/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200610.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 116

                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Agrees to Settle Search Term Class Action
22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending
AFNI INC: Scurlark Sues in C.D. Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA
AKAZOO S.A.: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
AKAZOO SA: Rosen Law Reminds of June 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

ALLERGAN PLC: $750MM Agreement Reached in Namenda(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Restasis(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Agreements Reached in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Nix Warner Marketing Practices Suit Granted
ALLERGAN PLC: Breast Implant Suits Against Subsidiaries Ongoing

ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Breast Implant Securities Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kombol Suit Removed to District of Montana
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Asks Court to Amend Judgment of Dismissal
AMAZON.COM INC: Shepherd Sues Over Suspension of Amazon Prime
AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES: Flores Files Suit in California

ANGIE'S LIST: Judge Tosses Most of Data Sharing Claims
ANTARES PHARMA: Judge Dismisses Second Amended Complaint
APELLES LLC: Hirsch Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
APPLE INC: $18MM FaceTime Settlement Awaits Court Approval
AUDIE PRICE: Erwin Seeks Overtime Pay for Inspectors

AUTOZONE INC: Wilson Sues in E.D. California Over FCRA Violation
BAIDU INC: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of June 22 Deadline
BAIDU INC: Rosen Reminds of June 22 Deadline in Class Action
BAUSCH HEALTH: Norton Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
BB STAR: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA

BBVA USA: Hill Files Suit in California
BED BATH: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
BELMONT VILLAGE: Goodarzi Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
BIO TEST: Faces Class Action Over Defective COVID-19 Test Results
BLUE APRON: Dismissal Bid Partly Denied in Securities Litigation

BOOMER HOLDINGS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in NY
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Class Suit Seeks Tuition Refund Amid COVID-19
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Detainees Sue Over Coronavirus Testing
BY HUMANKIND INC: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
CANADA GOOSE: Facing Lam and Khan Suits in Canada

CAPITAL ONE: Bradford Sues Over Unlawful Collection Calls
CAPSULE CORPORATION: Nisbett Sues in S.D.N.Y Over ADA Violation
CARTER'S RETAIL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
CBD AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Heavy Metal Contaminants
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Hightower Alleges Telescope Market Monopoly

CENTENE CORP: Harvey Appeals Class Certification Ruling
CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Faces Class Action Over Union Dues
CHINA: Lawyers to Present Coronavirus Cover-Up Evidence
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Uptown Dental Files Suit in Pennsylvania
CNA FINANCIAL: Sued for Refusing to Cover COVID-Related Losses

CRIMSHIELD INC: Foley Sues Over Background Check
CUROLOGY INC: Slade Alleges Violation under ADA
DARP INC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Rulings in Fochtman Labor Suit
DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
DOLLAR TREE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Ex-Employee's Suit

DOLLAR TREE: Facing N.Y. Consumer Suit Over Almond Milk Label
DONEGAL INSURANCE: Denies COVID-19 Insurance Claims, Lawsuit Says
DREW UNIVERSITY: Dougherty Seeks Tuition Refund Due to COVID-19
DUNKIN BRANDS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Chen Suit
E.C. ROUSTABOUT: Underpays Laborers, Pena Claims

EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Still Ongoing
ECOLAB: Hospital Workers File Class Action Over OxyCide
EDUCATIONDYNAMICS LLC: Steele Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
ELKTON FCI: Seeks Sixth Cir. Review in Wilson Habeas Corpus Suit
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees

ENDO INT'L: Astora Funds AMS Vaginal Mesh Settlement in Canada
ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
ENDO INT'L: Direct Purchaser Settlement in Zetia(R) Suit Granted
ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation
ENDO INT'L: Pelletier Class Action Ongoing

ENDO INT'L: Settlement Reached in Makris Class Action
ENTERPRISE LEASING: Wordlaw BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
EQUIFAX INC: Indian Tribe & City of Chicago Class Suits Settled
EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Reached in Financial Institutions MDL Suit
ERIE INSURANCE: HTR Restaurants Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.

EVERLASTINGCAPITAL: Fabricant Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Acts
EVOQUA WATER: Wins Dismissal of New York Securities Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Content Moderators' Class Action for $52MM
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Ober Sues Over "Oppressive" Collection Letter
FIRST AMERICAN: Crockford Insurance Suit Moved to W.D. Washington

FITBIT INC: Lopes Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
FLEX LTD: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
FLORIDA REFORESTATION: Johnston Seeks OT Pay for Laborers
FLORIDA: Grad. Student's Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
FLORIDA: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in Miller Case

FLORIDA: Prisoners File Civil Rights Suit
FORCE FACTOR: Faces Frantz Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Sales
FRESH DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Criminal History Checks
FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Wash. Pending
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Insurance Dept. Seeks to Stay Skochin Case

GEORGIA: Ex-Trooper Files Class Action Against State Patrol
GERON CORP: Securities Class Suits Consolidated
GITHUB: Ontario Judge Scolds Class Action Bar
GRAND CANYON: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
GROUPON INC: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action

GROUPON INC: June 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GROUPON INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Filing
GROUPON INC: Levi and Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
GROUPON INC: Portnoy Law Notes of June 29 Class Action Deadline
GSX TECHEDU: Glancy Prongay Notes of June 16 Class Action Deadline

GSX TECHEDU: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action
GW UNIVERSITY: Parent's Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action

HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Suit
HENDREN PLASTICS: Appeals Decisions in Fochtman Suit to 8th Cir.
HOEHNER'S TECHNICAL: Hartman Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NMMWA
HORIZON TRUST: Threadford ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
IDAHO: Court Orders Wolf to File Second Amended Prisoner Complaint

IKEA US: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Tip-Over Incidents
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in Northtup
INTEGRITY INSPECTION: Spivey Seeks Overtime Pay
INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Settlement Agreement Reached in Sawyer Suit
IQIYI INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 15 Plaintiff Deadline

IQIYI INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of June 15 Deadline
IQIYI INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
IQIYI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
JAANUU INC: Kiler Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act

JEAN PIERRE: Faces Miller Suit in Eastern District of New York
JOHNSON & WALES: Hazel Seeks Refund of Tuition Over COVID Closure
KEMET CORP: Accord in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Awaits Court OK
KEMET CORP: Bid to Dismiss Inductors Antitrust Case Pending
KINGDOM ANIMALIA: Williams Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action
LIFELOCK INC: July 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LIVEWATCH SECURITY: Silver Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
LOMA NEGRA: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Carmona Securities Suit
LUCI'S EXPRESS: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA/NYLL

