the exploration, development, and production of
natural gas, NGLs, and oil properties located in the Appalachian
Basin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A Barton, Esq.
          Taylor P. Foye, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON
          7227 Metcalf Ave., Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Phone: (913) 563-6250
          Fax: (913) 563-6259
          Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
                 taylor@georgebartonlaw.com

               - and -

          Larry Lee Javins , II, Esq.
          Taylor M. Norman, Esq.
          BAILEY, JAVINS & CARTER, LC
          P.O. Box 3712
          Charleston, WV 25337
          Phone: (304) 345-0346
          Fax: (304) 345-0375
          Email: ljavins@bjc4u.com
                 tnorman@bjc4u.com


ANZ BANK: Must Face $80MM Class Action Over RAM Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Good Returns reports that the High Court at Wellington has declined
ANZ Bank’s attempt to get a suit from more than 500 investors of
failed Ross Asset Management thrown out early.

Justice Jillian Mallon ruled on May 6 that the $80 million class
action must go to trial.

The investor case alleges David Ross's former bank, ANZ, knew
certain payments misapplied RAM client funds and the bank
dishonestly assisted RAM's breaches of trust, benefited from
charging fees and interest through RAM's misused overdraft, and
breached a duty of care in negligence.

Ross Asset Management was the country's largest ponzi scheme when
it collapsed in late 2012. More than 800 investors believed more
than $450 million was being managed on their behalf but actual
losses were closer to $100 million. About $10 million has been
recovered.

In a 65-page decision, the judge says that while the plaintiff's
claim might need some tidying up, the way it is formed does not
prejudice the bank and the case needs to go to trial.

She said there was an only a "subtle" difference in the way the
parties viewed the law of dishonest assistance, and the pleadings
covered all of the requirements subject to "some residual issues."

Document discovery first

While the investors had not specified who the ANZ managers were who
assisted RAM to misapply client funds, that issue was premature.

"The plaintiffs cannot be expected to provide the particulars when
it has received some of the information from the FMA in a redacted
form following ANZ's unsuccessful court proceeding opposing its
disclosure. After discovery and the provision of further
particulars on this point, there may or may not be an issue about
aggregation. If there is an issue, it will be better considered on
the facts."

Assessing the knowing receipt claim, the judge said that the law
was not settled as to whether the standard of the banker having
"should have known" was high enough.

"This is more appropriately considered when the facts at trial are
determined," the judge wrote.

While suggesting other ways the arguments could be clarified, the
judge said the investors could do that at a more appropriate time.

The judge also dismissed the notion that the investors could be out
of time to bring a claim, saying that could also be argued at
trial.

"In deciding who is right about this, the court may be assisted by
the facts -- for example, which investors were able to withdraw
funds without suffering loss and why that was; and to what extent
did RAM legitimately invest client funds in investments and account
to those clients on those investments."

She ordered that the bank pay the investors' costs.

Not made public

A preliminary issue for the judge was the publication of evidence
through what is known as the Sletcher affidavit, which contains
volumes of emails that the Financial Markets Authority obtained,
which show internal ANZ communications discussing the RAM accounts.
There are heavy redactions to these emails.

The ANZ said that evidence was not admissible but the judge said
she would consider it. However, the judge declined to make the
affidavit available to the public, saying that would be unfair to
ANZ if the documents were released before a trial.

"Open justice considerations were met by allowing media
representatives to attend and report on the hearing of the
strikeout application. This judgment and the substantive hearing
will also meet open justice objectives."

The claim has been a long time coming, as the FMA had to fight the
bank for the disclosure of documents which have helped form the
case. The FMA was finally able to give the documents to investors
in April last year.

The case is being funded by LPF Group. Under its deal, the
litigation funder takes 25 percent if it settles before July, and
30 percent thereafter. More than 500 investors have signed up.
[GN]


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Reinstates Mobile Device Memory Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetNews reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May
5 reinstated a putative class action by California consumers
against Apple, Inc. in which the plaintiffs complain that they
purchased mobile devices advertised as having 16 GB of storage
capacity while, in fact, the operating system, itself, uses 18.1
percent to 23.1 percent of that capacity.

What reasonable consumers would have expected based on Apple's
advertisement could not be determined at the pleading stage, a
three-judge panel said in a memorandum opinion.

District Court Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California dismissed the action with prejudice on Nov. 6, 2018.

The named plaintiffs -- Paul Orshan, Christopher Endara, and David
Henderson -- sued on Dec, 30, 2014, under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, claiming they would not have purchased their iPhones
and iPads if they had been told how much of the memory was consumed
by the iOS 8 operating system. That system was released on Sept.
17, 2014, and supplanted by iOS 9 on Sept. 16, 2015.

District Court's Decision

Capsizing the second amended complaint, Davila wrote:

"Plaintiffs' theory of deception -- i.e., that Apple deceived
Plaintiffs into thinking that iOS 8 would not consume as much
storage capacity as it did. Plaintiffs still fail to explain how
much storage space they actually expected iOS 8 would use, the
basis for this expectation, or how any of Apple's alleged
misrepresentations or omissions created this expectation."

Apple provided a disclaimer saying, "actual formatted capacity
less." Davila declared:

"[N]o reasonable consumer could have read Apple's disclaimer and
expected that all of the 16 GB would be available for personal use
on their devices because the average consumer would know and expect
that their Apple devices come pre-installed with an operating
system and applications. Furthermore, no consumer could have read
Apple's disclaimer and reasonably expected that iOS 8 would not
consume a substantial amount of storage; the disclosure simply does
not imply anything about the amount of storage iOS 8 would or would
not consume. In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that
would make it plausible that they reasonably expected iOS 8 not to
consume a substantial amount of storage."

Panel Reverses

Reversing, a three-judge panel -- comprised of Circuit Judges
Marsha S. Berzon and Sandra S. Ikuta, joined by District Court
Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the Eastern District of Louisiana,
sitting by designation -- said on May 5:

"Plaintiffs' theory that they expected to be able to use the full
16 GB of advertised storage capacity and their alternative theory
-- that they did not expect to be denied for their own use the
18.1-21.3% of the 16 GB storage capacity that is estimated to be
unavailable -- are not resolvable at the pleading stage. Consumers
with a wide range of technological needs and varying degrees of
technological sophistication purchase Apple's products. It is not
possible to determine without factual development whether it is
reasonable for iPhone and iPad consumers to have expected that they
would not be denied use of such a substantial portion of the
advertised storage capacity, nor is it clear whether, if
reasonable, such expectations are shared by a 'significant portion
of the general consuming public.' "

The opinion continues:

"Apple's 'actual formatted capacity less' disclaimer does not alter
this analysis. We have previously held that an otherwise deceptive
representation is not dispelled by the inclusion of fine print
providing additional disclosures….Moreover, 'less' does not say
how much less, and so gives rise a second inquiry -- whether a
reasonable consumer who does read the disclaimer would contemplate
'less' to be as much as the approximately 20% decrease here
alleged."

The case is Orshan v. Apple, Inc., 18-17329. [GN]


APPLE INC: Consumers Sue Over iPhone XR's Inferior Antenna
----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that Apple has been
sued by a group of consumers alleging that its iPhone XR, released
in 2018, had an inferior antenna to other iPhones.

The lawsuit, filed by 13 named plaintiffs in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 5, is at least
the second proposed class action over the phones. [GN]



ARKANSAS: Prisons Sued Over Handling of Covid-19 Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Rose, writing for KATV, reports that a total of six inmates
in Arkansas prisons have died due to complications from COVID-19,
and a class-action lawsuit filed in late April is asking for
changes to the way the Arkansas Department of Correction has
handled the outbreak.

The 11 inmates that have signed onto this lawsuit have reported
egregious conditions.  They're hoping this can be stopped before it
gets any worse.

"I couldn't imagine living in a world where this is actually
happening," said Omavi Shukur, co-counsel on the case.

As of May 6, more than 860 inmates have tested positive inside the
Cummins Unit.  Shukur said, "Those numbers are only going up. So,
what we're attempting to do is literally preserve life."

They're also asking for the release of those among the vulnerable
population to this illness.

In an emergency hearing on May 4, the federal judge asked for more
evidence for a hearing on May 7.

Judge: No immediate ruling on Arkansas inmates' virus suit

A federal judge on May 4 declined to rule immediately in a lawsuit
filed by Arkansas inmates who accused the prison system of not
doing enough to combat the spread of the coronavirus. U. S.
District Judge Kristine Baker rejected the inmates' motion to
immediately require the prison system to take additional steps to
prevent the virus from spreading.

"What the court wants to hear more from plaintiffs is how the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to this heightened risk
that this pandemic poses to people incarcerated," said Shukur.

Along with the confirmed report that correctional officers are
continuing to work after testing positive, Shakur says the lack of
social distancing and proper cleaning is fueling the fire. He said,
"It's a ticking time bomb. We're not only thinking about now and
today and the still growing number of people at Cummins, but we're
thinking forward to the fall as well."

Shakur said they have every expectation to of receiving preliminary
injunctive relief, which means they will be awarded a temporary
order until a formal trial can be held. [GN]


ASSET RECOVERY: Manor Sues in E.D. Michigan Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Andrew Manor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:20-cv-11287-BAF-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2020).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions LLC, also called ARS Solutions is a debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Gunther Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GUNTHER, on behalf of himself and the classes of all other
similarly situated and aggrieved current and former employees v.
AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-03293 (N.D. Cal., May 14,
2020), challenges the Defendants' systematic and illegal employment
practices that violate the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages due, failed to pay wages in a timely fashion, including
failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to pay
employees at the end of their employment, misclassified employees
so as to avoid payment of wages, failed to provide sufficient
payroll details, and failed to keep statutorily required payroll
records.

The Plaintiff was employed as an In-Home-Expert by the Defendants.
He worked in Santa Clara County, California, from April 23, 2018,
through December 20, 2019.

AT&T Mobility provides wireless voice and data communications
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar I. Habbas, Esq.
          Tarik R. Habbas, Esq.
          HABBAS, NASSERI & ASSOCIATES
          675 N. 1st Street, No. 1000
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: 408 278 0480
          Facsimile: 408 278 0488
          E-mail: thabbas@habbaslaw.com

               - and -

          Lori J. Costanzo, Esq.
          Chelsea Hill, Esq.
          COSTANZO LAW FIRM
          111 West St. John Street, No. 700
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: 408 993 8493
          Facsimile: 408 993 8496
          E-mail: Lori@costanzo-law.com

               - and -

          Ignascio G. Camarena II, Esq.
          CAMARENA LAW OFFICE, A.P.C.
          111 N. Market Street, Suite 300
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: 408 418 7180
          Facsimile: 408 516 9653
          E-mail: igc@camarenalawoffice.com


BASF METALS: Appeals Decision in Modern Settings Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant BASF Metals Limited filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2020, and
Judgment dated April 15, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Modern
Settings LLC and Modern Settings LLC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs
International, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and Standard Bank PLC, Case No.
14-cv-9391, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
arises out of the unlawful conspiracy to manipulate and rig the
global benchmarks for physical platinum and palladium prices, as
well as the prices of platinum- and palladium-based financial
derivative products.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1575, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Modern Settings LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, et al., are represented by:

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0768
          Email: gasciolla@labaton.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email: mdavidoff@bm.net

Defendant-Appellant BASF Metals Limited is represented by:

          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 389-5000
          Email: michael.williams@kirkland.com


BBK HOLDINGS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBK Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. BBK Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03966 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

BBK Holdings, LLC, operates as a marketing consulting firm. The
Company provides patient recruitment for clinical research and
development segments of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical
device industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BINANCE: DOJ Lawyer Says Class Actions to Benefit Crypto Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kapilkov, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a former
Department of Justice, or DOJ, special counsel explains why his
firm has brought twelve class action lawsuits against some of the
biggest firms in crypto, and how it will benefit the industry in
the long run.

Jordan Goldstein -- jgoldstein@selendygay.com -- is a partner at
Selendy & Gay, a firm that joined forces with Roche Cyrulnik
Freedman in bringing 12 class actions cases against crypto
heavyweights. These include Binance (BNB), BitMex, and Block.one.
In the past, Goldstein has helped his clients recover over $25
billion.

Investors should not be scared

Goldstein told Cointelegraph that his primary goal is to help the
investors who were allegedly misled by the issuers of unregistered
securities. He firmly believes that these cases will benefit the
industry in the long run:

"By bearing the costs of the litigation, it will force companies
and issuers ex ante when they consider the new landscape after
these lawsuits to be more careful to follow the rules. And I do
think that's hopefully one of the benefits here for blockchain and
this sector in general, is that investors should not be scared to
be the ones who are buying and selling these securities."

Becoming lead plaintiff has its benefits

Goldstein said that there are significant benefits to joining these
cases as a lead plaintiff:

"Serving as a lead plaintiff gives someone the opportunity to steer
the litigation and make important decisions regarding strategy as
well as settlement decisions. If there are folks who are interested
in serving in that role, we're very happy to hear from them."

The deadline for joining most of these cases is June 8.

Goldstein does not believe that the crypto industry is
significantly different from the financial industry, where the
industry-wide misconduct led to the economic crisis of 2008. In any
industry, if bad players remain unchecked, then everyone starts
assuming that this behavior is permissible. It also disfranchises
good players, making them less competitive:

"I do think that's one of the salutary impacts of these litigations
will be leveling the playing field so that there's sort of one set
of rules that applies to all. Issuers of digital tokens and that
those who sort of evade the rules aren't given an unfair
advantage."

A source familiar with these cases told Cointelegraph that the
legal battles may take years. Even if the courts rule in favor of
the plaintiffs and award monetary damages, securing payouts from
the non-U.S. entities will be challenging.

Whether these cases will have a beneficial effect on the industry
remains to be seen, however, it does not appear that we will see
the revival of 2017's Initial Coin Offering, or ICO, frenzy anytime
soon. [GN]


BLUE SKY CBD: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Sky CBD LLC. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blue Sky CBD LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03968 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Blue Sky CBD LLC is a license Colorado Farm growing strictly hemp
for a pure CBD product.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C FU YANG ASIAN: Guarchaj Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GUARCHAJ, ANTONIO TAMBRIZ GUARCHAJ and FRANCISCO OCH AJTZALAM
v. C FU YANG ASIAN GOURMET, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01697 (S.D.
Tex., May 14, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to pay them
overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendant is a food service company that provides Asian gourmet
food for dine-in and take-out.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin T. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNARD LAW PC
          2603 Augusta Dr., Suite 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  kevin.kennedy@kennardlaw.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


COSTA CRUISE: Cruise Ticket Legal Jargon May Affect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
K. Oanh Ha, Christopher Palmeri, Jonathan Levin and Kevin Varley,
writing for Bloomberg News, report that after two passengers on
their luxury cruise tested positive for Covid-19 in March, Emilio
and Barbara Hernandez were so frantic to get off the ship, they
wrote a note to the captain.