LYONS DOUGHTY: Thompson Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
MASTERCARD: Says GBP14BB Merchant Fee Class Action "Overblown"
MATIC INSURANCE: Kay Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Workers
MDL 2878: MSP Recovery Antitrust Suit v. Ranbaxy, Consolidated
MERVIN MANUFACTURING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Brown Class Cert. Order Pending
MIDLAND CREDIT: Young Sues in W.D. Michigan Over FDCPA Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Zitronenbaum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
MOBILE MINI: Halper Sadeh Files Class Action Over Merger
MRS BPO LLC: Macaraeg Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation

MULHOLLAND ENERGY: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Estrada Claims
MYER: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
NOLI YOGA: Conner Alleges Violation under ADA
NOOM: Faces Class Action Over Enrollment "Renewal Scheme"

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Student Sues for Breach of Fin'l Agreement
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Avila Suit Against Unit Settled for $20MM
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Securities Suit Underway in N.D. Calif.
ON THE SUN: Sued for Allegedly Underpaying Workers
ONECOIN: Judge Reopens Ponzi Scam Class Action

ORACLE CORP: Class Action Over Pay History Policies Certified
ORACLE CORP: Suit Over Women's Pay Gains Class Action Status
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Ahlman Prisoner Suit
ORGANIGRAM INC: Appeal Court Quashes Parts of Class Action
PACE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Seeking Housing Refunds

PENNSYLVANIA: DOH Sued for Lack of COVID Oversight of Nursing Homes
PHENOS COLLECTIVE: Rohrer Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
PLAINS MIDSTREAM: Fails to Avert Pipeline Spill Class Action
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus Ongoing in Calif.
PURPLE INNOVATION: Unit Facing Harper Class Suit over TCPA Breach

QUALITY INTEGRATED: Maness Seeks Overtime Wages
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Judge Decertifies Class in Prevagen Lawsuit
RASIER LLC: Fluss Files Ninth Circuit Appeal Against USDC-CALA
RCG RIFLE: Merino Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit & Unpaid Wages
RECRO PHARMA: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in IV Meloxicam Suit

REVERA LIVING: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Negligence
REVERA RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Negligence
RIPPLE: Faces Another XRP Securities Class Action in California
ROBINHOOD: Faces Class Action Over March Outage
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Charleau Suit Moved From Mass. to Pennsylvania

SCIPLAY CORP: Nevada Court Stays Good's IPO Class Action
SCWORX CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
SCWORX CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Lawsuit
SCWORX CORP: June 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SCWORX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action

SIENNA SENIOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Negligence
SIGNATURE BANK: Quinn Suit Seeks PPP Agent Fees for Accountants
SIGNET JEWELERS: July 21 Fairness Hrg Set in Securities Litigation
SIRIUS TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, Merlino Claims
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU: Smith Suit Transferred to Arkansas

SPARTINA LLC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Sperling Files Suit in California
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Jones Seeks to End Tender Offer Expiration
STUDS INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in New York
SUPER MICRO: Amended Complaint Filed in NY Trades & Hotel Suit

TAB: Gladwin Legal Mulls Class Action over Quaddie Glitch
TALOS ENERGY: Faces Patel Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct.
TCA FUND: Law Firms File Investor Class Action
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Feder Alleges Violation under FDCPA
THOMAS GOHAGAN: UC Berkeley Alumnus Sues Over Cancelled Cruise

TICKETMASTER: Concert-Goers File Class Action in California
TICKETMASTER: Koskie Minsky Commences Class Action
TIKTOK: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Collection
TMS INTERNATIONAL: Hattabaugh Seeks Unpaid OT for Pit Operators
TOYOTA MOTOR: Tordjman Files Product Liability Suit in Florida

TOYOTA MOTOR: Zuo Files Product Liability Suit in D. New Jersey
TRAVEL GUARD: UC Berkeley Alumnus Sues Over Cancelled Cruise
TURTLE FUR: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Capriole Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
UNILEVER US: Breyers Ice Cream Has Less Vanilla, Falborn Alleges

UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid Time Off
UNITED STATES: Education Dep't. Takes Wage Garnishment Action
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIF.: Berger Montague Files Class Action
UPS STORE: Overcharges for Notary Services, McLaren Claims
USC: Hagens Berman Files Class Suit on Tuition Refund

VANDER SCHAAF: Dairy Farm Workers Sue Over Overtime Wages
VIVINT SOLAR: Stockholders Class Suits in E.D.N.Y. Consolidated
VIVINT SOLAR: Suit Over Power Purchase Agreements Ongoing
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Sued Over Jail Conditions Amid COVID-19
WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Malone Class Suit in N.D. California

YOGAWORKS INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell Class Certification Bid Pending
ZOOM: Faces Class Action Over Pornographic Zoombombing Incident
[*] Gibson Dunn Attorneys Discuss COVID Suit Mitigation Measures
[*] Grande Prairie May Join Class Action v. Opioid Manufacturers

[*] Insurance Lawyers Express Concern Over Coronavirus Lawsuits
[*] K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Refund Case Defense
[*] King & Spalding Discusses Coronavirus-Related Class Actions
[*] Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss COVID-Related Lawsuits
[*] SCOTUS May Resolve Class Action Personal Jurisdiction Issue

[*] Slater & Gordon Mulls Suit v. Airlines Over Travel Vouchers
[*] Subscription Cos. Face Pandemic-Related Class Action Risks

                            *********

1-800 CONTACTS: Agrees to Settle Search Term Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that online contact lens buyers who accused several
retailers of suppressing competition through agreements about
internet search terms have told a Utah federal court that they
reached a deal with 1-800 Contacts, the last company remaining in
the case. The buyers filed a notice on May 12 saying they have
agreed to settle their allegations against 1-800 Contacts -- the
supposed instigator of the anti-competitive pacts -- for an
undisclosed monetary sum. The proposed class previously struck
deals in the litigation. [GN]


22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, 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 motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Matthew Bull, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group,
Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No.
1:19-cv-00409, is pending.

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased shares of
the Company's common stock. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to
bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the
Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25,
2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on
Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained
false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in
Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the
allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.  

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the
Company's then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553.

The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased
shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Fitch sues individually
and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and
October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly
contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are
liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Fitch litigation
filed a motion in both the Fitch and Bull actions: (1) proposing
Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr.
Fitch as purportedly representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to
consolidate the Fitch litigation with the Bull litigation, and (3)
seeking to be appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action.