The Costa Luminosa sailed on with them still onboard, and they
ended up with the virus. Now recovering, the Hernandezes and 98
fellow passengers have sued Costa Cruise Lines Inc., a brand owned
by Carnival Corp., alleging the firm endangered passengers' lives
through negligence and bad decision-making.

A Costa spokeswoman said the company stepped up its sanitation of
ships and then took action, including quarantining passengers,
after it learned of the positive test results.

The Hernandezes and their fellow plaintiffs are seeking
class-action status. They may have rough sailing ahead.

The tickets that cruise passengers buy resemble legal contracts,
and they generally contain language barring customers from filing
class-action suits -- lawsuits that allow one or more plaintiffs to
act on behalf of a larger group. That's just one of several
built-in legal protections in cruise tickets meant to safeguard
companies against a rash of litigation that's already arising from
the coronavirus pandemic.

"These claims are enormous -- nothing the industry's seen before
with so many passengers fallen sick and bringing suit," said Martin
Davies, director of the Tulane Maritime Law Center at Tulane
University Law School. Any judgments would be paid out of an
insurance pool that the cruise lines have formed, Davies said.

Currently, no cruise company faces more claims related to the virus
than Carnival, the industry's largest operator. At least 22
lawsuits have been filed against Carnival-owned companies, seeking
millions of dollars in damages. The company said it doesn't comment
on active litigation.

By comparison, Celebrity Cruises, owned by the second-largest
company, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., faces just one U.S. lawsuit
so far: a proposed class-action filed by crew members who allege
Celebrity failed to protect them from the virus. Norwegian Cruise
Line Holdings Ltd., the third largest, faces a shareholder lawsuit
that alleges the company failed to disclose adverse facts that
affected it due to Covid-19. Lawyers say passenger suits against
other cruise companies are probably coming.

Some of the virus-related claims, including the Hernandezes' case,
seek class-action status and involve multiple plaintiffs, totaling
almost 200 so far.

But suits seeking class-action certifications face an "uphill
battle," Davies said, because of language contained in the
passengers' tickets. "Provided that's what the contract says,
generally the courts will find that enforceable."

Range of Protections
It's not uncommon for big businesses of all sorts to insist on
class-action waivers in their contracts, but cruise operators have
a range of other legal protections as well. Some of them stem from
byzantine maritime laws that date to the 19th Century, when policy
makers wanted to encourage investment in the shipping industry.

"If you print out one of these tickets, it's like 20 pages of
gobbledygook," said John Hickey, a maritime lawyer. Hickey, who
spent almost two decades defending cruise operators in court, now
represents plaintiffs against them. "Most people have no idea the
limitations they're presented with."

For example, judgments for deaths that occur far from U.S. ports
are limited by the Death on the High Seas Act, enacted in 1920.
Most ticket contracts limit any legal actions to select federal
courts, predominantly in Florida or Los Angeles, no matter where
the customers live. And most of them require passengers to notify a
cruise operator within six months that they intend to sue.

In general, cruise industry representatives say it's unfair to
single out cruise operators, who they say implemented more
aggressive screening and prevention measures related to Covid-19
than other travel sectors did.

Cruise lines "took immediate and aggressive action based on the
information that was available when it was available every step of
the way," said Bari Golin-Blaugrund, a spokeswoman for the Cruise
Lines International Association. "Importantly, all decisions were
based upon the expertise and guidance of prevailing health
authorities."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on March 14
ordered cruise ships in U.S. waters to suspend operations after
travelers on more than 30 voyages were infected with Covid-19.

The Hernandezes' tickets for the Costa Luminosa contained a
"patently unfair" prohibition on class actions, said their lawyer,
Michael Winkleman of Florida. He acknowledged "significant hurdles"
for their lawsuit, which alleges that the bar on class actions
should be voided because Costa Cruise Lines acted "intentionally by
exposing passengers to a highly contagious virus" for which there's
no vaccine.

If the case isn't certified as a class action, Winkleman said, he
intends to file cases for the plaintiffs individually or in smaller
groups. Class-action lawsuits, which can result in larger judgments
or settlements, can help to move cases more swiftly for plaintiffs.
Most plaintiffs' law firms that pursue them do so on a "no win, no
fee" basis, banking on bigger payouts, said Davies, the
maritime-law professor.

Suits' Allegations
"The ship never should have sailed," Emilio Hernandez, 51, said in
an interview. "They put profit over the safety of passengers and
crew."

He and his wife almost canceled their March 5 sailing on the Costa
Luminosa to Antigua and Europe, but Costa assured them precautions
would be taken, he said. Their lawsuit alleges that the operator
proceeded with the trip despite knowing that at least one passenger
from the ship's previous voyage, who disembarked Feb. 29, had
coronavirus symptoms.

That passenger left for a medical emergency that was "not even
connected to any flu-like symptoms," said Rossella Carrara, a
spokeswoman for the cruise operator's Italian parent company, Costa
Crociere Group, which is also owned by Carnival.

Sanitation procedures on the ship were stepped up ahead of the
Hernandezes' cruise, Carrara said, and a quarantine of all
passengers and other measures, such as daily temperature checks,
were adopted after the company learned of positive test results.

Costa has said previously that the company passed information to
Costa Luminosa passengers as soon as it received it and that it
suspended new cruises on March 13, the day it learned that a
passenger on its cruise had tested positive.

Many of the coronavirus lawsuits filed thus far argue that the
companies should have known how infectious the pathogen was after
an outbreak in late February on the Diamond Princess, which is
operated by Carnival's Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. What began as
fewer than a dozen infections quickly spread to more than 700
passengers and eventually killed at least 13 despite a quarantine
of the vessel off Yokohama, Japan.

Lawsuits filed by passengers of another Princess vessel, the Grand
Princess, allege that the cruise line knew some people aboard had
Covid-19 symptoms when the ship docked and boarded new passengers
in San Francisco on Feb. 21 for a cruise to Hawaii. The two
symptomatic passengers disembarked that day; one tested positive
shortly afterward and died, prompting California officials to
refuse to let the ship dock.

The Grand Princess suits, filed by lawyer Debi Chalik, claim that
the cruise operator alerted passengers of the ship's previous
cruise about potential Covid-19 exposure in a Feb. 25 email, but
didn't warn passengers on its Hawaii cruise. Chalik's office said
it's representing dozens of plaintiffs.

A spokeswoman for Princess Cruises said the company's response to
the Covid-19 outbreak "has focused on the well-being of our guests
and crew within the parameters dictated to us by the government
agencies involved and the evolving medical understanding of this
new illness." She said the company doesn't comment on pending
litigation.

On March 4, Carnival's Chief Medical Officer, Grant Tarling,
notified passengers and crew on the Grand Princess that the CDC was
investigating a cluster of coronavirus cases connected to the
previous voyage, according to the Princess website. It warned the
60 or so guests who also had sailed on that trip that they "may
have been exposed." It was then -- two weeks after the voyage began
-- that testing started, the suits allege.

When the ship was finally permitted to dock, 21 people tested
positive. All American travelers were quarantined on U.S. military
bases.

Carnival's President and Chief Executive Officer, Arnold Donald,
told Bloomberg Businessweek in an April 16 article that his
company's response was reasonable under the circumstances. "This is
a generational global event -- it's unprecedented," he said.

Inspections Questioned
Before the new coronavirus, the cruise industry had generally
avoided large-scale litigation over infectious disease outbreaks at
sea. Since 2006, there'd been fewer than 10 lawsuits filed over
norovirus, the notorious gastrointestinal ailment that for years
has ruined some passengers' experiences.

Yet many of the Covid-19 lawsuits raise questions about the
inspections that U.S. officials instituted in response to norovirus
outbreaks. Plaintiffs in the Grand Princess suits claim the cruise
operator didn't adequately sanitize the vessel between voyages. And
Winkleman, the Hernandezes' lawyer, said he plans to focus part of
his cases on Carnival's record of ship inspections and history of
outbreaks at sea.

The Costa Luminosa and the Grand Princess both have unremarkable
inspection records. Ships need an 86 or higher to pass under the
CDC's Vessel Sanitation Program. The Costa Luminosa was last
inspected on Jan. 5 and received a 94. The Grand Princess passed
its last inspection in June with a 93.

The program subjects ships that dock at U.S. ports to surprise
inspections twice a year. Since 2016, ships owned by Carnival fail
about 3% of their inspections. Norwegian Cruise Line has the worst
failure rate at 4% and Royal Caribbean's rate is about 1%.

Carnival spokesman Roger Frizzell noted that the company makes up
about half the industry, and said its ships "typically perform
extremely well" during inspections. He said Carnival-owned ships
have received the highest number of perfect scores as well.

For now, with cruises canceled and the industry in a kind of
suspended animation, the lawsuits and their claims represent a
potential challenge that cruise operators haven't seen before, said
Ross Klein, an associate dean at Memorial University of
Newfoundland in Canada who has studied the cruise industry for more
than two decades. "There are still a lot of ifs" about the success
of the legal claims, he said, but the risk for the companies is
there.

"The industry hasn't had any calamitous losses -- nothing that
would be potentially as large as this if the cases proceed in
court," Klein said. [GN]


CURALEF INC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curaleaf, Inc. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Curaleaf, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03969
(S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Curaleaf is a medical and wellness cannabis operator in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENNIS KIRK INC: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dennis Kirk, Inc. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dennis Kirk, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03970 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Dennis Kirk sells Powersports aftermarket parts and accessories
since 1969.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIANA USA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diana USA Corp. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Diana USA Corp., Case No.
1:20-cv-03967 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Diana is an international agency based in Venice, Milan and NYC
specialized in the creation, management and promotion of e-commerce
for fashion brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, 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 SCANA Corporation
continues to defend an employment class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project.

In July 2018, the court certified this case as a class action.  In
February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined
the case filed August 2017.  

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) , Fluor Corporation and Fluor
Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act in connection with the decision to stop
construction at the NND Project.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for
100% of the NND Project.

In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and
Santee Cooper.

The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract
and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the
defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the
Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case.

These cases are pending.

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

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


EAGLES NEST: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagles Nest
Outfitters, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eagles Nest
Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03971 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Eagles Nest Outfitters, Inc. was founded in 2001. The Company's
line of business includes the manufacturing of fabricated textile
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENDO INT'L: Appeal in PERS Mississippi Lawsuit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a  putative
intervenor's appeal from an order denying its petition to intervene
and from the order granting final approval to the settlement in the
matter, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo
International plc, by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, is still
pending.

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in the
company's June 2, 2015 public offering.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.

In June 2019, the parties entered into a settlement providing for,
among other things, a $50 million payment to the investor class in
exchange for a release of their claims.

In December 2019, the court denied a petition to intervene filed by
the lead plaintiff in the Pelletier v. Endo International plc,
Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul
V. Campanelli, and granted final approval of the settlement.

In December 2019, the putative intervenor appealed the denial of
its petition to intervene and the final approval order to
Pennsylvania Superior Court. That appeal remains pending.

As a result of the settlement, during the first quarter of 2019,
the Company recorded an increase of approximately $50 million to
its accrual for loss contingencies. As the Company's insurers
agreed to fund the settlement, the Company also recorded a
corresponding insurance receivable of approximately $50 million
during the first quarter of 2019, which was recorded as Prepaid
expenses and other current assets in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

Endo said, "The Company's insurers funded the settlement during the
third quarter of 2019, resulting in corresponding decreases to the
Company’s accrual for loss contingencies and insurance
receivable."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


EXXON MOBIL: App Not Accessible to Blind, Lucius ADA Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-22025-JEM
(S.D. Fla., May 14, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated against Exxon alleging violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for offering
and maintaining a mobile application (software that is intended to
run on mobile devices, such as phones or tablet computers) that is
not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff contends that blind and visually impaired consumers
must use the assistive technology on the iPhone to access app
content. The app must be designed and programmed to work with the
assistive technology available on the iPhone. The Defendant's App,
however, contains digital barriers, which limit the ability of
blind and visually impaired consumers to access it, even with
Apple's assistive technology, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is blind. She uses the internet to help her navigate
a world of goods, products and services like the sighted.

Exxon is an American multinational oil and gas corporation
headquartered in Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: 305-351-2014
          E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com


FATBOY USA1: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fatboy USA1, Inc. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Fatboy USA1, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03972 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Fatboy has been bringing lifestyle products to fans all over the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA: Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits Delay Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Harrison, writing for FirstCoast News, reports that some
people frustrated by the hurdles they're facing with Florida's
unemployment benefits are facing a new disappointment.

Their class-action lawsuit got in front of a judge, but their
effort failed. Tallahassee attorneys Marie Mattox and Gautier
Kitchen demanded that the Department of Economic Opportunity
immediately pay unemployment benefits to their clients. After some
push and pull between the state, with the help of an emergency
motion, the first circuit court hearing was held on
May 6.

"They have a duty to make prompt payment, and they certainly
haven't met that duty," one of the plaintiff attorneys argued over
the online hearing.

The defense for the Department of Economic Opportunity argued the
plaintiffs and everyone who applies for the benefits have no
clearly established legal right to those benefits until they go
through the filing and approval process.

"To the extent [their legal rights] do exist, it's a complex
statute," the defense said. "There are multiple steps involved."

The judge agreed with the department's lawyers and granted the
motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs are not allowed to
refile, but unemployed workers are still trying to be heard as some
gathered at the Leon County Court in Tallahassee to protest in a
car caravan.

"I was so frustrated and upset with the system and not getting
anywhere with my own claim that I decided I would rather help other
people than focus on my own case," protest organizer Judy Tanzosch
said.

She hopes together unemployed workers will be heard.

"We're going to just continue making noise until somebody listens
to us, and somebody in power says 'Enough is enough. Let's take
care of the people of Florida,'" Tanzosch explained. [GN]


FLORIDA: Writ of Mandamus in Unemployment Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Heath, writing for WFTV, reports that Circuit Court
Judge Angela Dempsey has denied a writ of mandamus in a
class-action lawsuit that sought to give Florida 24-hours to fix
its unemployment system or pay all outstanding unemployment claims,
then go after fraud later.

The judge said on May 6 she didn't under state statue have the
authority to force the state to move faster.

"We all want these claims to be resolved efficiently and we all
feel bad for these folks that are having to wait, but I'm bound by
the law of mandamus and the law as it is written in Chapter 443,"
said Judge Dempsey, referring to the chapter of the Florida
statutes that deals with Reemployment Assistance. "I just think it
is clear from the statute and the record that there is not a
ministerial duty, a ministerial duty is one where there is no room
for exercise of discretion, and there is clearly a lot of
discretion in Chapter 443."

While the attorneys behind the lawsuit vowed to fight on, another
attorney was taking to Twitter to offer his help in another way.

"Right now our unemployment system is broken because we have a
computer system that was broken day one," said Orlando attorney
John Morgan in a video message about the CONNECT unemployment
website. "It was bought for 77 million dollars by Rick Scott, here
is my offer to Florida, Governor DeSantis turn me and my business
trial group loose and we will recover that money for the state of
Florida, and you know what I'll charge you for this, zero." [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Sued in Florida Over Defective Super Duty Fuel Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Food Authority, reports that a new class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and it's
one that Ford Super Duty owners will want to take note of.  The
complaint, Nunez, et al., v. Ford Motor Company, alleges that
2011-present Ford Super Duty fuel pumps in trucks equipped with the
6.7-liter Power Stroke diesel engines are defective.  The Bosch CP4
high-pressure fuel injection pumps reportedly can't handle U.S.
diesel fuel specifications, allegedly leading to a number of
problems.