Plaintiffs' counsel in the Bull litigation filed and then withdrew
a comparable motion seeking to consolidate the cases and be
appointed as lead counsel.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily
dismissed that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull
case issued an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire
Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties,
the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal
district court in the Western District of New York, where it
remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285.

Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November
19, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
purchased shares of the Company's common stock and sues
individually and to bring a class action for all persons or
entities who acquired the Company's common stock between February
18, 2016 and July 31, 2019.

The Amended Complaint alleges three counts: Count I sues the
Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the
Company's quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases
and other public statements and documents contained false
statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b5(a) and (c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 3, 2020, the Court reassigned the Bull case to Judge
John L. Sinatra, also in the Western District of New York.

On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On
March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the
motion to dismiss. The company then filed its final reply brief on
April 29, 2020.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


AFNI INC: Scurlark Sues in C.D. Illinois Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is styled as Eula Scurlark, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons v. Afni, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01206-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., May 30, 2020).

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

Afni, Inc., provides financial and commercial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                 jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


AKAZOO S.A.: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Akazoo S.A. (NASDAQ: SONG)
investors who purchased securities between September 11, 2019 and
April 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period")

If you suffered a loss on your Akazoo 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 20, 2020, Quintessential Capital gave a presentation
regarding Akazoo, stating that the Company looks like an accounting
scheme because its users, subscribers, revenue and profit may be
"profoundly overstated."

On this news, Akazoo's share price fell as much as $0.71, or over
26%, during intraday trading on April 20, 2020.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash holdings;
(2) that Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution
rights than it has stated and implied; (3) that as opposed to
Akazoo's continued statements, it does not operate in 25 countries;
(4) that Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it
states; (5) that Akazoo has closed its headquarters and other
offices around the world; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Akazoo securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 23, 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.

Contact:

         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Charles Linehan
         Tel: 310-201-9150
              888-773-9224
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
         Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/
[GN]



AKAZOO SA: Rosen Law Reminds of June 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Akazoo S.A. (NASDAQ: SONG) between
September 11, 2019 and April 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important June 23, 2020 deadline in the class
action first filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Akazoo investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Akazoo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1843.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) Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash
holdings; (2) Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution
rights than it has stated and implied; (3) as opposed to Akazoo's
continued statements, it does not operate in 25 countries; (4)
Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it states; (5)
Akazoo has closed its headquarters and other offices around the
world; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a
market research firm.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 23,
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-1843.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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



ALLERGAN PLC: $750MM Agreement Reached in Namenda(R) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 the parties in the direct purchaser
class action related to sales of Namenda(R) have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation for $750 million,
which contains no admission of liability, remains subject to final
court approval.

In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest
was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. The parties in that case then reached a settlement
to resolve the dispute.

Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter,
putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers in the same federal court.

The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between a Company
subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.


The court had denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
direct purchaser action, certified the direct purchaser class of
plaintiffs and set a trial date for October 28, 2019.  

Prior to the start of the trial, the parties in the direct
purchaser class action reached an agreement in principle to settle
that litigation for $750,000,000.  

The agreement, which contains no admission of liability, remains
subject to final court approval.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International.  The Company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Restasis(R) Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 the company has reached agreements in
principle to settle the claims asserted by all direct purchaser
plaintiffs involving Restasis(R) Class Action Litigation, and the
Company has recorded an accrual of $78.8 million for these
settlements.   

Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis(R) alleging that
subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in
conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of
Restasis(R) in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as
state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment.


The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

All plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the billions of dollars
which, if plaintiffs are successful are subject to trebling under
the antitrust laws, as well as declaratory relief, and injunctive
relief. The parties have engaged in discovery. Trial in this action
was scheduled to begin in April 2020.

Recently, the Company reached agreements to settle the claims
asserted by all direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company has
taken a reserve of $78,800,000 for these settlements.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend its conduct and the
patents or other intellectual property at issue in what remains of
this litigation.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International.  The Company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Agreements Reached in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 the parties in the Loestrin(R) 24
Litigation have reached agreements with each group of plaintiffs
that, taken together, will resolve this litigation in its
entirety.

Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as
opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island.

The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in
anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits
related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek
declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages in the
billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful, are
subject to trebling under the antitrust laws.

The court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion but had not decided the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' class motion.  

Summary judgement motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments
were held in September 2019.  

Trial in this action was scheduled to begin in January 2020.  

The parties reached agreements with each group of plaintiffs that,
taken together, will resolve this litigation in its entirety.  

Based on the settlements with the plaintiffs, the Company booked an
accrual of $302,500,000.  

The direct and indirect purchaser settlement agreements remain
subject to final court approval.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International.  The Company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Nix Warner Marketing Practices Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 the motion to dismiss filed in the
Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices related suit has been granted.


A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their
assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their
beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state
consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain
products.

The court recently granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  

Following the dismissal of the action in federal court, plaintiffs
recently filed a nearly identical complaint in state court in New
Jersey.  

On March 27, 2020, the state court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International.  The Company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Breast Implant Suits Against Subsidiaries Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 the company's subsidiaries continues to
defend class action suits related to breast implants-related
injuries.

Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in approximately 48
cases, including several class actions and individual cases filed
on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, alleging that Allergan's textured
breast implants caused women to develop an uncommon cancer known as
breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL").  

Some of the lawsuits include claims that the defendants failed to
properly warn against this risk and failed to promptly and properly
report the results of the post-marketing studies relating to these
products and that plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result.

Other lawsuits seek to recover costs related to medical monitoring
and damages for fear of developing BIA-ALCL.  

The federal product liability and "fear of" cases have been
consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.
There are several additional cases filed in state courts in the
United States and well as provincial courts in Canada.  

On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a voluntary worldwide recall
of unused BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders.

This announcement may impact the number of lawsuits related to
BIA-ALCL filed moving forward.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International.  The Company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Breast Implant Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 discovery is ongoing in the Breast
Implant Securities Class Action.

In December 2018, two plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's textured breast implants and
their association with an uncommon cancer known as breast implant
associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
the court granted in part and denied in part in a ruling on
September 20, 2019.

The Company filed its answer on October 18, 2019 and the parties
are now engaging in discovery.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The Company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International.  The Company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kombol Suit Removed to District of Montana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Bo Kombol, individually and on behalf other
persons similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Does
1-100, Case No. DV 20-00640, was removed from the Montana State
Court, Yellowstone County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on May 29, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-SPW to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The Allstate Corporation is an American-based insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Murry Warhank, Esq.
          JACKSON, MURDO & GRANT, P.C.
          203 N Ewing Street
          Helena, MT 59601-4298
          Phone: (406) 442-1308
          Email: mwarhank@jmgm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter F. Habein, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          490 North 31st Street, Suite 500
          PO Box 2529
          Billings, MT 59103-2529
          Phone: (406) 252-3441
          Fax: 256-0277
          Email: phabein@crowleyfleck.com


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Asks Court to Amend Judgment of Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, 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 plaintiff Caryl Hull
Leavitt has asked a trial court to amend the judgment of dismissal
and permit the plaintiff to further amend the complaint.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint, or the Complaint.

In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also
named as defendants certain of our other executive officers, and
purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who
acquired the company's securities between September 20, 2017 and
September 12, 2018 and sought to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO. The plaintiff
sought, among other things, the designation of this action as a
class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed
on September 30, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the Court allowed the
company's motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.

On April 13, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend
the judgment to permit the plaintiff to file a further amended
complaint. Defendants filed an opposition to that motion on April
17, 2020.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMAZON.COM INC: Shepherd Sues Over Suspension of Amazon Prime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SHEPHERD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 706075/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., May 29, 2020), is a class action against Amazon for
unfair and deceptive trade practices concerning the sale and
suspension of Amazon Prime membership.

The Plaintiff contends that Amazon temporarily suspended its Prime
shipping service to focus on its grocery and pharmacy business,
favoring one group of customers over others. He adds that he was
damaged by Amazon's unfair actions as he was not able to use the
free and fast shipping service that he paid for and would have not
purchased Amazon Prime membership if he knew that Amazon could
freeze the service to concentrate on its grocery and pharmacy
business and not provide him any credit for the paused service.

Amazon sells a subscription service to the public that includes
free and fast shipping on more than 10,000,000 products sold by
Amazon and/or third-party sellers through Amazon's warehouses and
distribution centers.

In March 2020, online purchasing and shipping demand surged as a
result of people staying home due to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders
and governmental regulations and orders throughout the country
shutting down brick and mortar businesses other than grocery and
pharmacy stores.

On March 17, 2020, Amazon halted its Prime Shipping service by
sending a notice to all manufacturers and third party sellers that
they could no longer ship most products to Amazon's distribution
centers because it was "temporarily prioritizing household staples,
medical supplies, and other high-demand products coming into our
fulfillment centers so that we can more quickly receive, restock,
and deliver these products to customers."

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals and
entities purchased an Amazon Prime membership for free and fast
shipping services, during the period between March 17, 2020, and
the date of the final disposition of this action.

Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational conglomerate
technology company based in Seattle that focuses on e-commerce,
cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Kelly, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY
          244 5th Avenue, Suit K-278
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 212-920-5042
          E-mail: jkelly@jckellylaw.com


AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES: Flores Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Gustavo Flores and
Jose Angel Solis Lugo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Technologies, Inc and
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC20584603
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 3, 2020).

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Non Exempt
Complaints.

American Technologies, Inc. provides disaster recovery
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Roman Otkupman, Esq.
   Otkupman Law Firm
   28632 Roadside Dr Suite 203
   Agoura Hills, CA 91301
   


ANGIE'S LIST: Judge Tosses Most of Data Sharing Claims
------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Angie's List
Inc. convinced a California federal judge to throw out most of a
proposed class action brought by a water treatment company that
said the online contractor ratings giant violated agreements with
service providers by sharing their information.

Pro Water Solutions Inc. sued Angie's List and affiliates
IAC/Interactivecorp and Angi Homeservices Inc., alleging they are
responsible for Angie's List's violation of a service-provider user
agreement.

The agreement bars the company from selling, trading, renting, or
sharing emails, fax numbers, or telephone numbers to a third party,
and Pro Water says Angie's List shared that information with its
affiliate, HomeAdvisor. [GN]



ANTARES PHARMA: Judge Dismisses Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that
a proposed securities class action alleged that Antares Pharma and
its Board of Directors made materially false and misleading
statements about the likelihood of obtaining FDA approval of its
drug, XYOSTED -- a drug that was approved by the FDA.

Dechert represented Antares Pharma, Inc. in the case.

After securing a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, once again attempting
to assert a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and a
control-person claim against the officer defendants for violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Dechert filed a motion, on behalf of its client, to dismiss the
second amended complaint, which U.S. District Judge Michael A.
Shipp for the District of New Jersey granted on April 28.

The Dechert team assisted Antares Pharma with partners David
Kistenbroker and Joni Jacobsen, and associates Melanie MacKay and
Amy Lesperance.

Involved fees earner: Joni Jacobsen – Dechert; David Kistenbroker
– Dechert; Amy Lesperance – Dechert; Melanie MacKay –
Dechert;

Law Firms: Dechert;

Clients: Antares Pharma. [GN]


APELLES LLC: Hirsch Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apelles, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Mayer Hirsch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apelles, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02408 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Apelles, LLC, is a nationwide provider of debt collection services
and specialized customer lifecycle management programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: $18MM FaceTime Settlement Awaits Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Carter Holland, writing for LawStreetMedia, reports that on April
27, an $18 million settlement was submitted for preliminary
approval in a three-year property damage suit between plaintiffs
Christina Grace and Ken Potter, and defendant Apple, Inc. In an
amended complaint filed on February 2, 2017, the plaintiffs alleged
that their iPhone devices had diminished in value after the
video-call software stopped working. The case is being held before
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs originally alleged that on April 16, 2014, Apple
intentionally broke its FaceTime video calling feature for iOS 6
and earlier operating systems. The court denied Apple's motion for
dismissal in July 2017 and in September 2018, it issued a class
certification order that certified a class defined as "[a]ll owners
of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in
California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
systems." The $18 million settlement awards monetary relief to
every class member.

On February 6, both parties were officially notified that they had
mutually accepted a mediator's proposal after months of
unsuccessful mediation sessions and settlement conferences. Tasked
with determining "aggregate class-wide damages" for the class
members' iPhones, Dr. Justine Hastings created a financial model
determining that "Apple's conduct impacted the prices by, on
average, $18.30 per device." Prior to reaching a settlement, Apple
had filed a motion to exclude Dr. Hasting's testimony, which has
yet to be ruled on by the court. In that motion, Apple alleged Dr.
Hastings' calculations "inflated damages by focusing on the 'B to
B' market rather than the consumer market."