According to the lawsuit, this particular Ford Super Duty fuel pump
suffers from lubrication and water content problems, which forces
the pumps to run dry and causes metal to rub against metal. This
metal-to-metal contact occurs because of air pockets that form
inside the pumps while they are operating.

Over time, metal shavings and debris from the fuel pumps make their
way into the fuel injection systems and into the engines
themselves, which leads to a number of issues, including fuel pump
failure and even total engine failure.

Bosch's CP4 fuel pumps have been a great success in European
markets, thanks to their ability to achieve greater fuel efficiency
by pumping less fuel through the engines. But the class action
lawsuit alleges that cleaner U.S. diesel fuel causes the fuel pumps
to operate outside of specification and causes inadequate
lubrication.

"Consumers are left with repair bills that range from $8,000 to
$20,000 per vehicle," the lawsuit alleges. "Some victims of Ford's
grand scam are American businesses who own several vehicles and
have suffered multiple failures." The suit also claims that Ford
knew that these fuel pumps wouldn't work properly due to
differences in American diesel fuel quality.

The issues described reportedly began to arise as far back as the
'90s when cleaner diesel standards were first implemented in the
U.S. The Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association acknowledged back
in 2002 that the lower lubricity of American diesel fuel could
cause fuel injection system component failures in pumps
manufactured for European diesel specifications. [GN]


GEO GROUP: Trial for Washington Detainees' Suits This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial in two Washington
cases involving immigration detainees has been continued until
sometime past June 2020.

Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.


On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims.

The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed -- two in Washington and one in
California.

In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  

The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State
Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
October 9, 2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California.

All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state's
minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the
Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the
TVPA and California's equivalent state statute.

On September 27, 2019, the California plaintiff class filed a
motion for class certification of both California-based and
nationwide classes. The Company filed a response to this motion
disputing the plaintiff class' right to broad class treatment of
the claims at issue.

On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019.

However, on August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a
Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit
its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity
defense in the case.

While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the
case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.

Trial for the two Washington cases has been continued until
sometime past June 2020.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits.

GEO Group said, "The Company has not recorded an accrual relating
to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable
nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits. The Company
establishes accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is
considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the results of these
claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an
unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or
proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The
Company's accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed quarterly
and adjusted as additional information becomes available. The
Company does not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs but
expenses those items as incurred."

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GEODIS LOGISTICS: Bran Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
NURIA BRAN, on behalf of herself and all aggrieved California-based
non-exempt employees v. GEODIS LOGISTICS LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18432 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May
14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages
for all hours worked, to pay overtime wages for overtime hours
worked, to authorize or permit meal periods or pay meal period
premiums, and to authorize or permit rest periods or pay rest
period premiums in violation of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees are current, former
and/or future employees of the Defendants, who worked, work, or
will work for the Defendants as hourly non-exempt employees in
California.

Geodis is a worldwide transport and logistics company that supports
its clients in their daily work by helping them overcome their
logistical constraints.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  aburton@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


GIRARD, OHIO: Class Cert. Ruling in Black Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County
issued an Opinion affirming the County Court's Judgment granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
MILES BLACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF GIRARD, OHIO, et
al., Defendant-Appellant, No. 2019-T-0050, (Ohio App.).

Defendant-appellant, the City of Girard, appealed the Judgment
Entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, granting
plaintiffs-appellees' Amended Motion for Class Certification.  

Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Ohio
Constitution, Declaratory Judgment, Equitable Restitution,
Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act, and Negligent
Misrepresentation against defendants, the city of Girard, Ohio, and
Blue Line Solutions, LLC.

The Complaint identified Girard as an Ohio municipality authorized
to ticket persons who exceed the speed limits along Interstate 80
within its boundaries. Blue Line operates an automatic traffic
enforcement system on behalf of Girard.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification.  

The trial court issued its ruling on the Amended Motion for Class
Certification. The court granted the following General Class:

All persons and entities who were issued a citation for allegedly
traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. in violation of Girard City
Ordinance 333.03 and/or Traffic Code Ordinance 8069-16, between
December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, in the westbound lane of
Interstate 80 within the municipal limits of the City of Girard.

The court defined a Subclass 1 of this general class definition as
follows:

All persons and entities who were issued a citation for allegedly
traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. in violation of Girard City
Ordinance 333.03 and/or Traffic Code Ordinance 8069-16, between
December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, in the westbound lane of
Interstate 80 within the municipal limits of the City of Girard,
and who paid any fines, penalties or fees related to the citation.

The court defined a Subclass 2 of the general class definition as
follows:

All persons and entities who were issued a citation for allegedly
traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. in violation of Girard City
Ordinance 333.03 and/or Traffic Code Ordinance 8069-16, between
December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, in the westbound lane of
Interstate 80 within the municipal limits of the City of Girard,
and who have not paid any fines, penalties or fees related to the
citation, and whose citation was not found not liable at a
hearing.

On appeal, Girard raises the following assignments of error:

* The trial court erred by failing to undertake the required
rigorous analysis, which includes probing the underlying merits of
the Appellees' claims, for the purpose of determining whether
Appellees have satisfied the prerequisites of Civ.R. 23.

* The trial court erred by certifying a class action because the
certified class is overly broad and Appellees failed to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence the requirements of Civ.R.
23(A).

An action may be maintained as a class action if (1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

In addition to these prerequisites, a class action may be
maintained if the court finds that the questions of law or fact
common to the members of the class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

Under the first assignment of error, Girard asserts that the trial
court's complete failure to perform the rigorous analysis that is
required of it in order to certify a class suggests that the trial
court erroneously interpreted the law so that this court should
review its decision using a de novo standard, rather than an abuse
of discretion standard.

Girard's assertion that the trial court completely failed to
conduct a rigorous analysis stems from the trial court's failure to
address arguments it raised which probed the underlying merits of
the plaintiffs' claims. For example, Girard notes that, between
December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, 7,733 motorists were issued
citations on I-80 in Girard. Of this number, only 157 motorists
contested their citations by requesting a review hearing pursuant
to R.C. 4511.098(A)(5). Of the motorists who contested their
citations, 66 were found liable and paid some of the amount in
response to their violation.

Yet the court failed to analyze whether the failure of the vast
majority of the proposed class to contest their citations via an
administrative hearing constitutes a waiver of their claims,
thereby limiting the proposed class to 66 members. The court
likewise failed to analyze whether Appellees' sought-after remedy
of equitable restitution is limited to the 66 motorists who did not
receive complete relief from an administrative appeal.

The Appellate Court rejects Girard's argument that the trial court
so completely failed to conduct a rigorous analysis that its
judgment must be reversed as a matter of law. The arguments which
Girard claims the trial court failed to consider go far beyond the
limited probing of the underlying merits for the purposes of
determining whether the prerequisites of Civil Rule 23 have been
satisfied sanctioned by Stammco, Stammco, 136 Ohio St.3d 231,
2013-Ohio-3019, 994 N.E.2d 408, at paragraph 39.

Rather, these arguments concerning the exhaustion of administrative
remedies and/or the validity of the citations issued directly
address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and only tangentially
affect the prerequisites for certification.  

The plaintiffs note that similar arguments were raised in Girard's
Motion to Dismiss and rejected by the trial court. Neither that
rejection nor the court's failure to address the arguments in
ruling on the Motion for Class Certification are determinative of
their merit. The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that such
arguments may be properly addressed at trial or in a
summary-judgment motion. Assuming, arguendo, that there are only 66
viable members in the proposed class, the Ohio Supreme Court has
held that such a number is sufficient for certification.  

The first assignment of error is without merit.

Under the second assignment of error, Girard contends that the
certified class is overly broad and fails to satisfy the
requirements of Civil Rule 23(A).

Girard's initial argument is that the certified class is overly
broad. Girard relies on the following: If a class is defined so
broadly as to include a great number of members who for some reason
could not have been harmed by the defendant's allegedly unlawful
conduct, the class is defined too broadly to permit certification.

Here, those traveling in excess of 75 m.p.h. and the 949 class
members who have not paid their citations were not damaged by
Girard's enforcement of the posted speed limit. Therefore, the
trial court certified a class that is overly broad by including a
great number of motorists who were not damaged.

The Appellate Court rejects the proposition that the certified
class is overly broad for two reasons.

First, the plaintiffs' position is that all the issued citations
were invalid regardless of the actual speeds traveled by the
motorists. The validity of the citations is one of the underlying
issues in this case and does not properly bear on the preliminary
issue of class certification. Likewise, it is the plaintiffs'
contention that class members who have not paid their citations may
nonetheless suffer injury inasmuch as their citations remain
subject to collection as well as late charges and penalties.  

Second, the overbreadth of the certified class in Stammco was not
simply a matter of the defined class including persons who could
not have been injured, but of being able to determine which unnamed
class members had been injured.  

In the present case, by contrast, it is the plaintiffs' contention
that none of the citations were proper. Moreover, even if the
actual speed of the class members should prove to be material, that
information is in the parties' possession and is readily
determinable.

Girard next argues that the numerosity requirement of Civil Rule
23(A)(1) was not satisfied in light of the fact that only 66 class
members have a potentially viable claim. Girard's argument proceeds
as follows: The plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim is not
viable because a special statutory proceeding to contest the
citations exists pursuant to R.C. 4511.099 and, as a matter of law,
the remedy of declaratory judgment is precluded.

Girard argues that the commonality requirement of Civil Rule
23(A)(2) was not satisfied in light of the class members' varying
speeds and because only a fraction of the class sought to contest
their violation through an administrative hearing. Girard
admittedly employs the same analysis with respect to the
commonality requirement as it did with respect to numerosity:
because every motorist who did not timely seek an administrative
hearing waived his or her right to contest the citation the
commonality of the questions of law extend solely to the 66
motorists who sought an administrative hearing but did not receive
complete relief.

Girard argues that the typicality requirement of Civil Rule
23(A)(3) was not satisfied because only two of the named plaintiffs
(Rotz and Beal) timely sought administrative hearings.  

The fact that only Rotz and Beal sought administrative hearings
does not prevent the plaintiffs from satisfying the typicality
requirement. Black, Hyde, Morris, and Perfette have paid their
fines and so represent subclass 1 while Rotz and Beal have not paid
and so represent subclass 2.

Finally, Girard argues that the adequacy requirement of Civil Rule
23(A)(4) was not satisfied in light of two thirds of Appellees
failing to contest their citations and so will be antagonistic to
the one third of Appellees and members of the class who timely
sought an administrative hearing to contest the speeding
citations.

The Appellate Court disagrees.

To the extent that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies
will deny any recovery to those plaintiffs that did not request a
hearing, Black, Hyde, Morris, and Perfette will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of those plaintiffs inasmuch as
their claims are subject to dismissal on the same grounds.

The second assignment of error is without merit.

Accordingly, the County Court's Judgment granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' April 20, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhnr3jp from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Zimmerman , Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., 77 West
Washington Street, Suite 1220, Chicago, IL 60602, and Marc E. Dann
, Brian Daniel Flick , and Michael Andrew Smith , The Dann Law
Firm, 2728 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300, P.O. Box 6031040, Cleveland,
OH 44103 (For Plaintiffs-Appellees).

James M. Popson and Robert E. Cahill , Sutter O'Connell Co., 1301
East Ninth Street, 3600 Erieview Tower, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Hannibal-Fisher Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Canyon
University. The case is styled as Seth Hannibal-Fisher, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grand Canyon
University, a domestic nonprofit corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-01007-DLR (D. Ariz., May 22, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Grand Canyon University is a for-profit private Christian
university in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald Barrett, Esq.
          Taylor Michele Secemski, Esq.
          WARD KEENAN BARRETT PC
          3838 N Central Ave., Ste. 1720
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 279-1717
          Fax: (602) 279-8908
          Email: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com
                 tsecemski@wardkeenanbarrett.com

               - and –

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, PA
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163

               - and –

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, PA
          2665 S Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Fax: (305) 676-9006


GRANITE GEAR: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Granite Gear, LLC.
The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Granite Gear, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Granite Gear, LLC, was founded in 2013. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of games, toys, hobby
goods, and supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Hallmark Financial Services, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HALL) between March 5, 2019 and March 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Hallmark Financial investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Hallmark Financial class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1853.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 lacked effective internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid
losses; (2) the Company improperly accounted for reserve for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary
Commercial Auto business; (3) as a result, Hallmark Financial would
be forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior
underwriting years; (4) as a result, Hallmark Financial would exit
from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; and (5) 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 July 6,
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-1853.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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. [GN]


HARTFORD INSURANCE: GCDC Leads Business Interruption Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tierney Plumb, writing for Eater, reports that GCDC, a grilled
cheese bar downtown that typically draws office workers and
tourists near the White House, filed a class action suit against
insurance carrier Hartford for denying coverage of business it lost
during the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court on April 27, aims to
recoup financial losses from Hartford Financial Services Group and
wholly-owned subsidiary Sentinel Insurance. Restaurants around the
country are taking insurers to court over business-interruption
policies, many of which have provisions that exclude viruses. GCDC
is at least the third known D.C. area restaurant to a file suit
after its claim was denied, including the Proper 21 sports bar
nearby and Arlington Tex-Mex fixture Guajillo.

"That's pretty much the story heard all across country from
thousands of restaurants," says Geoffrey Graber, a partner at Cohen
Milstein, which is representing GCDC along with Gibbs Law Group.
"Every single restaurant [insurance] carrier has taken the position
there is no coverage . . . I am not aware of a single claim being
honored."

Like Proper 21, GCDC is arguing that a D.C. government mandate to
close restaurants for on-site dining qualifies it for coverage
under a policy that protects the business from "civil authority"
actions. Hartford declined to comment on the suit.

While the grilled cheese bar is the only named plaintiff, Cohen
Milstein is fielding calls from other D.C. restaurants that have
been denied coverage by Hartford to join the suit.

Despite broadening takeout offerings during the pandemic, GCDC
experienced a 95 percent drop in business income between early
March and April 11, according to the suit. On April 11, the
restaurant opted to fully close during the duration of the dine-in
ban (set to expire May 15).

GCDC, located at 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue NW downtown, did around
$1.46 million in sales last year and employs 10 full-time workers.
In addition to its long list of grilled cheese selections, the
six-year-old location also serves loaded tater tots, soups and
salads, and local wines, beers, and mixed drinks. Carryout and
delivery historically make up a mere 15 percent of revenue.

"This is very common among restaurant owners -- you can't replace
regular business with takeout," he says.

The 2,146-square-foot restaurant fits around 85 diners at a time
for lunch and sit-down dinner service. Insurance premiums paid in
full have totaled more than $108,000 to date since opening.