Under the proposed agreement, "The number of payments to each
participating Settlement Class Member will be calculated based on
each Settlement Class Member's proportional share of the Net
Settlement Fund" of $18 million, minus costs, and fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith, among others. A motion hearing is scheduled for
September 3. [GN]


AUDIE PRICE: Erwin Seeks Overtime Pay for Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------
RANDY ERWIN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AUDIE PRICE INSPECTION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00506-JD (W.D. Okla., June 1, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Inspector from
approximately October 2017 until January 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But, instead
of paying them overtime at one and one-half times of their regular
rate as required by the FLSA, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Inspectors a flat amount for each day worked
without overtime.

Audie Price Inspection, Inc. is an inspection company focusing on
natural gas pipelines, compressor stations, and processing plants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


AUTOZONE INC: Wilson Sues in E.D. California Over FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AutoZone, Inc. The
case is styled as Mitchell Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AutoZone, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00758-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal., May 29,
2020).

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

AutoZone, Inc., is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories, the largest in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua David Boxer, Esq.
          MILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          880 Las Gallinas Ave., Ste. 2
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Phone: (415) 455-1326
          Fax: (415) 455-1327
          Email: josh@millslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott Ashford Brooks, Esq.
          DAIELS FINE ISRAEL AND SCHONBUCH
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-7900

               - and -

          Matthew John Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (310) 531-1900
          Fax: (310) 531-1901
          Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com


BAIDU INC: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of June 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A., reminds investors that they have until
June 22, 2020 to contact the Firm to learn more about the class
action lawsuit filed against Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQGS:BIDU) and
appointment and qualifications to be considered for the role of
lead plaintiff.  Investors with dlosses exceeding $350,000 are
encouraged to contact the Firm.

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period of March 16, 2019
and April 7, 2020, Baidu materially misled the investing public
regarding its business, operational and compliance policies.  It is
alleged, in part, that during the Class Period, Baidu failed to
disclose that its newsfeed services were not in compliance with
applicable Chinese regulatory standards and said noncompliance
subjected Baidu to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement. On
April 7, 2020, post-market, China's Internet regulator stated that
Baidu's content review on some of its newsfeed channels violated
Chinese laws.  On this news, Baidu's share price fell more than
4%.

Only two days later, Baidu announced that it had suspended updating
its content on certain newsfeed channels to conduct maintenance,
and that it expected the suspension to have an "impact on the
marketing services revenue related to the suspended channels."

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

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

Contact:  

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


BAIDU INC: Rosen Reminds of June 22 Deadline in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) between
March 16, 2019, and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important June 22, 2020 deadline in the class action. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Baidu investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Baidu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1845.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Baidu's feed services were not in compliance with applicable
Chinese regulatory standards; (2) the foregoing noncompliance
subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory
enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of
Baidu's services and products; (3) accordingly, the Company's
revenues derived from its online marketing services were unlikely
to be sustainable; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 22,
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-1845htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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



BAUSCH HEALTH: Norton Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Larouche, Esq. --
caroline.larouche@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Francesca Taddeo,
Esq. -- francesca.taddeo@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton Rose
Fulbright Canada LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the
Quebec Superior Court, in California States Teachers' Retirement
System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. (2020 QCCS 275), recently
clarified the rules applicable to limitation periods in the context
of secondary-market liability actions under the Quebec Securities
Act (QSA).

Much like its Ontario counterpart, s. 225.4 QSA provides for an
authorization mechanism whereby applicants wishing to institute a
secondary-market liability claim against a public issuer must
convince the court that their actions are taken in good faith and
have a "reasonable possibility of success". While such actions can
take on the form of class actions or individual claims, the QSA
also provides for specific limitation periods related to the
institution of these proceedings.

This judgment of the Quebec Superior Court essentially limits the
arguments available to defendants based on those limitation periods
to contest individual claims brought by class members who have
opted out of secondary-market liability class actions. Leave to
appeal was sought before the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Background
Blackrock Assett Management Canada et al. (Blackrock) and the
California States Teachers' Retirement System (Cal) sought
authorization to bring individual secondary-market liability claims
under the QSA against Valeant, its directors and officers and its
auditor (Defendants), claiming that (i) misrepresentations by the
Defendants had caused the price of shares purchased in the
secondary market to be artificially inflated, and (ii) that they
suffered damages further to this information having been publicly
corrected (Motions for Authorization).

On August 29, 2017, prior to Blackrock and Cal having filed the
Motions for Authorization, the Superior Court of Quebec had
authorized a class action in which similar facts were at issue
(Catucci Class Action). Both Blackrock and Cal were originally
members of the Catucci Class Action, but had opted out in order to
bring forth their own individual claims: Blackrock on March 2,
2018, and Cal on December 19, 2018.

Issue
At issue in this matter was whether Blackrock and Cal's respective
claims had been forfeited or were prescribed. Defendants contested
the Motions for Authorization on the grounds that pursuant to the
QSA's limitation periods, Blackrock and Cal had until March 5, 2018
(namely 6 months from the publication of the press release
announcing that authorization had been granted in the Catucci Class
Action) to file their claims on the merits (and in the case of
Blackrock, not simply its Motion for Authorization).

The answer to this question largely centered on the interpretation
of s. 236 (3) QSA, which provides that plaintiffs have 6 months
from the publication of the press release announcing that
authorization to bring a secondary-market liability claim has been
granted to file their individual actions for damages.

Summary of the decision
Justice Kalichman of the Superior Court first determined that s.
236 (3) QSA does not create a delay of forfeiture, but rather sets
out a time limit for actions in secondary-market liability to be
filed. The relevance of this qualification is that a prescriptive
delay (as opposed to a forfeiture delay) can be suspended and
interrupted.

In coming to this conclusion, Justice Kalichman decided to adopt an
interpretation that he viewed as being consistent with the OSA (s.
138.14), which provides for the same time limits (although with a
different formulation). Even if he did not consider that s. 236 (3)
QSA should be interpreted as creating a delay of forfeiture, he
recognized the underlying objectives of the legislator to maintain
predictability and stability in capital markets, as well as to
ensure that actions based on the same alleged misrepresentation be
brought expeditiously.

Justice Kalichman concluded that Blackrock and Cal's claims were
not prescribed, their right to bring forth their individual claims
having been suspended as a result of the filing of the application
for leave to bring the Catucci Class Action. His reasoning can be
summarized as follows:

The 6-month delay provided for in s. 236 (3) QSA began to run after
the publication by the plaintiff of the press release disclosing
the fact that authorization for a secondary-market liability claim
had been granted in the Cattuci Class Action, i.e. on September 5,
2017.

Like the OSA, the QSA does not contain any internal mechanisms to
suspend or interrupt prescription. As such, the rules of the
Quebec's Civil Code governing suspension and interruption of
prescription apply, including those providing that an application
for leave to bring a class action suspends prescription in favour
of all the members of the group for whose benefit it is made (See
article 2908, CCQ). In this case, the filing of the application for
leave to bring the Catucci Class Action on October 26, 2015 had
effectively suspended Blackrock and Cal's claims against Defendants
until they opted out on June 19, 2018, when the prescription began
to run again.

Prescription was then interrupted by the filing of the Motions for
Authorization by Blackrock on March 2, 2018 and by Cal on December
19, 2018 (within the 6-month delay under the QSA), which are to be
considered judicial applications within the meaning of Quebec's
Civil Code. According to Justice Kalichman, the fact that the
legislator requires that authorization be granted before a claim
can be brought under the QSA does not alter the fact that Blackrock
and Cal, via their respective Motions for Authorization, were
clearly seeking recognition of their rights.

Takeaways
As an increasing amount of secondary-market liability class actions
are being filed in Quebec, it will be interesting to assess how
many members opt out to file their own individual actions. This
Superior Court judgment essentially allows those members to seek
authorization to bring individual secondary-market liability claims
under the QSA within a 6-month delay after they have opted out of
the class action. We will keep our eyes open to see whether the
Quebec Court of Appeal agrees to hear the appeal.

            About Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright -- http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com-- is a
global law firm. We provide the world's preeminent corporations and
financial institutions with a full business law service. It has
3800 lawyers and other legal staff based in more than 50 cities
across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia,
Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Recognized for its industry focus, the firm is strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare. [GN]


BB STAR: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BB Star, Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. BB Star, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02397 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020).

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

BB Star was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of men's and boys' apparel and
furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


BBVA USA: Hill Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBVA USA. The case is
styled as Sarah Hill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BBVA USA, an Alabama Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01016-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 2, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed as a Diversity Action.

BBVA USA is a bank holding company headquartered in Birmingham,
Alabama. It has been a subsidiary of the Spanish multinational
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria since 2007 and operates chiefly in
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William Litvak, Esq.
   Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
   11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 550
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (310) 477-5575
   Fax: (310) 477-7090
   Email: wlitvak@drllaw.com



BED BATH: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (NASDAQ:  BBBY) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-05339, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Bed Bath &
Beyond securities between October 2, 2019, and February 11, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Bed Bath & Beyond securities
during the class period, you have until June 15, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  
To discuss this action, contact:

        Robert S. Willoughby
        POMERANTZ LLP
        E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
        Tel: 888.476.6529
        Toll free: 888.4-POMLAW), Ext. 7980
        http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

Bed Bath & Beyond is a retailer that sells a wide variety of
domestics merchandise and home furnishings.  It operates under many
brand names, including Christmas Tree Shops, Harmon, buybuy BABY,
and Cost Plus World Market.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) due to "aggressive disposition
of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key
categories to support holiday sales; (ii) the Company's internal
control over inventory levels and financial reporting were not
effective; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On January 8, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond withdrew its fiscal 2019
guidance, citing pressures on sales and profitability, as well as a
new strategic plan for the Company's operations.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.20 per share, or
over 19%, to close at $13.4 per share on January 9, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on February 11, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond issued a press
release announcing preliminary fourth-quarter 2019 financial
results.  Therein, the Company disclosed "a 5.4% decline in
comparable sales driven primarily by store traffic declines
combined with inventory management issues," including that
"inventory within certain key categories in the Bed Bath & Beyond
assortment was too low or out-of-stock during the period."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.06 per share, or
over 20%, to close at $11.79 per share on February 12, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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

BELMONT VILLAGE: Goodarzi Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FATIMA GOODARZI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P., Delaware limited
partnership; BELMONT VILLAGE ALISO VIEJO CA LP, a Delaware limited
partnership; BELMONT VILLAGE BERKELEY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; BELMONT VILLAGE THOUSAND OAKS CA LP, a Delaware
limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV15572 (Filed April 22, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 29, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04827 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code for failing to pay overtime wages and minimum wages, to
provide meal periods, and to authorize and permit rest breaks.

Belmont Village owns, develops, and operates seniors housing
facilities.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
          Derek S. Sachs, Esq.
          Kelley M. Fox, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 250 1800
          Facsimile: 213 250 7900
          E-Mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Derek.Sachs@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Kelley.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com


BIO TEST: Faces Class Action Over Defective COVID-19 Test Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miskin Law disclosed that false positive test results cause
distress and hardship at an Ontario long-term care facility.

Case Manor Care Community, a long-term care facility in Bobcaygeon,
Ontario, is Covid-19 free.

However, false positive test results for staff and residents
created distress and severe hardship for people living at Case
Manor and those who care for them.

Tests administered April 25 and 26, 2020 showed eight positive
results from 13 people tested.

The defective tests were administered by Bio Test Laboratories,
based in Ottawa, Ontario, using tests provided by Spartan
Bioscience. Suspicions arose May 1, 2020 that test results were in
doubt. New test results, from another lab, which came out on May 4,
2020 showed negative for all concerned.

Miskin Law has been retained on behalf of the people involved and
will be proceeding in the Ontario Court with a Class Action lawsuit
to be issued online for the Superior Court in Peterborough against
the lab and test manufacturer.

Senior lawyer and Managing Director, Murray Miskin says, "The
Bobcaygeon community has already been devastated by Covid-19. To
have false positive test results at Case Manor has made people
terrified and they have suffered genuine financial losses in
addition to emotional harm." The claim is on behalf of staff and
their close friends and family members who have had to stop work
and go into isolation, and also for residents and their families.
Miskin Law is hoping to also work in co-operation with Sienna
Senior Living, the owner of the facility, to recover its financial
losses resulting from the incorrect testing.