Graber notes even drive-thru giant McDonald's, which "you would
think is ideal for takeout,' is suffering. According to a report
from Kalinowski Equity Research released Monday, franchisees
surveyed across the U.S. forecast a 20 percent drop in same-store
sales in the second quarter.

In a denial letter dated March 25, Hartford argues that a
"pollution exclusion" in GCDC's policy excludes it from coverage
because "[t]he coronavirus is understood to be an irritant or
contaminant which causes or threatens to cause physical impurity,
unwholesomeness and threatens human health or welfare."

GCDC's request for relief includes a "breach of contract and breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Many
similar lawsuits don't [include] specific dollar amounts demanded,
Graber says, because losses are ongoing: "Business are shut down
right now and damages are accruing."

Graber says going the class action route can be more efficient for
this type of case.

"Rather than having dozens or hundreds of thousands of ‘mini'
trials, it allows plaintiffs to band together to seek relief where
it would be impractical or impossible to do on their own," Graber
says. "It is possible that federal courts will decide at some point
these cases should be coordinated or consolidated in some fashion.
There are dozens -- if not in the hundreds now -- of suits being
filed around the country."

He reports he's received calls from "many" restaurants in D.C. and
around the country, many of which have Hartford policies. All have
been denied claims.

"People don't fully appreciate what these restaurateurs are going
through . . . [and] just how bad it is. A lot of folks won't be
able to come back. It's really tragic," he says. "Then you see
insurance carriers sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in
premiums paid over the years." [GN]


HERON PRESTON: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heron Preston
Creative, Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Heron Preston
Creative, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03974 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Heron Preston is a fashion designer whose label features
workwear-redefined separates and accessories for both women and
men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA: Says 8th Cir. Has Sole Power Over Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
A real estate brokerage firm appealing a Missouri federal court's
refusal to pause and send a consumer antitrust suit over fees on
home sales into arbitration is asking the district court to stop
further proceedings, insisting that only the Eight Circuit has
juridsiction in the matter.  HomeServices of America Inc.
unsuccessfully sought to compel arbitration by invoking a clause
signed as part of a home listing agrement between two of the name
plaintiffs in a proposed class action. [GN]

ICON BRICKELL: Settles Class Action Over Illegal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Francisco Alvarado, writing for The Real Deal, reports that anyone
who rented or bought a unit at Icon Brickell's Tower 1 since June
27, 2013 could soon collect up to $360 from the building's condo
association.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey was scheduled to rule on a
final settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit against the
Icon Brickell Condominium No. 1 Association last April 26.

According to court documents, the association has agreed to make a
one-time payment to former and existing tenants and owners who were
charged illegal fees at the time of purchase or lease of a unit at
Icon Brickell Tower 1. Built in 2008 by the Related Group, the
building at 465 Brickell Avenue has 685 condos. The payment
represents 60 percent of move-in and move-out fees that were
charged to renters and owners in addition to a $100 application
fee.

The Florida Condominium Act bars associations from charging more
than $100 per person or per married couple in connection with the
sale, lease or transfer of a condo unit. However, many associations
allegedly flaunt the law. According to recent MLS listing data,
more than 3,000 condos currently on the market require prospective
buyers and tenants to pay application fees above $100.

For instance, 22 listings for condos available for sale at Brickell
Flatiron show the application fee is $150. Nine listings at Icon
Bay Miami also show a $150 application fee. Quadro Miami, a
recently completed building near the Design District, is charging
$475 in application fees, according to 35 listings.

However, after publication, a representative of Brickell Flatiron's
developer, CMC Group, said its application fee is $100 and that the
MLS data for the 22 listings is inaccurate. The representative said
the incorrect information was input by Realtors who are not
employed by the association or CMC Group. Purchase and leasing
application forms for Brickell Flatiron list a non-refundable fee
of $100.

And after publication, in an April 30 letter, Icon Bay condo
association attorney Marc Smiley said his client does not charge
any fees to prospective buyers and tenants. "The association is
currently in the process of contacting each and every listing agent
who has erroneously included reference to a transfer fee being
required by the association and demanding that they immediately
correct their listings to reflect that no transfer fee is charged,"
Smiley wrote. "Any reference to an application fee being charged by
the association in the MLS listings is unilaterally and incorrectly
being included by the listing agents without the association's
knowledge and/or consent."

Also, in a statement after publication, Aaron Resnick and Jordan
Shaw, attorneys for plaintiff Brittany Wiggins, said class action
lawsuits can deter this widespread practice by condo associations.
"These illegal fees are a profit center for the condominium
associations that charge them," the statement said. "It appears
that associations are attempting to fatten their coffers for as
long as possible, with the hopes that they will avoid detection or
stay in the black even after costly litigation."

Shaw and Resnick said the Icon Brickell No. 1 association agreed to
set aside a total of $762,500 to pay class members, attorney's fees
and a fee for Wiggins as the class representative. In addition, the
association will stop charging fees over $100, they said.

Evelyn Greenstone Kammet, the lawyer for Icon Brickell No. 1, did
not respond to messages seeking comment.

Shaw and Resnick are also representing plaintiffs in class action
lawsuits filed against condo associations for the SLS Lux, Quantum
on the Bay, and the Plaza on Brickell.

Wiggins sued the Icon Brickell condo association in 2017, and her
lawsuit was certified for class action status last year. According
to her complaint, Wiggins was charged $500 in move-in and move-out
fees in addition to a $100 application fee by the association. The
entire $600 was non-refundable.

According to a website created to inform residents about the
proposed agreement, Icon Brickell is willing to settle the case to
avoid the costs of "lengthy and burdensome litigation." Individuals
who qualify as class action members are eligible to receive between
$60 and $360 each, per the proposed settlement.

In September, Resnick and Shaw successfully negotiated a settlement
in another class action lawsuit against The Plaza 851 Brickell
Condominium Association, which was also accused of charging
inflated fees. That association agreed to pay up to $300,000 in
refunds. [GN]

IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Eight Cir. Appeal Filed in Myers FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Iowa Board of Regents filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Melinda Myers, et al. v. Iowa Board of
Regents, Case No. 3:19-cv-00081-SMR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, Eastern.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Amend Class Action Petition on October 7, 2019,
seeking leave of court to pursue additional claims, including a
claim made pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On October 21,
2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend allowing
them leave to file the Amended Class Action Petition.

The appellate case is captioned as Melinda Myers, et al. v. Iowa
Board of Regents, Case No. 20-2020, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on June 30, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellant Iowa Board of Regents is due on June 30,
      2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Melinda Myers, et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
          Suite 2000 729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  bjweber@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan T. Willems, Esq.
          RUSH & NICHOLSON
          Suite 201 115 First Avenue, S.E. P.O. Box 637
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
          Telephone: (319) 363-5209
          E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com

Defendant-Appellant Iowa Board of Regents is represented by:

          Jason Michael Craig, Esq.
          Andrew T. Tice, Esq.
          Lindsay A. Vaught, Esq.
          AHLERS & COONEY
          Suite 600 100 Court Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2207
          Telephone: (515) 243-7611
          E-mail: jcraig@ahlerslaw.com
                  atice@ahlerslaw.com
                  lvaught@ahlerslaw.com


JAY-BEE OIL: Smith Class Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Allen E. Smith, individually and on behalf of
all other persons and entities similarly situated v. Jay-Bee Oil &
Gas, Inc., Jay-Bee Production Company, Jay-Bee Royalty, LLC,
Randall J. Broda, Case No. 20-C-2H, was removed from the West
Virginia Circuit Court, Tyler County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia on May 22, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00101-JPB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, Inc., was founded in 1989. The Company's line of
business includes performing geophysical, geological, and other
exploration services for oil and gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Michael Benninger, Esq.
          BENNINGER LAW
          P O Box 623
          154 Pleasant Street
          Morgantown, WV 26507
          Phone: (304) 241-1856
          Fax: (304) 241-1857
          Email: mike@benningerlaw.com

               - and –

          Timothy R. Linkous, Esq.
          LINKOUS LAW, PLLC
          179 Hanalei Drive, Suite 100
          Morgantown, WV 26508
          Phone: (304) 554-2400
          Fax: (304) 554-2401
          Email: tim@linkouslawpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles R. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY & WYANT PLLC
          PO Box 3710
          500 Virginia Street, Suite 600
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          Phone: (304) 345-4222
          Fax: (304) 343-3133
          Email: cbailey@baileywyant.com

               - and –

          Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          150 E. Gilman St.
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 257-5035
          Email: mleffel@foley.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Allows False Ad Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge on April 27 granted
a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary's bid to dismiss a proposed class
action claiming it violated consumer protection laws by not warning
that its talc products contained asbestos, but gave the plaintiffs
another shot at detailing allegations that J&J harmed them with
false advertising. [GN]

LEGG MASON: June 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, announced the
filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against Legg Mason,
Inc. (LM) in connection with the proposed sale of Legg Mason to
Franklin Resources, Inc. for $50.00 per share. The lawsuit seeks
damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of Legg Mason
shareholders under the federal securities laws.

If you are a Legg Mason shareholder and would like to join the
action or discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Legg
Mason Class Action or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free
of charge, at (212) 763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially misleading
proxy statement recommending that Legg Mason shareholders vote in
favor of the proposed sale of Legg Mason to Franklin Resources.
According to the complaint, the proxy statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning, among other
things, Legg Mason's financial projections and analyses performed
by Legg Mason's financial advisors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 22, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you would like to join the action or discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/legg-mason-inc-merger-stock-franklin-resources/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

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 OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

Halper Sadeh LLP represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Halper Sadeh LLP

Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com
https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]


LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Gociman Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Amid COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREEA GOCIMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03116 (N.D. Ill., May 26, 2020) is a class action
brought on brought on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals who paid tuition and fees for on-campus
courses at Loyola University Chicago and who have not been refunded
a prorated portion of those fees after Loyola abruptly closed its
doors to students and hastily shifted from the in-person, on-campus
classwork for which Plaintiff and others paid, to online courses
due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019.

In early March 2020, in response to COVID-19, the University
completely changed the way in which it provided instruction and
services to students. On Monday, March 9, 2020 -- students' first
day back from spring break -- the University advised faculty that
courses could begin moving online. A few days later, on Thursday,
March 12, the University announced that, effective March 13 and
continuing through the end of the semester, "all in-person,
face-to-face classes will be suspended." All classes would move
online "as soon as possible but no later than Monday, March 23."

As a result, since mid-March, Loyola students have been denied the
bargained-for in-person instruction and access to facilities,
technology, services, resources, and other benefits for which
Plaintiff and Class members contracted when they paid Defendant
tuition and mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 semester.

The complaint further states that despite failing to hold any
in-person classes since March 12, 2020, forcing students into
online classes that are a shadow of the in-person instruction
students and/or their families expected to receive and for which
they paid, and denying students access to a wide range of on-campus
services and benefits, Defendant has not refunded tuition or
mandatory fees to Plaintiff and Class members.

The Defendant reportedly received more than $10 million in
government funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES) Act, half of which is federally
mandated to go toward students who are in need of emergency
financial assistance. Although the University received this influx
of federal funds, Defendant refuses to refund or reimburse
Plaintiff and the Class for any portion of the Spring 2020 tuition
or most of the mandatory fees they paid for the in-person education
and services that were no longer provided to Loyola students
beginning in mid-March.

Loyola University is a private Catholic research university
comprised of 11 schools and colleges in Chicago, Illinois, and the
surrounding area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-1019
          Email: beth@feganscott.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: scarson@bm.net
                 enoteware@bm.net

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Email: emdrake@bm.net

LYFT INC: Haider et al. Sue Over Deductions on Drivers' Share
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BIGU HAIDER and MOHAMMAD ISLAM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. LYFT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02997 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's practice of making additional deductions from within
passengers' fares equal to the cost of sales taxes and the Black
Car Fund (BCF) surcharge in violation of its contracts with the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated current and former New
York City drivers who worked at any time for the Defendant between
November 24, 2014 and August 8, 2017. The Plaintiffs and Class
members claim that the Defendant engaged in deceptive practices by
misrepresenting illegal tax and BCF deductions as administrative
fees in order to enrich the company at the drivers' expense.

Plaintiff Haider worked for the Defendant as a black car driver
from in or about early September 2014 until July 2018.

Plaintiff Islam was employed by the Defendant aider as a black car
driver from in or about August 2014 to the present.

All parties are directed to appear for an initial pretrial
conference with the Court on Friday, July 10, 2020.

Lyft, Inc. is an American ridesharing company with principal place
of business located at 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeanne E. Mirer, Esq.
          MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN PLLC
          150 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10031
          Telephone: (212) 231-2235
          E-mail: Jmirer@mmsjlaw.com

               - and -
          
          Zubin Soleimany, Esq.
          NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE
          31-10 37th Ave., Suite 300
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (718) 706-9892
          E-mail: zsoleimany@nytwa.org

MASSACHUSETTS: Lawsuit Seeks Release of Sentenced Prisoners
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Betancourt, writing for Massachusetts-based CommonWealth
Magazine, reports that a new class action lawsuit filed in the
state's highest court by advocates aims to release sentenced and
civilly committed prisoners to stem the spread of coronavirus in
prisons.

Prisoners' Legal Services filed the suit on behalf of 11 named
inmates and others "similarly situated," saying that the Department
of Correction has "failed to implement readily available measures
to save lives by radically reducing the number of people in
prisons."

The lawsuit said the state is failing to maintain social distancing
between inmates. "Prisoners continue to be housed in close contact
with each other in dormitory-style settings and double cells that
do not meet the minimum space requirements established by the
Department of Public Health," attorneys wrote.

In a previous decision by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial
Court —filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts and Committee for
Public Counsel Services —the state was ordered to release inmates
who were awaiting trials or show why they shouldn’t be released.
That decision resulted in more than 400 prisoners being released.
The new lawsuit seeks to release prisoners who have been tried and
convicted of crimes, but who in many cases are nearing release or
suffering from medical conditions that make them particularly
vulnerable to COVID-19.

Prisoners named in the lawsuit have heart failure, a liver
transplant, and stage four kidney disease. Some are eligible for
parole as soon as June 2020. One plaintiff, 72-year-old Frederick
Yeomans, is imprisoned in the Barnstable County Correctional
Facility for driving with a suspended license and is eligible for
early release later this year.

Another plaintiff at MCI-Concord is described as living in a prison
dormitory with over 80 other people who sleep in bunk beds just
three feet apart.

The prisoners are asking to be released to home confinement,
including through medical furloughs and expedited parole hearings.
The lawsuit seeks the release of 100 men who are civilly committed
for alcohol and substance abuse disorders, for which treatment is
not being provided during the pandemic.

The Department of Correction declined to comment on the lawsuit,
with spokesman Jason Dobson saying the agency does not comment on
pending litigation.

COVID-19 is a growing problem in the state prison system. At
MCI-Framingham, 26 of the 198 prisoners have COVID-19, or 13
percent of the population. Kimya Foust, a prisoner there, described
the facility as being locked down for 23 ½ hours a day in a
message to Commonwealth.