                        About Miskin Law

Miskin Law is the leading Canadian law firm for asbestos injury
compensation and is involved in numerous prescription drug and
other injury class actions in addition to local and national
personal injury litigation. Local to Ontario since 1988, the firm
is based in Peterborough with offices in Lindsay and Whitby. [GN]


BLUE APRON: Dismissal Bid Partly Denied in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
April 22, 2020, Judge William F. Kuntz II, of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part
and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud
class action based on purportedly misleading statements in the
prospectus and registration statement (the "Offering Materials")
filed by a subscription-based meal kit service (the "Company") in
connection with its initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint
asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company and certain of its officers. In re Blue
Apron Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-CV-4846 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22,
2020). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, which provides meal
kits to customers through a weekly subscription service, concealed
known risks and made misleading statements concerning challenges
the Company faced with one of its product fulfilment centers.
Although the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss claims that
the Company had failed to disclose risks associated with the
performance of this fulfillment center, it rejected plaintiffs'
claims based on the alleged non-disclosure of declines in a Company
statistic for measuring the number of meal kits delivered on time
with all of their ingredients, which were announced by the Company
in the quarter immediately following the IPO. Confirming that
Section 11 claims generally cannot be based on disclosures in
earnings announcements following an offering, even when the
quarterly earnings announcements closely follow, the Court held
that the complaint failed to allege sufficiently that the declines
were known even though the quarter ended one day after the IPO.

In 2012, the Company began selling ingredient-and-recipe meal kits,
which contained pre-portioned ingredients to cook recipes that
customers selected on the Company's website. In 2016, the Company
announced the construction of a fulfillment center in Linden, New
Jersey that would be outfitted with "state-of-the-art" technology
and enable the Company to ship boxes more quickly and with fewer
errors. Given the enormous logistical complications of packaging
and shipping meals kits on a large scale, the Linden facility was,
according to plaintiffs, a "key part of the pitch to Wall street"
for the IPO, which ultimately launched in July 2017. However,
plaintiffs allege that the Linden facility was experiencing
persistent delays prior to the IPO, and, by May 2017, was producing
just a small fraction of the meals it was expected to ship.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statements in the Offering
Materials touting improving cost and operational efficiencies and
predicting further improvements upon the completion of the Linden
facility were materially misleading because the Company failed to
disclose: (a) existing delays at the Linden facility, (b) declines
in the Company's On-Time-In-Full ("OTIF") rating -- a performance
metric indicating the number of meal kits delivered on time with
all their ingredients, (c) that these delays and low OTIF rates
hurt the Company's customer retention and overall ability to
compete in the marketplace, and (d) as a result of the delays and
low OTIF rates, the Company had reduced its marketing budget and
scrapped an anticipated product expansion.

Although the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to certain
claims based on the Company's alleged non-disclosure of delays at
the Linden facility, it rejected claims based on declines in the
OTIF rating. These claims were based on declines in the OTIF rating
that were disclosed by the Company in the first quarterly earnings
announcement following the IPO, which plaintiffs alleged must have
been known to the Company before the IPO because the quarter ended
one day after the IPO. The Court held that even though the OTIF
rating declines may have materialized by the time of the IPO, the
complaint failed to allege that this was something actually known
at the time of the IPO. The Court observed that "[i]t is not a
reasonable inference to assume prior knowledge based upon actual
knowledge at a later date" (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Court also rejected the product expansion and marketing claims.
With respect to the product expansion claims, the Court held that
the alleged misstatements were forward-looking and that plaintiffs
failed to allege sufficiently that the Company knew that the delays
and declining OTIF rates would limit product expansion. The
allegedly misleading statements about the Company's marketing
efforts were held not to be misleading because the Offering
Materials disclosed that marketing would decrease.

Claims are often asserted under Section 11 when a company discloses
lower than expected results following a securities offering. The
Court's decision stands as a reminder that such claims, which are
often styled as alleged omissions of known intra-quarter trends,
cannot be pleaded based on hindsight, even when the lower than
expected results follow closely after the securities offering.
[GN]


BOOMER HOLDINGS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------
Boomer Holdings Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Boomer Holdings
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02437 (E.D. N.Y., June 2, 2020).

Boomer Holdings, Inc. operates as a tour agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Class Suit Seeks Tuition Refund Amid COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-11021-NMG (D. Mass., May 28, 2020) alleges that Defendant
continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and board as if
nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of
millions of dollars from students including Plaintiff despite
sending students home and closing its campus(es) due to the novel
coronavirus or COVID-19.

While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, Defendant excludes itself from such
other institutions treating students fairly, equitably, and as
required by the law. And for some students and families, Defendant
does so based on outdated financial aid equations and collections,
without taking into account disruptions to family income, a
particular concern now where layoffs and furloughs are at record
levels.

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

Plaintiff is enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020
academic term at Defendant. Plaintiff is in good financial standing
at Defendant, having paid in whole or in combination tuition, fees,
costs, and/or room and board charges assessed and demanded by
Defendant for the Spring 2020 term.

Brandeis University is a private institute of higher education
based in Waltham, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristie LaSalle, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Email: kristiel@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
                 whitneys@hbsslaw.com

BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Detainees Sue Over Coronavirus Testing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vernal Coleman and Gal Tziperman Lotan, writing for Boston Globe,
report that attorneys for detainees at the C. Carlos Carreiro
Immigration Detention Center are seeking to question Bristol County
Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson under oath about a recent, high-profile
melee at the facility over coronavirus testing, according to a
motion filed on May 4 in federal court.

As part of an ongoing class action suit, the attorneys asked a
federal judge to require Hodgson to sit and discuss the May 1
incident, which has sparked calls from federal lawmakers for an
independent investigation and stoked concerns about the handling of
the coronavirus threat inside jails.

Hodgson has said the melee took place after detainees refused
testing, attacked corrections officers, and caused around $25,000
dollars of equipment damage to the facility. Hodgson, long an
advocate of stricter immigration policies, invited reporters on May
2 to tour the facility, and accused immigration advocates and
politicians of fueling the conflict.

Attorneys and advocates for the detainees say the detainees were
assaulted and pepper-sprayed by corrections officers after they
refused testing -- but not out of a desire to avoid it. The
detainees allege that deputies sought to forcibly remove them from
their unit and take them to the facility's medical center or the
solitary confinement unit, which they say is unsafe and
unsanitary.

Ellen Messali, an attorney with New Haven Legal Assistance
Association, which represents several facility detainees, says
Hodgson is trying to discredit the federal class action lawsuit.
Hodgson's version "portrays the detainees as dangerous people who
should not be released, instead of the truth that many of these
people are simply fearful of their health," she said.