Foust said she’s concerned about the close proximity of her
fellow inmates, saying that she had been alone in her own cell
before the pandemic, but recently was assigned a roommate.

Foust, 43, is currently incarcerated after pleading guilty to
manslaughter 12 years ago, when she was briefly addicted to heroin.


"God watch over each of us in this world-wide pandemic," she wrote,
adding that several friends and family have called the prison
asking for her release during the COVID-19 crisis.

Five prisoners at state facilities have died from COVID-19, the
latest a man who died at an area hospital near MCI-Shirley, where
he was incarcerated. Twenty-two others at Shirley have tested
positive, along with nine staff members and vendors, according to
the Department of Correction. The four other deaths occurred at the
Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater, where 37 prisoners
have tested positive for COVID-19.  

Across all state prison facilities, 105 prisoners and 63 vendors
and staff have tested positive. At MCI-Shirley, the number of cases
has gone from 9 to 29 in less than five days.

About 8,000 people are incarcerated in the state prison system, but
only 200 tests have been administered. The DOC says it proctored
over 200 tests to prisoners, 105 of which were positive. Around 656
prisoners have been tested across all correctional facilities, both
state and county. [GN]

MELTECH INC: Grove Sues Over Unlawful Wages for Exotic Dancers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA GROVE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. MELTECH, INC., H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., and
SHANE HARRINGTON, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00193 (D. Neb., May
26, 2020) alleges that Defendants have misclassified exotic dancers
working at Club Omaha as independent contractors rather than
employees, have failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 a week, and have
required dancers to pay fees and tip-outs, which constitute
unlawful kick-backs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act.

Plaintiff Andrea Grove is a resident of Omaha, Nebraska. Plaintiff
has worked as an exotic dancer at Club Omaha from approximately May
2016 until August 2019.

Meltech Inc. is a club establishment based in Nebraska.

H&S Club Omaha, Inc. is an Omaha, Nebraska-based establishment
where live nude dance entertainment is presented to adult members
of the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com

MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Class Cert. Ruling Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
petition to review the District Court's order granting class
certification in the lawsuit initiated by Cathi Cleven and Tara
Cleven remains pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
Mid-America Apartments, L.P. (the Operating Partnership) in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division.

In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the
lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.  

The lawsuit alleges that the Company charged late fees at its Texas
properties that violate Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code,
or Section 92.019, which provides that a landlord may not charge a
tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless, among other
things, the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to
the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result
from the late payment of rent.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.  

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments. The Company also intends to appeal the
District Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to
appeal is granted.  

Mid-America said, "The Company will continue to vigorously defend
the action and pursue such appeals. Management estimates that the
Company's maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class
certification and summary judgment ruling, is $54.6 million, which
includes both potential damages and attorneys' fees but excludes
any prejudgment interest that may be awarded."

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Perez FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas Perez, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00949-H-BLM (S.D.
Cal., May 22, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup(TM)
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ROBERT MARTIN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-03285
(N.D. Cal., May 14, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and thousands of similarly situated victims across the country
seeking damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff alleges that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1,
Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry
Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, and Roundup Fence & Hard
Edger 1.

The Plaintiff suffers injuries he sustained by exposure to Roundup.
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, he
developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, he contends.

Monsanto is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology
corporation founded in 1901.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Tom G. Antunovich, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  tantunovich@bisnarchase.com


NCAA: Strawbridge Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tom Strawbridge, Donna Strawbridge,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 2:20-cv-01212,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 22, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02835 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Cooperstein, Esq.
          BROOKMAN, ROSENBERG, BROWN & SANDLER
          One Penn Square West, 17th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 569-4000
          Status: (215) 569-2222
          Email: scooperstein@brbs.com


NIO INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIO Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
three securities class action suits in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.), Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County (N.Y. County), and Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Kings (Kings County)
respectively.

Between March and July 2019, several putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the company, certain of its
directors and officers, its underwriters in the Initial Public
Offering (IPO) and the company's process agent. Some of these
actions have been withdrawn, transferred or consolidated.

Currently, three securities class actions remain pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(E.D.N.Y.), Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
(N.Y. County), and Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Kings (Kings County) respectively.

In the E.D.N.Y. action, In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-01424, the Court issued an order to appoint the lead
plaintiff on March 3, 2020. The parties have entered into a
stipulation whereby the plaintiffs will file a consolidated amended
complaint on May 18, 2020, to which the company and other
defendants will have 60 days to respond.

In the New York county action, In re NIO Inc. Securities
Litigation, Index No. 653422/2019, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on October 25, 2019. On December 13,
2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to stay the case in
favor of the federal E.D.N.Y. action.

In the Kings County action, Sumit Agarwal v. NIO Inc. et al., Index
No. 505647/2019, the complaint was filed on March 14, 2019. The
judge has yet to be assigned and there has not been any major
development.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege, in sum and substance, that
the company's statements in the Registration Statement and/or other
public statements were false or misleading and in violation of the
U.S. federal securities laws. These actions remain in their
preliminary stages.

NIO said, "We are currently unable to estimate the potential loss,
if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits. We believe
these cases are without merit and we are defending the actions
vigorously."

NIO Inc. is a pioneer in China's premium electric vehicle market.
The company designs, jointly manufactures, and sells smart and
connected premium electric vehicles, driving innovations in next
generation technologies in connectivity, autonomous driving and
artificial intelligence. The company is based in People's Republic
of China.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Schott Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kathryn Schott, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., Case No.
20SL-CC01861, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, St.
Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri on May 22, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00684 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Overstock.com, Inc., is an American internet retailer headquartered
in Midvale, Utah, near Salt Lake City.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 259-2403
          Fax: (314) 552-8403
          Email: jonathan.potts@bryancave.com


PENNY LANE: Underpays Employees, Jackson Claims
-----------------------------------------------
The case, NAISHIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNY LANE CENTERS, a domestic
non-profit, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV19999 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 27, 2020) challenges Defendants
alleged uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against
their non-exempt employees in violation of California Private
Attorneys General Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately April 2015
to June 13, 2019 as a counselor supervising and protecting
children, tracking the child's progress, and implementing treatment
programs.

Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees assert that Defendant
failed to:

     -- provide them with rest periods and meal breaks;

     -- pay them overtime wages for all hours worked, including
off-the-clock work;

     -- correctly calculate their regular rate of pay by failing to
include commissions as part of their regular rate of pay;

     -- reimburse them for their business expenditures and losses,
including cellphone charges, required tools and equipment, uniform
maintenance, and travel expenses; and

     -- provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements.

Penny Lane Centers is a non-profit human services agency, offering
educational and health-care programs for individuals in need,
throughout Southern California, including Los Angeles County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Tel: 818-507-8525
          Fax: 818-507-8588
          Emails: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
                  vache@kjtlawgroup.com

                - and –

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Tel: 818-425-1437
          Email: CA@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


PNC BANK: May Face Class Action Over PPP  
------------------------------------------
KDKA reports that PNC Bank is potentially facing a class-action
lawsuit over the Paycheck Protection Program in the CARES Act.

According to the plaintiffs in California, PNC showed preferential
treatment to bigger loan applications, which collected PNC bigger
fees, in violation of California law.

PNC would only say that they are focused on supporting customers by
helping them process and register for small business loans. [GN]



PPL CORP: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Set for June 24
---------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court overseeing
the case, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing,
LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
PPL Corporation et al., has scheduled a hearing date of June 24,
2020 to hear oral argument regarding the motion to dismiss.

In September 2013, one of the company's (PPL's) former
subsidiaries, PPL Montana, entered into an agreement to sell its
hydroelectric generating facilities. In June 2014, PPL and PPL
Energy Supply, the parent company of PPL Montana, entered into
various definitive agreements with affiliates of Riverstone to spin
off PPL Energy Supply and ultimately combine it with Riverstone's
competitive power generation businesses to form a stand-alone
company named Talen Energy.

In November 2014, after executing the spinoff agreements but prior
to the closing of the spinoff transaction, PPL Montana closed the
sale of its hydroelectric generating facilities. Subsequently, on
June 1, 2015, the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply was completed.

Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL
Corporation et al.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.

The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen
Putative Class Action).

The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment. They are seeking avoidance of the
purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other
relief.

In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division (MT Federal Court).

In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case.

In September 2019, the the United States District Court for the
District of Montana, Billings Division (MT Federal Court) granted
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case back to state court, and the
PPL defendants promptly petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision.

On November 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
that request and on December 30, 2019,

Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud
County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing, LLC as a plaintiff.

On January 31, 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.

The Court has scheduled a hearing date of June 24, 2020 to hear
oral argument regarding the motion to dismiss.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


SCWORX CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 29, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of SCWorx Corp. ("SCWorx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: WORX) investors who purchased shares between
April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period).

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

On April 13, 2020, before the market opened, SCWorx announced that
it had received a committed purchase order of two million COVID-19
rapid testing kits, "with provision for additional weekly orders of
2 million units for 23 weeks, valued at $35M per week."

On this news, the Company's share price increased by $9.77, to
close at $12.02 per share on
April 13, 2020.

On April 17, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the
validity of the deal, calling it "completely bogus." Hindenburg
Research alleged that the COVID-19 test supplier that SCWorx is
buying from, Promedical, has a Chief Executive Officer "who
formerly ran another business accused of defrauding its investors
and customers" and "was also alleged to have falsified his medical
credentials." According to the report, Promedical claimed to the
FDA and regulators in Australia to be offering COVID-19 test kits
manufactured by Wondfo, but Wondfo "disavowed any relationship" and
the buyer that SCWorx claimed to have lined up does not appear to
be "capable of handling hundreds of millions of dollars in
orders."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.19, or more than
17%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $5.76 per
share on April 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On April 22, 2020, the SEC halted trading of the Company's stock.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had
previously misrepresented its operations; (2) that SCWorx's buyer
was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the
purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been
overstated or entirely fabricated; and (4) that, 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired SCWorx securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 29, 2020 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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



SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Merits Trial in Anderson Case Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has
vacated the dates for the trial on the merits in the case, Marc
Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil
Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW, (the "Anderson
Matter").  

The putative class consisted of all consumers within California
who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San
Diego.  

The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law
and California CLRA.  

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or
misunderstanding among ticket and orca plush purchasers with intent
to deceive and mislead the plaintiffs and purported class members.


The complaint seeks restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.  

Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in
controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the class
became certified. The liability exposure is speculative though. On
May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017
which the Court granted in part and denied in part. On May 23,
2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would not
be filing a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a
class action. It continues to be prosecuted by the plaintiffs for
individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief.

The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the
plaintiffs’ standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Just
before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed
all claims against the Company.  

The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took
place March 9, 2020 through March 11, 2020 and the parties are
awaiting a ruling from the court. The Court has vacated the dates
for the trial on the merits which was previously scheduled for
April 27, 2020.  

If the Court rules that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing
to sue, judgment will be entered in favor of the Company. If the
Court rules they have standing, the case will proceed with the
second phase of the trial.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SI FINANCIAL: Karp Appeals D. Conn. Judgment to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Selwyn Karp filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment entered on April 21, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Karp v.
SI Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-199, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and United States Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, in connection with the
acquisition of SI FI by Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc.

On December 11, 2018, SI FI and Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc.
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which (i)
SI FI will merge with and into BHBI, with BHBI surviving the
merger, and (ii) the separate corporate existence of the Company
shall cease. According to the complaint, to convince SI FI's public
common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
BHBI on January 4, 2019, filed a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's
financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (KBW), in support
of their fairness opinion. Additionally, although the Proxy does
not yet set the date for the special meeting of SI FI's
stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction, the Proxy does
state the merger parties' intention to conclude this merger during
the second quarter of 2019. It is therefore imperative that the
material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is
disclosed prior to the Stockholder Vote so SI FI stockholders can
properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights, the lawsuit
says.

The appellate case is captioned as Karp v. SI Financial Group,
Inc., Case No. 20-1625, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Selwyn Karp, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0380
          E-mail: gegleston@gme-law.com

               - and -

          James C. Riley, Esq.
          WHITMAN BREED ABBOTT & MORGAN LLC
          500 West Putnam Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Telephone: (203) 869-3800
          Facsimile: (203) 869-1951
          E-mail: jriley@wbamct.com


SOCIETY INSURANCE: Colectivo Files Business Interruption Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Gabriel Fernandez, writing for Shepherd Express, reports that
Colectivo Coffee Roasters and dozens of other businesses in
Wisconsin are banding together to sue Society Insurance, an
insurance provider in Fond du Lac, Wis., who denied their business
interruption insurance claims.

"If you are a client of Society Insurance and your business is
being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic you may be eligible for
significant financial compensation," says Jay Urban, attorney for
Urban & Taylor, S.C. The firm, which is based in Milwaukee's East
Side, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Colectivo and all
the local companies struggling due to the stay-at-home order but
whose insurance claims are being denied. "Society Insurance, has
been found denying business interruption claims that are covered in
the plan. Society Insurance is obligated to cover your interrupted
business," reads the law firm's website.

"The argument that they are trying to make is that they will go
bankrupt if they have to pay everybody," Urban states. "I would
like to say, on behalf of my clients: The time that they need their
insurance company is now, so it's sort of offensive when they say,
'We can't pay every claim, so we'll not pay anything on any claim.'
They denied everything, they didn't pay even one penny, because
they say that nobody in the restaurants actually got COVID-19. We
say that it's irrelevant because restaurants were forced to close
by order of the state." While some insurance companies include
language excluding coverage in case of a pandemic, this is not the
case with Society Insurance. As such, they owe compensation to
their clients as the kind of business interruption that we witness
across the world is supposedly covered by the plans they offer.

"I have over 100 individual clients. The vast majority of them are
against Society," Urban reports. The attorney represents, in this
class action lawsuit, local businesses in the hospitality industry,
in particular restaurants and bars, that suffered from the economic
impact of the coronavirus pandemic and didn't receive compensation
from their insurance.

"In Wisconsin, the vast majority of all policies in the restaurant,
bar and hospitality business are written by Society. It is the
preferred company for the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, and it
happens to be a Wisconsin company," Urban explains. He also
represents businesses who are facing the same hurdles with other
insurance providers -- such as the Pabst Theater, which is covered
by the Cincinnati Insurance Company -- but they aren't conveniently
located in our state. This is what puts Urban & Taylor in a perfect
position to go after Society Insurance in particular.

"We have already filed to represent everybody—that's the class
action component—but we are also signing up individual cases.
That's the way to insure that your restaurant is being looked at
individually instead of just as a case number," Urban continues. He
encourages business owners to look seriously into this, as the
window of opportunity will close when the lawsuit comes to an end.
"Settling a class action means 'Speak now or forever hold your
peace.' When a class action settles, if you didn't participate,
then it's all over.

"My firm is the first law firm in the state of Wisconsin to file a
state class action lawsuit for all Society policy owners. The more
cases I have, the better our chances of success," he coninues.
"There is a national class action pending, which was filed after
mine. Society could get out of that if they handle the case in
Wisconsin."

For that reason, Urban and his partner encourage Wisconsin business
owners who bought from Society Insurance to reach out to him, even
if they aren't certain they are entitled to compensation, as they
can benefit from a free evaluation of their insurance coverage.

"There is no fee unless we win your case," the law firm promises.
"We are handling the cases on a contingency basis. We really
believe in the case," Urban adds.

As of press time, Society Insurance hadn't replied to the lawsuit
yet. Wisconsin business owners can learn more about their rights
and reach out to Urban & Taylor, S.C. at
wisconsininjury.com/business-interruption-insurance-lawsuit. [GN]


STEPHENS MATTHEWS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEPHENS MATTHEWS MARKETING, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-03541 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2020) arises from Defendants'
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiff beginning
in or around March 2019 in an attempt to promote its services to
Plaintiff. Allegedly, Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" or an artificial or prerecorded voice in placing a
call to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6443
despite without "prior express consent" from Plaintiff to receive
such call.

Plaintiff claims that he was harmed by Defendant's unlawful
conduct. Thus, Plaintiff seeks treble and statutory damages and
injunctive relief.

Stephen Matthews Marketing, Inc. is a marketing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUEZ WATER: Four Jersey City Residents File Suit Over Water Outage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Zeitlinger, writing for The Jersey Journal, reports that four
Jersey City residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against
Suez Water New Jersey and the construction company that allegedly
caused the nearly citywide water outage in April.

The lawsuit was filed by Din Narain, Hetram Singh, John Santos and
Maureen Chandra in Hudson County Superior Court on May 4. On behalf
of Jersey City and Hoboken residents affected by the two-day water
outage, the lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit says that during the outage April 28 and 29, water
customers and residents were "without water to wash hands during
the COVID-19 pandemic, unable to flush their toilets, unable to
take showers, and unable to drink tap water. They were forced to
buy and use bottled water."

Customers and residents also suffered monetary damages because they
had to run water for extended periods of time to clear the pipes
and hot water heaters of contaminants, the lawsuit said.

Officials said the Harms Construction Company was doing work near
the 36-inch water main on Route 7 near the Charlotte Circle on
April 28 when the main ruptured.

The filing of the lawsuit was first reported by JerseyDigs.com.

Officials with Harms Construction could not be reached for comment.
Suez Water New Jersey officials said the company does not comment
on ongoing litigation. [GN]


SYMPOZ LLC: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sympoz LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sympoz
LLC, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, doing business as: Bluprint, Case No.
1:20-cv-02313 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

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

Sympoz develops and publishes a social learning community. The
Company publishes proprietary technology to allow users to interact
with their instructor and fellow students in a variety of online
learning courses such as cooking, finance, gardening, and arts and
crafts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TOURO COLLEGE: Faces Chapusette Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touro College and
University System, et al. The case is styled as Myrtho Chapusette,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Touro
College and University System, New York School of Career and
Applied Studies, Case No. 1:20-cv-04018 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Touro College and University System is a private university system,
headquartered in New York City with branches throughout the US and
in other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Bath Insurance Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Suneet S. Bath, DDS PS d/b/a Impressions
Dentistry Family Cosmetics, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of
America, an insurance company, Case No. 20-00002-01421-34, was
removed from Washington Superior Court, Thurston County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May
22, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00774 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., commonly known as Travelers, is an
American insurance company. It is the second-largest writer of U.S.
commercial property casualty insurance, and the sixth-largest
writer of U.S. personal insurance through independent agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian S Birk, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Email: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Mark A Wilner, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          600 University Street, Ste. 2915
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 467-6477
          Fax: (206) 467-6292
          Email: mwilner@gordontilden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Rahn Bentson, Esq.
          Owen R Mooney, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY (SEA)
          925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3800
          Seattle, WA 98104-1157
          Phone: (206) 292-8930
          Email: dan.bentson@bullivant.com
                 owen.mooney@bullivant.com


TURNKEY: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Cancellation Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Olalde, writing for Palm Springs Desert, reports that
travelers who were forced to cancel plans due to the coronavirus
pandemic filed a class action lawsuit against vacation home rental
company TurnKey in an attempt to recoup likely hundreds of
thousands of dollars in bookings that were not refunded.

With no central governing body, rental businesses ranging from
TurnKey to Airbnb and Vrbo have rolled out an assortment of
different cancellation and refund policies. As untold thousands of
trips around the country were scuttled due to the pandemic, irate
renters have pushed for clarity as well as their money back.

Joe Sauder, an attorney with Sauder Schelkopf, is one of the
co-counsel leading the lawsuit and said in an email that the
litigation was meant to secure cash refunds.

"We understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every part
of the global economy," Sauder wrote, "but we do not believe that
gives TurnKey the right to shift the burden of this extraordinary
crisis onto its customers, who, in some cases, paid thousands of
dollars for rentals where the COVID-19 pandemic has or will
preclude them from ever using any credit."

The tourism industry has been rocked by the virus, especially due t
ostay-in-place orders restricting travel. A recent report by data
analytics company Oxford Economics predicted the U.S. travel
industry in 2020 alone would lose out on $355 billion in revenue.

The Coachella Valley lost the majority of its main tourist season,
and events including the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival
and BNP Paribas Open had to be rescheduled, taking a huge financial
toll on the valley's large rental industry.

TurnKey spokesperson Adam Pedowitz emailed a statement to The
Desert Sun that said, "We cannot comment directly on claims
addressed in court filings, but we believe strongly that our
policies are balanced to protect the interests of both our
homeowners and guests."

The attorneys bringing the class action -- which was filed in the
federal District Court for the Western District of Texas, where
TurnKey is headquartered -- said they have already been approached
by over 50 renters but expect many more to join the lawsuit.

A Facebook group that has been central in organizing travelers
upset about TurnKey's policies is more than 500 members strong.
They claim to collectively have more than $500,000 tied up in
bookings that TurnKey has declined to refund. Although a few hosts
have come forward to say they would be in favor of returning the
cash, TurnKey holds the money until after the booking has been
completed, meaning the company would need to make that call.

Instead of refunds, TurnKey is offering credits that are good for
the next 18 months but must be used at the same rental property.
Rates are only guaranteed if the guest books on the same date in
the upcoming year.

"We believe adopting this policy -- similar to other leaders in the
travel industry who have issued credits toward future bookings --
helps guests retain the value of their reservation, while helping
homeowners maintain the prospect of future bookings," Pedowitz
said.

The attorneys bringing the legal action disagreed, writing in their
filing, "TurnKey has breached its agreements with its customers and
unjustly enriched itself at their expense." [GN]


U.S. SPECIALTY: Egg & I Files Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Phillip Moyer, writing for KSNV, reports that a local restaurant
owner says his insurers should be covering his losses during the
coronavirus outbreak.

They've denied his claims, and now he's heading a class action
lawsuit to get the companies to pay up.

Brad Burdsall, the owner of The Egg & I and the Las Vegas
restaurant chain Egg Works, purchased Restaurant Recovery Insurance
from U.S. Specialty and Tokio Marine last September.

The insurance is meant to cover unexpected "extra expenses" that
might suspend business operations. Burdsall filed a claim after
Governor Sisolak's shutdown order, which prevented onsite dining
across the state.

"I've built this restaurant chain from the ground up and invested
my life's blood into its success," Burdsall said in a press
release. "This insurance was supposed to be there as they promise
in their policies when it was needed."

According to Burdsall, his insurance claims were denied --
something he says affects not only him but also the employees of
all seven restaurants he runs in the Las Vegas valley.

"If I am forced to close up shop it impacts not just my customers
but 100s of local jobs," said Burdsall. "It's the same all through
Nevada. Insurance companies are paid substantial premiums by their
insurers to be there for businesses and save jobs of hardworking
wonderful people. It's offensive these insurance companies are not
meeting their obligations."

Burdsall says his policy clearly covers shutdowns forced by
national or local governments. Since his insurers have denied his
claims, he's filed a class action lawsuit against U.S. Specialty
and Tokio Marine.

"These insurance companies collected premiums from their customers
for years, and now when these companies need them, U.S. Specialty
and Tokio Marine have left Egg Works, its owner, and its employees
high and dry," said attorney Gil Purcell. "Egg Works and many are
denied the very benefits they specifically bought insurance to
address."

U.S. Specialty and Tokio Marine have not responded to requests for
comment. [GN]


ULTRA ENTERPRISES: Denies Ticket Refunds, Hernandez et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL HERNANDEZ and RICHARD MONTOURE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ULTRA ENTERPRISES
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-22185-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated purchasers of tickets after being
denied of refunds to the 2020 Ultra Music Festival, an annual
festival held in Miami, Florida, which was cancelled due to the
spread of COVID-19.

According to the complaint, the Ultra Music Festival was scheduled
to take place from March 20 to March 22 but the City of Miami and
Ultra agreed to postpone the 2020 festival until sometime in 2021
due to COVID-19.

The Defendant has uniformly denied refund requests of Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated purchasers and offered only to honor
tickets during either the 2021 or 2022 Ultra Music Festival,
neither of which has been scheduled. Initially, Ultra also gave
customers only 30 days to choose which festival they would like to
have their 2020 tickets transferred to, a deadline Ultra repeatedly
has extended because Plaintiffs and other Class members are
reluctant to agree to defer their tickets in lieu of receiving the
refund to which they are entitled.  

Plaintiffs bring this action for conversion and unjust enrichment
in order to recover amounts paid for tickets to the 2020 Ultra
Music Festival.

Ultra Enterprises Inc. is a for-profit corporation that organizes
and produces an annual music festival in Florida's Miami-Dade
County, as well as a brick-and-mortar store within and during the
festival, and owns and operates www.ultramusicfestival.com and
www.ultramerchandise.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Schachter, Esq.
          Andrew J. Fuller, Esq.
          GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2010
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 728-0950
          Email: aschachter@gsgpa.com
                 afuller@gsgpa.com

               - and -   

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312)782-4880
          Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Ave.
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (888)-711-9975
          Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com

UNIKRN INC: Wash. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's Order denying Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JOHN HASTINGS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent, v. UNIKRN, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNIKRN
BERMUDA, LTD., a Bermuda corporation; RAHUL SOOD, an individual,
KARL FLORES, an individual; and DOES 1-10, Appellants, No.
79499-0-I. (Wash. App.).

Defendants' appealed the District Court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration.

John Hastings filed a putative class action lawsuit against Unikrn,
Inc., Unikrn Bermuda, Ltd. and certain Unikrn, Inc. employees in
their individual capacities (collectively Unikrn) alleging that
they violated federal securities law when selling him and other
investors digital tokens called UnikoinGold Tokens.

In response, Unikrn moved to compel arbitration, asserting that
Hastings and all other purchasers had agreed to terms and
conditions when purchasing UnikoinGold Tokens that required
arbitration of any dispute arising from the sale.

The trial court concluded that it could not rule. as a matter of
law, for either party due to the presence of genuine disputes of
material fact about whether Hastings ever agreed to the UNIKRN
BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE.

Thereafter, the trial court conducted an expedited evidentiary
hearing to determine whether Hastings ever agreed to be bound by
the terms of the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE, issued
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and denied Unikrn's motion
to compel arbitration.

After Unikrn filed a motion to reconsider, the trial court issued
amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, but did not vacate
its order denying Unikrn's motion to compel arbitration.

Unikrn first contends that the trial court erred when it found that
a reasonable Internet user would not have understood that the
phrase Terms of Service in the affirmation statement contained a
hyperlink to a contract requiring review and assent. This is so,
Unikrn asserts, because the layout of its website and the blue
colored font used for the phrase Terms of Service provided
reasonable notice, as a matter of law, that the phrase contained a
hyperlink to a contract requiring review and assent.

In response, Hastings contends that the trial court's finding is
supported by substantial evidence and that the lack of reasonable
notice of the presence of a link made unclear and ambiguous what,
if anything, Hastings was agreeing to.

Hastings has the better argument.

While a party may generally not escape the obligations of a
contract by claiming to have never read its terms, it is a
longstanding rule in Washington that being deprived of the
opportunity to read a contract will prevent the mutual assent
required to form a contract.  

Herein, the lack of reasonable notice as to the existence of a link
to the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE deprived Hastings of
any meaningful opportunity to read its terms or to assent thereto.

Unikrn next contends that the trial court erred when it found that
reasonable users would not have been on notice that the affirmation
statement on the address verification web page required Hastings to
certify that he had read, understood, and agreed to the UNIKRN
BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE because it never referred to that
document but, rather, required instead that Hastings so certify as
to the Unikrn Token sale Terms of Service (Finding of Fact 17).

In response, Hastings asserts that Finding of Fact 17 is supported
by substantial evidence and that this finding independently
supports the trial court's ruling.

Again, Hastings has the more persuasive argument.

Finding of Fact 17 states:

Evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that
a reasonably prudent consumer would not have been on inquiry notice
that Unikrn Bermuda was requiring or requesting users to read,
understand, or agree to the Unikrn Bermuda Ltd. Terms of Token
Sale, especially inasmuch as (1) the statement next to the check
box referred to an entirely different document, a document
entitled. Unikrn Token sale,Terms of Service and (2) the document
that actually was hyperlinked to the phrase, Terms of Sale, was not
referred to in the statement that was next to the check box on the
Address Verification Page.

Hastings contends that Finding of Fact 17 is, on its own,
sufficient to support the trial court's order denying the motion to
compel arbitration. This is so, Hastings asserts, because Unikrn's
failure to provide reasonable notice that it required Hastings to
agree to the terms of the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE
prevented Hastings from assenting to those terms.

The Appellate Court concludes that Finding of Fact 17 independently
supports the trial court's order denying the motion to compel
arbitration. Hastings clicked a box next to an affirmation
statement signifying his assent to the Unikrn Token sale Terms of
Service. Finding of Fact 17 essentially states that the address
verification web page's affirmation statement never asked Hastings
or any other user in any way that would provide a reasonable user
of notice of such a request, to agree to the terms set forth in the
UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE.

Thus, Hastings and other users did not assent to those terms,
including the arbitration clause, by clicking the box next to the
affirmation statement on the address verification web page. This
supports both the trial court's conclusion that Hastings is not
bound to arbitrate his claims and the denial of the motion to
compel arbitration.

Unikrn next contends that the trial court erred in entering Finding
of Fact 26, that on the day Hastings purchased UnikoinGold Tokens
the hyperlinked text in the affirmation statement did not link to
the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE.

This is so, Unikrn asserts, because to support its finding the
trial court relied on Internet chat messages that (1) were
erroneously admitted as Unikrn's adoptive admissions and (2) do not
actually support the trial court's finding.

In response, Hastings asserts that the trial court properly
admitted the Internet chat messages as adoptive admissions and that
they establish that the hyperlinked text on the address
verification web page did not link to the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS
OF TOKEN SALE.

While the  Appellate Court holds that the chat messages were
properly admitted as adoptive admissions, we also conclude that
they do not support the trial court's finding that the link in the
affirmation statement did not link to the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS
OF TOKEN SALE.

Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally
inadmissible. However, an out of court statement offered to prove
the truth of the matter asserted is not hearsay when the statement
is offered against a party and is (i) the party's own statement, in
either an individual or a representative capacity or (ii) a
statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief
in its truth.

No other evidence in the record supports Finding of Fact 26. To the
contrary, there was testimony presented from both Sood and Rudolph
affirming that the link included in the affirmation statement on
the address verification web page linked users to the UNIKRN
BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE.

Therefore, Finding of Fact 26 is not supported by substantial
evidence.

Findings of Fact 17 and 19 are supported by substantial evidence
and support the trial court's finding that Hastings never assented
to the terms of the UNIKRN BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE. Because
Hastings did not assent to be bound by the terms of the UNIKRN
BERMUDA LTD TERMS OF TOKEN SALE, he is not required to comply with
the arbitration provision it contains and arbitrate his claims
against Unikrn.   

Thus, Unikrn has not established that the trial court erred by
denying its motion to compel arbitration.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' March 29, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/t8jtkwl  from Leagle.com.

Joseph Michael Wallin , Carney Badley Spellman , 701 5th Ave Ste
3600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7010.

Linda Blohm Clapham Carney Badley Spellman, P.S., 701 5th Ave Ste
3600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7010, Counsel for Appellant(s).

Bradley Jerome Moore , Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Koehler Moore,
3600 15th Ave W Ste 300, Seattle, WA, 98119-1330.

James Q. Taylor-Copeland , Taylor-Copeland Law, 501 West Broadway,
Suite 800, San Diego, CA, 92101, Counsel for Respondent(s).



UNITED STATES: ICE Sued on Behalf of Transgender Detainees
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bollinger, writing for LGBTQNation, reports that several
organizations have filed a class-action lawsuit to demand the
release of all transgender detainees currently being held by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), citing ICE's handling of
the coronavirus pandemic as a source of violations of the
immigrants' rights.

"Facilities that were completely inadequate before the pandemic are
now death traps for the innocent people locked inside," said
Gregory Copeland of the Rapid Defense Network, one of the
organizations the filed the lawsuit.

The Rapid Defense Network is joined by the Transgender Law Center
(TLC) and Ballard Spahr LLP in asking a federal court to order the
release of all transgender ICE detainees into the community.

According to the TLC, at least 32 ICE detention centers have had
COVID-19 outbreaks since March with 250 publicly reported cases of
the disease among detainees and staff members.

The organizations say that ICE has not been providing appropriate
medical care and has not been following social distancing
guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), setting up
conditions where the virus can easily spread in cramped detention
centers.

"A humane response to address COVID-19 is possible: release
transgender people that are currently in ICE detention so that they
can receive care and safety in the community," said Lynly Egyes of
the TLC. "ICE is responsible for the health and well-being of the
people in its custody and to follow CDC guidelines while people are
in detention. However, ICE is failing. This puts everyone,
especially transgender people, at risk."

"We have the resources to safely house people who are released,"
Egyes added.

The lawsuit, which currently has 13 named plaintiffs from six
different countries, argues that conditions are so dire that they
violate transgender detainees' Fifth Amendment due process rights
and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs said they left their home countries out of fear of
violence and are seeking asylum in the U.S. but are now being held
in "dangerous conditions."

"Living in detention is painful enough as it is. I can't even
imagine the additional fear of having COVID-19," said Chin Tsui, a
trans migrant. "I've witnessed too many transgender people pass
away in my lifetime from this society's neglect."

On April 27, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that ICE had
to justify holding parents in custody for more than 20 days,
expanding on a ruling that initially only applied to children.
Boesberg cited the overcrowded conditions in the detention centers,
as well as poor hygiene and lack of adherence to social distancing
measures.

And earlier on April 28, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) to get him to halt the transfer of
prisoners from the state to ICE, calling ICE detention centers
"virulent incubators of the virus."

"ICE's abject failure to protect the lives of people in its custody
from the deadly COVID-19 is inviting a calamity -- a public health
crisis that will affect not just the detainees, but the surrounding
communities and California as a whole," the lawsuit says. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Jalbert Files Cert. Petition in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Craig Jalbert filed with the Supreme Court of the United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
CRAIG R. JALBERT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR F2 LIQUIDATING
TRUST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Petitioner v. U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent,
Case No. 19-1310.

Response is due on June 22, 2020.

Petitioner Craig Jalbert filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit in the case titled CRAIG R. JALBERT, in his
capacity as Trustee of the F2 Liquidating Trust, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 18-2043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order
granting SEC's motion to dismiss Jalbert's complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

The questions presented are:

   -- Whether a federal government agency commits a structural
      separation-of-powers violation of exercising a legislative
      function when, in addition to explicitly authorized
      penalties, it obtains other penalties under the label of
      "disgorgement," which were not authorized by Congress and
      the imposition of which conflicts with the congressional
      statutory punitive and remedial scheme;

   -- Whether a waiver of judicial review by a respondent in
      connection with a settlement agreement with a federal
      government agency is valid and enforceable against that
      respondent in an action by the respondent claiming that the
      agency committed a structural separation-of-powers
      violation by extracting from the respondent a penalty
      labeled "disgorgement" that Congress did not authorize and
      which was imposed in addition to what the agency found to
      be the appropriate statutory penalty; and

   -- Whether a federal government agency's order imposing
      unauthorized penalties labeled "disgorgement" is void in
      relevant respects because the agency did not have the power
      to impose penalties without explicit congressional
      authorization.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
involves F-Squared, a SEC-registered investment adviser firm
headquartered in Wellesley, Massachusetts. It served clients in the
advisor, institutional, retail, and retirement markets. At some
unspecified point, the SEC began investigating F-Squared for
violations of federal securities laws.

On Dec. 4, 2014, with the threat of administrative and
cease-and-desist proceedings looming, F-Squared executed an Offer
of Settlement pursuant to Rule 240(a) of the Rules of Practice of
the SEC. The SEC accepted the Offer and settled with F-Squared on
Dec. 22, 2014, through the entry of an Order Instituting
Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, to which F Squared
consented.

Under the terms of the Order, F-Squared admitted that, between
April 2001 and September 2008, advertising materials for one of its
investment strategies included statements based on the inaccurate
compilation of performance and historical data which improved and
inflated the strategy's historical performance. That conduct,
F-Squared accepted, violated federal securities laws. F-Squared
agreed to cease and desist from committing further securities-laws
violations and to undertake certain compliance measures. The Order
also required F-Squared to pay $30 million in disgorgement and a $5
million civil money penalty to the United States Treasury. As
agreed, F-Squared transferred $35 million directly into the
Treasury.

In July 2015, F-Squared filed for bankruptcy. The F2 Liquidating
Trust was established during the bankruptcy proceedings to recover
on behalf of F-Squared as its successor-in-interest. The bankruptcy
court appointed Craig Jalbert as the trustee.

On Oct. 26, 2017, Jalbert filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the SEC purporting
to represent the F2 Liquidating Trust and all other individuals and
entities similarly situated who had money collected from them by
the SEC as 'disgorgement' without statutory authority or in excess
of statutory authority during the six years prior to the filing of
the complaint.

Jalbert asserted two claims under the Administrative Procedure Act,
alleging that: (1) in light of the then-recent Supreme Court
opinion in Kokesh v. SEC, the SEC exceeded its statutory authority
by seeking and obtaining disgorgement from F-Squared and the
similarly situated members of the Proposed Class as a separate
monetary penalty in both administrative proceedings and federal
court actions; and (2) the SEC "failed to observe the procedural
requirements" of federal securities law by not obtaining an
accounting of profits allegedly acquired as a result of wrongdoing
before ordering disgorgement. The complaint sought a declaration
that the SEC's collection of disgorgement was unlawful pursuant to
5 U.S.C. Section 706; the setting aside of the $30 million
disgorgement paid by F-Squared under the Order; and a refund of
that payment, as well as similar refunds for the putative class
members.

On April 4, 2018, the SEC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). On
Aug. 22, 2018, the district court entered a memorandum and order
granting the SEC's motion to dismiss. The court determined that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Congress vested the
courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to
SEC orders. It also held that Jalbert had failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted because F-Squared, as part of
the settlement, clearly and unambiguously waived the right to
judicial review by any court.[BN]

Petitioner Craig R. Jalbert is represented by:

          Alex Lipman, Esq.
          LIPMAN LAW PLLC
          45 West 29th Street Suite 303
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 401-0070
          Email: alexlipman@lipmanpllc.com

Respondent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is represented
by:

          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          COUNSEL OF RECORD
          SOLICITOR GENERAL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2203
          Email: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov


UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Class Suits Over Tuition Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Mendis, writing for WCNC, reports that class-action lawsuits
have been filed against the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte and the entire UNC System.

The lawsuits allege the universities charged students thousands of
dollars in tuition and fees, then switched to remote learning due
to COVID-19, and didn't reimburse the students.

When it comes down to it, students believe they are not receiving
the services they paid for.

The lawsuits were filed by students on UNC System campuses across
the state, all of them alleging the same thing -- they paid for the
campus experience.

The students say that means all the in-person classes,
multi-million dollar labs and libraries, and extra-curricular
events that come with the price of on-campus life. Due to
coronavirus, these students wound up with an online learning
experience instead.

WCNC has talked to UNC Charlotte students in recent weeks who
believe they're not getting what they paid for, but are still being
charged the in-person tuition rate.  

According to the lawsuit, some UNC Charlotte students can not take
their course of study online at all, saying the university claims
some programs are not well-suited for online learning.

The class-action lawsuit says it's impossible to pinpoint an exact
dollar amount for the thousands of students who have each paid
thousands of dollars for services they say they stopped receiving
when campuses shut down.

The suit is asking for that money to be returned on a pro-rated
basis.

UNCC issued a statement saying they cannot comment on pending
litigation, but a memo written earlier in April by the UNC
president stated: "universities should not consider refunds of
other fees beyond spring semester housing and dining, and tuition
fees for summer classes." [GN]


USA GYMNASTICS: Bank. Ct. Sustains Claim 531 Objection
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division issued an Order sustaining USAG's
Objection to Claim No. 531 in the case captioned IN RE: USA
GYMNASTICS, Debtor, Case No. 18-09108-RLM-11.

Before Court is USA Gymnastics's (USAG) objections to Claim #531
filed by Marcia Frederick Blanchette (Blanchette) on behalf of
herself and similarly situated class members.

The Claimants filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against USAG and
others alleging violations of the Safe Sport Act Protecting Young
Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017
(Safe Sport Act). The Claimants alleged that the debtor
systematically failed to respond and to report suspected child
abuse of amateur athletes to law enforcement in accordance with the
requirements of the Safe Sport Act.

USAG moved to dismiss the class complaint. The chapter 11 case was
filed before disposition of that motion.  

Blanchette timely filed her claim (Claim #531) and incorporated the
class action complaint filed in Massachusetts which sought to
certify a class.

Notice of the bankruptcy and the Claims Bar Date

Sixty claimants filed claims alleging abuse by someone other than
Nassar and 72 of the claims were filed by individuals who had not
sued the debtor pre-petition, indicating that they relied on
publication notice. The notice here certainly was consistent with
that customarily required in large chapter 11 cases and was
sufficient to reach the putative class of claimants included in the
Class Claim.The Class Claimants' subsequent request to limit the
class to individuals who have already filed claims in this case
creates the foregone conclusion that the class members received
adequate notice.

Whether Application of Rule 7023 Would Adversely Affect
Administration of the Case

The Claimants contend that application of Rule 7023 would not cause
delay. Their counsel argued that, if Rule 7023 were applied, the
legal issues would be simple and discovery could be completed
easily within 60 days causing minimal delay in this case where
there is no approved disclosure statement or scheduled confirmation
hearing.

As the Claimants argue, such a delay is a small price to pay in
exchange for potentially accessing an additional $15 million in
recovery to pay claims.

The Court believes this characterization ignores the realities of
the legal issues that will have to be addressed.

First, it is unsettled whether the Safe Sport Act gives the
Claimants a private right of action to assert claims against the
debtor for its alleged failure to report abuse to authorities. 18
U.S.C.A Section 2258 imposes criminal fines and possible
imprisonment upon those who fail to timely report abuse upon
learning of facts that give reason to suspect a child has suffered
such abuse. 18 U.S.C.A. Section 2255, in turn, provides an express
private right of civil action for violations of various statutes
enumerated therein, but 18 U.S.C.A. Section 2258 is not among those
enumerated.  

The Court finds that it would be futile for it to expend judicial
resources certifying a class asserting a claim it has no right to
bring. Counsel for the Survivors Committee has extensive experience
in this legal area and has actively and aggressively pursued the
rights of the Survivors, yet counsel has not pursued a claim under
the Safe Sports Act. This is also telling.

Even if the Claimants prevailed on this legal issue, the Class
Claim asserts a claim for the debtor's failure to report within 24
hours of Congress enacting the Safe Sport Act those incidents
occurring before its enactment. The Safe Sport Act only requires
the debtor to report when it learns of the facts that give reason
to suspect a child has suffered abuse.

Yet, the Class Claim seeks damages for abuse that the debtor
allegedly learned of before the enactment of the Act. The Safe
Sport Act contains no language to suggest it is meant to be applied
retroactively.  Retroactive application of the Safe Sport Act's
criminal provisions also give rise to possible violations of the
Constitution's Ex Post Facto clause.

Even if all the aforementioned hurdles were cleared, the class
would need to satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 7023. Rule
7023(b)(3) requires a finding that questions of law or fact common
to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy. The predominance test cannot be met here. The
Claimants' alleged injuries related to the debtor's failure to
report do not arise under one single act or transaction.
Individualized proof would be needed to determine to whom the
claimant reported the abuse, the type of abuse reported, in what
manner the abuse was reported, and when it was reported.  

This case has been pending for just short of a year and a half. In
that time and with the cooperation of the Survivors' Committee, the
debtor has managed to foster an agreement to stay pre-petition
survivors' lawsuits, obtained recommended rulings from the
bankruptcy court on insurance coverage and participated in
comprehensive mediation to resolve claims.

That there is no approved disclosure statement or confirmed plan
belies the fact that significant progress has been made for a case
this large and complex. Resolution of the legal issues and Rule
7023 requirements would adversely affect the administration of this
case with little likelihood of an advantage to Claimants. The case
simply is too far down the road to allow the class claim to
proceed.

The debtor's objection to Claim #531 is SUSTAINED, and the
Claimants' Motion to Apply Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to Class Proof of
Claim and Motion for Leave to Amend are DENIED.

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's April 20, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8eo9ybq from Leagle.com.

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by Velocity
Financial, Inc. ("Velocity" or "the Company") (NYSE: VEL).

All investors who purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of
Velocity Financial, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact
the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774.

On or about January 22, 2020, Velocity sold 7,250,000 shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at $13.00 a
share raising $94,250,000 in new capital. However, since the IPO,
Velocity stock has declined substantially. On April 24, 2020, the
stock closed at $3.09.

Specifically, our investigation seeks to determine whether the
Company's filings with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in connection with its January 2020 IPO and
subsequent investor communications contained untrue statements of
material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made therein not misleading concerning the Company's
business, and operations.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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


VISIBILITY MEDIA: Loftus Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISIBILITY MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04725 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a call on his
cellular telephone number ending in -8898 from Defendant's
telephone number (820)400-1809 beginning in or around December 2019
in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's
services.

Plaintiff claims that he never granted Defendant any "prior express
consent" to place such call that uses an "automatic telephone
dialing system" or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant's
illegal calls which invaded his privacy and caused him to incur
certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he had
previously paid.

Plaintiff seeks treble and statutory damages and injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendant's unlawful conduct in the future.

Visibility Media Solutions, LLC is an online advertising company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALMART: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Egg Price Inflation
------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Falcon, writing for KXAN, reports that several Texas
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
statewide consumers who have purchased eggs during the COVID-19
pandemic, claiming that retailers and suppliers drove up the price
to capitalize while demand was high.

According to the lawsuit, several plaintiffs experienced inflated
prices as several retailers, including Walmart, Albertson's and
Texas-based H-E-B.

The lawsuit alleges that the price of eggs tripled in Texas between
the onset of the pandemic and March 30, during which time a price
for a dozen of generic eggs rose from around $1 to $3 per dozen.

Retailers and suppliers named in the lawsuit, according to the
attorneys, are collectively being named, though they may not all
have done anything. Claims will have to be verified.

"Because it is impossible for consumers . . . to obtain information
concerning the secretive process of price-setting, this lawsuit
does not assert that each and every defendant engaged in
price-gouging," the lawsuit states. "Rather, plaintiffs assert
that, at a minimum, some of these defendants did so."

The lawsuit says that retailers and suppliers violated natural
disaster laws, which prohibit attempting to profit from a
disaster.

Consumers who purchased eggs in Texas that were sold or
distributed, produced or handled by any of the defendants are being
represented in the lawsuit. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Objection to Atty.’s
Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's Order rejecting Objector
Thomas Pekoc's Objection to the Award of Attorney's Fees in the
case captioned GARY HEFLER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THOMAS
PEKOC, Objector-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 19-15140. (9th Cir.)

Thomas Pekoc appeals the district court's rejection of his
objection to the award of attorneys' fees to Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLF (BLB&G).  

Pekoc raised only one argument to the district court: that the fee
agreement between lead plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding AG
and BLB&G was unreasonable because BLB&G had previously settled a
class action for an overall fee of 8.5% of the total award, in
contrast to the 20% award here.

This argument fails.

The district court found that BLB&G ultimately received a 20% award
in the earlier class action, which supports the court's
determination that the fee award in this case was reasonable.

Pekoc forfeited the additional arguments he now raises on appeal
and does not explain why the Appellate Court should consider those
arguments despite the forfeiture. Therefore, the Appellate Court
declines to do so.

Accordingly, the District Court's Order rejecting Objector Thomas
Pekoc's Objection to the Award of Attorney's Fees is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' April 20, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7s43hdl from Leagle.com

WELLS FARGO: Merchants Appeal Settlement Approval Order
-------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 merchants that object
to a class action settlement have taken an appeal from the final
court approval order.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding
the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions. Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and
bank holding companies are also named as defendants in these
actions.

These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The amended and
consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.

Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.

The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the
consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately
$6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants
opting out of the settlement. The class settlement also provided
for the distribution to class merchants of 10 basis points of
default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period
of eight consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out
of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement
agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel
filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review
of the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and the
Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017.

On November 30, 2016, the district court appointed lead class
counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. The
parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately
$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900
million in additional funding.

The Company's allocated responsibility for the additional funding
is approximately $94.5 million.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on December 13,
2019, which was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit by settlement objector merchants.

Several of the opt-out and direct action litigations have been
settled while others remain pending. Discovery is proceeding in the
opt-out litigations and the equitable relief class case.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 United States
District Court for the Central District of California has granted
final approval of a class action settlement.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the Company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies and
certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions.

The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment
of a total of $1.0 billion in civil money penalties to the
agencies.

In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate customers
who may have been financially harmed due to issues related to
automobile CPI policies purchased through a third-party vendor on
their behalf.

Multiple putative class action cases alleging, among other things,
unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, have
been filed against the Company and consolidated into one
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the multi-district
litigation pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay,
consistent with its remediation obligations under the consent
orders, approximately $547 million in remediation to customers with
CPI policies placed between October 15, 2005, and September 30,
2016.

The settlement amount is not incremental to the Company's
remediation obligations under the consent orders, but instead
encompasses those obligations, including remediation payments to
date.

The settlement amount is subject to change as the Company finalizes
its remediation activity under the consent orders.

In addition, the Company has agreed to contribute $1 million to a
common fund for the class. The district court granted final
approval of the settlement on November 21, 2019.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WWE: Faces Several Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------
Alfred Konuwa, writing for Forbes, reports that WWE has been named
in several class action lawsuits on behalf of shareholders of the
wrestling juggernaut.

After a nightmarish 2020 that has seen WWE's stock violently
implode after trading as high as $100 per share as recently as
2018, WWE's stock rallied following a strong 1Q-20 earnings call.

In addition to lofty profits from its television deals with
NBCUniversal and FOX -- which have acted as lifelines amid WWE's
declining key performance indicators across the board -- part of
WWE's stock rebounding was due to the grim Black Friday, which saw
hundreds of WWE employees, talent and executives either furloughed
or laid off in a controversial response to COVID-19.

WWE's earnings call in April was yet another demonstration in
overly agreeable shareholders seeming to fall for Vince McMahon's
questionable excuses about viewership and WWE Network subscription
declines. Some shareholders are now taking a far more combative
tone and the following investment firms have filed class action
lawsuits against WWE:

Levi & Korsinsky
Levi & Kosinsky named several formal complaints alleging WWE
"deceived the investing public" in numerous aspects of reporting.

Per a press release:

"A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Defendants perpetrated a fraudulent
scheme which: (i) deceived the investing public regarding WWE's
business and prospects; (ii) artificially inflated the price of WWE
Class A common stock; (iii) permitted certain senior executives of
WWE to sell more than $282 million worth of their personally held
shares at fraud inflated prices; and (iv) caused the public to
purchase WWE Class A common stock at artificially inflated
prices."

Glancy Prongay & Murray
Glancy Prongay & Murray allege WWE misled shareholders by
attributing live event and product declines to the absences of WWE
Superstars largely due to injury. McMahon blaming continued erosion
on absent talent was actually the subject of cynicism among many
who closely follow the product, especially as WWE's viewership
continued to decline when top stars such as Roman Reigns, Bray
Wyatt and Kevin Owens returned.

A portion of the filing reads:

"On April 25, 2019, WWE reported that for first quarter 2019,
revenue declined year-over-year, notably in the live events and
consumer products segments. Though the Company attributed the
decline to the absence of certain "Super Stars," several analysts
connected the results to difficulties securing a media rights deal
for the Middle East and North Africa ("MENA") region with the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.12 per share, or
over 13%, to close at $85.38 per share on April 25, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on October 31, 2019, in connection with the Company's third
quarter 2019 financial results, WWE lowered its fiscal 2019
adjusted OIBDA guidance to a range of $180 million to $190 million,
stating that "no assurances" could be made that a media rights deal
for the MENA region would ever be completed."

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
Per their company website, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check alleged
the following:

"The complaint alleges that World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and/or
misleading information and/or failing to disclose material
information."

Ryan Merholz and Melvyn Klein
In a 44-page filing, Ryan Merholz and Melvyn Klein specifically
named Chairman Vince McMahon, Executive Vice President Paul
Levesque (Triple H), Chief Brand Officer Stephanie McMahon, Interim
Chief Financial Officer Frank Riddick III, former Co-President
George Barrios and board members Stuart Goldfarb, Laureen Ong,
Robyn Peterson, Alan Wexler, Man Jit Singh, and Jeffery Speed.

The lawsuit also questions WWE's ties to Saudi Arabia, specifically
during the timeline of last year's controversy surrounding an
alleged hostage situation with WWE talent.

Per the filing:

"WWE held the Crown Jewel live event in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After
the event ended, shocking news reports surfaced claiming that the
Saudi government was effectively holding a number of WWE wrestlers
‘hostage' in retaliation for McMahon's decision to delay a live
broadcast of Crown Jewel until the Saudis made tens of millions of
dollars in past due payments. Estimates for the amount outstanding
ranged from $60 million to as much as $500 million. Several
wrestlers detailed their experience during the ordeal on social
media platforms."

WWE did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


[*] COVID-19 Business Interruption Class Actions Filed in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
insurance companies are facing lawsuits in New Jersey courts over
the denial of business interruption coverage on behalf of
establishments that lost revenue due to shelter-in-place policies
prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Three class action suits have been filed in the District of New
Jersey in recent days on behalf of restaurants that were denied
business interruption coverage, and similar suits are popping up in
other states as well. [GN]


[*] Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Erik K. Swanholt, Esq. -- eswanholt@foley.com -- and John J.
Atallah, Esq. -- jatallah@foley.com
-- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, report that the COVID-19 pandemic has altered the landscape
for private and public businesses in almost every industry,
impacting day-to-day operations as well as longstanding obligations
to businesses and consumers alike.  Just over a month into the
quarantine, we have witnessed a dramatic spike in litigation
stemming from the pandemic, causing significant challenges in both
business-to-business dealings and consumer-oriented businesses.  

The fallout from the spread of COVID-19 has also motivated class
action plaintiffs' lawyers to target the companies most heavily
impacted, and we have already seen the focus of these plaintiffs'
lawyers broaden over time.  Presently, putative class action
lawsuits related to the pandemic present a new and significant set
of risks to all businesses, including those on which consumers
often depend for their basic needs.

Consumer Products
As evidenced by early filings, California (with its broad consumer
protection statutes) appears to be the venue of choice.  One of the
very first consumer class actions related to the COVID-19 pandemic
was filed in California on March 5, 2020, against Vi-Jon Inc., the
manufacturer of hand sanitizer product Germ-X.  The complaint
alleges that Vi-Jon Inc. falsely represented to consumers that its
product is capable of fighting the novel coronavirus, thereby
prompting consumers to purchase Germ-X, allegedly to their
detriment.  See David v. Vi-Jon Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00424 (S.D.
Cal. Mar. 5, 2020).  Other class action plaintiffs' lawyers quickly
followed, filing claims in federal court against the manufacturers
and retailers of Purell- and Target-brand hand sanitizers, alleging
deceptive marketing related to the efficacy of their products.  See
Miller v. GOJO Industries Inc. d/b/a Purell, Case No. 4:20-cv-00562
(N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2020); see also Taslakian v. Target Corp., Case
No. 2:20-cv-02667 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020).

Subscriptions and Memberships
This pandemic has also spawned a number of putative class actions
based on individuals' inabilities to utilize subscription services,
including gym and fitness center memberships.  For example, 24 Hour
Fitness was recently sued in California for failure to refund
monthly membership fees despite mandatory closures.  See Labib v.
24 Hour Fitness USA Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02134 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
27, 2020).  Similar actions have been asserted more recently
against Fitness Evolution and Corepower Yoga.  See Hunt v. Fitness
Evolution Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02461 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020);
Weiler v. Corepower Yoga LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03496 (C.D. Cal.
Apr. 15, 2020).  These lawsuits are based on the plaintiffs' class
action bar's theory that the automatic extension of membership
benefits following resumption of operations will not be sufficient
to compensate consumers for membership fees collected during
closures.

Tickets and Events
Ticket sellers, event organizers, and venues have been similarly
impacted.  Consumers recently initiated a pair of putative class
actions against StubHub for its alleged refusal to refund ticket
prices for events canceled due to the pandemic.  See McMillan v.
StubHub Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00319 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2020);
Alcaraz v. StubHub Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02595 (N.D. Cal. April
14, 2020).  The second of these lawsuits was filed four days after
StubHub announced a new policy of providing vouchers (rather than
cash refunds) to cover the value of tickets for canceled events.
Even Major League Baseball and each of its teams are defendants in
litigation alleging slow refunds on season tickets.  See Ajzenman
v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Case No. 2:20-cv-03643
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020).

Do LaB Inc., the organizer of central California's popular
Lightning in a Bottle music festival, is similarly the target of
two class actions stemming from the event's cancelation.  See Neses
v. Do LaB Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03452 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020);
Jimenez v. Do LaB Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03462 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14,
2020).  Do LaB previously committed to make fans "whole," but did
not provide a timeline or specifics.  On April 17, 2020, following
the filing of the Jimenez lawsuit, Do LaB announced a new policy
providing three options to ticket buyers: (1) supporting the future
of Lightning in a Bottle with a gift; (2) converting 2020 tickets
to upgraded VIP tickets for LIB 2021 or 2022; or (3) joining a
refund pool.  It is unknown how these options will impact the
lawsuits, particularly after Ticketmaster and Live Nation were sued
on similar allegations last Friday, April 17, after, according to
the plaintiffs' pleading, revising their own refund policies.  See
Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. and Live Nation
Entertainment Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-02685 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17,
2020).

Impacted venues have included the Magic Mountain family of theme
parks, which was sued recently for allegedly continuing to assess
monthly charges to season passholders while its parks are closed.
Ruiz v. Magic Mountain LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03436 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
13, 2020).  For now, Disney appears to have avoided litigation by
implementing a hybrid policy of automatically extending expiration
dates for Disneyland annual passes while giving consumers the
option to obtain prorated refunds.  Disney has further suspended
monthly charges and retroactively refunded payments collected
during the closure of its theme parks.

The foregoing is just a partial list of COVID-19-related class
action litigation being filed across the country.  The egg industry
has been targeted for alleged price gouging (see, e.g., Fraser v.
Cal-Maine Foods Inc., 3:20-cv-02733 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020)).
Several companies have likewise been sued in class actions for
allegedly terminating employees without sufficient advance notice.
See Siers v. Velodyne Lidar Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 3, 2020); Scott v. Hooters III Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00882
(M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2020).  The financial services industry has
also been targeted with COVID-19 related class action litigation.

Businesses seeking advice on how to avoid these types of lawsuits
and how to respond to them should continue to consult with
experienced counsel.  The old saying "Be quick but don't hurry"
could not be more apt.  Proactive measures today can help protect
your business tomorrow.  In a follow-up post, we will outline
potential steps to minimize exposure during these trying times. In
the meantime, we recommend maintaining the same disciplined
approach that your business usually employs in bringing products
and services to market and responding to customer or
business-to-business issues.  Working with outside counsel to
assess strategies can add a layer of calm and protection to any
business decision. [GN]


[*] Group of Jews Files Class Suit Over Canceled Passover Events
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of Orthodox
and conservative Jews who paid thousands in deposits to attend
Passover retreats that were canceled over COVID-19 stay-at-home
orders have banded together for a putative class-action lawsuit to
demand refunds. [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 ***