Hodgson was holding the detainees for US Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. Attorneys filed a class action lawsuit in April after
several ICE detainees in Bristol County custody complained of
overcrowding and the inability to practice social distancing at the
facility.

The incident began around 7 p.m, when facility medical staffers
approached 10 detainees to transport them out of the unit for
coronavirus testing, officials said. When they refused to leave,
Hodgson arrived to deliver the message directly.

Attorneys for clients in the unit said Hodgson physically
confronted a detainee who was attempting to make a phone call.
Hodgson allegedly tried to grab the phone out of the man's hands.

Attorney Ira Alkalay, who spoke to two detainees about the
incident, said Hodgson told the man, "you're going to regret this,"
then hit him with pepper spray. Several others were also sprayed,
as around 30 to 40 guards rushed into the unit deploying tear gas
and violently subduing detainees, Alkalay said.

Jonathan Darling, a spokesman for Hodgson's office, confirmed that
the sheriff grabbed the phone out of a detainee's hand, but said
the detainee allegedly hit Hodgson with a plastic chair. That's
when chaos broke out, Darling said.

The sheriff and his employees retreated from the area for about an
hour and a half, Darling said, while detainees damaged the
facility. When correctional officers returned, Darling confirmed
that they shot projectile pepper spray into the unit.

No staff members were injured, but three detainees were taken to a
hospital, according to the statement. The nature and extent of
their injuries remains unclear.

Darling said the department is reviewing surveillance video as part
of its investigation into the incident and the US Immigration and
Customs Enforcement has opened its own inquiry.

Members of Massachusetts's congressional delegation issued a letter
on May 3 calling for an independent investigation. Congresswoman
Ayanna Pressley weighed in on May 4, saying the incident "makes
clear the disregard officials at the jail have for the basic
humanity of the individuals in their custody.

"We need an independent investigation into this incident, including
the public release of all security camera footage, to understand
exactly what happened and hold those responsible accountable," she
said in a released statement.

Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of the Boston-based
organization Lawyers for Civil Rights, said the group had been
trying to schedule Hodgson's deposition when the melee happened.

That deposition, Espinoza-Madrigal said, will now include questions
about both what the facility has been doing about the pandemic, as
well as the May 1 events.

"Frankly, we suspect that the incident that took place at Bristol
County on May 1 represents retaliation against our clients for
participating in the coronavirus class action, and for asserting
their legal rights to be freed from unconstitutional detention
conditions," Espinoza-Madrigal said.

As of April 24, 47 detainees at the facility have been released by
a judge over coronavirus-related concerns. [GN]


BY HUMANKIND INC: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
By Humankind, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Angel
Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. By Humankind, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02442 (E.D. N.Y., June 2, 2020).

By Humankind, Inc. provides household products. The Company
manufactures a wide range of personal care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CANADA GOOSE: Facing Lam and Khan Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Canada Goose Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended March 29, 2020, that the company is a
defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Lam v. Canada
Goose Holdings Inc., CV-20-00633971-0000 and a class action suit
entitled, Khan v. Canada Goose Holdings Inc., C.S.
500-06-001038-203.  

In January 2020, a purported company shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992,
against the company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
alleging statutory claims for misrepresentations in the primary
market and secondary market contrary to the Securities Act
(Ontario) as well as common law liability.

The plaintiff alleges that the company made misrepresentation
concerning the sourcing of down and fur products used in its
clothing and that it omitted to disclose an investigation by the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission which artificially inflated the price
of the company's shares.

This class action, Lam v. Canada Goose Holdings Inc.,
CV-20-00633971-0000, is still in its early stages and leave to file
a statutory misrepresentation claim has not been granted nor has
the class action been authorized.  

The plaintiff initially sought leave to represent all Canadian
shareholders who held the company's shares during the class period
and has since filed an amendment purporting to exclude Quebec
shareholders.

Later in January 2020, another purported company shareholder filed
another class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Quebec (Khan
v. Canada Goose Holdings Inc., C.S. 500-06-001038-203) which
essentially raises the same allegations as the Ontario action but
the class is limited to shareholders who are residents of the
province of Quebec.

Leave to file a securities action under the Securities Act (Quebec)
has not been granted nor has the class action been authorized.

The company intends to vigorously defend against both actions.  

Canada Goose said, "However, we are unable to predict the outcome
of this action or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if
any, and cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, at
this time."

Canada Goose Holdings Inc. is a Canadian holding company of winter
clothing manufacturers. The company was founded in 1957 by Sam
Tick, under the name Metro Sportswear Ltd.


CAPITAL ONE: Bradford Sues Over Unlawful Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01871 (S.D. Tex., May 28, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Debt Collection
Act.

Plaintiff, who was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of
the cellular telephone number ending in 7679, has applied for and
was issued a credit card from Defendant and fell behind on his
payments due to an unanticipated financial hardship.

According to the complaint, Defendant left a prerecorded voicemail
to Plaintiff's cellular phone on May 12, 2020 in an attempt to
collect Plaintiff's debt. Plaintiff responded and advised
Defendant's representative that he was in the process of filing
bankruptcy and requested Defendant to cease from its collection
calls. However, Defendant continued placing collection calls to
Plaintiff's cellular phone and leaving prerecorded messages.

Plaintiff claims that his privacy has been invaded by Defendant's
collection calls and caused him actual harm.

Capital One, N.A. is a banking institution that issues loans and
credit cards to consumers throughout Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Ave., Ste. 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630) 575-8180
          Emails: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


CAPSULE CORPORATION: Nisbett Sues in S.D.N.Y Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capsule Corporation.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Capsule Corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04131 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020).

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

Capsule Corporation operates a chain of pharmacy stores. The
Company offers injections, medicines, and chemical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CARTER'S RETAIL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Carter's
Retail, Inc., alleging that the company failed to provide accurate
wages and allegedly did not provide required rest periods to their
California employees. The class action lawsuit against Carter's
Retail, Inc., is currently pending in the Orange Superior Court,
Case No. 30-2020-01138792-CU-OE-CXC.

The lawsuit filed against Carter's Retail, Inc., alleges the
company failed to accurately pay PLAINTIFF for all the time they
were under DEFENDANT's control. Allegedly, Carter's Retail, Inc.,
unlawfully and unilaterally failed to accurately calculate wages
for overtime worked by their employees in order to avoid paying
them the correct overtime compensation. State law provides that
employees must be paid overtime at one-and-one-half times their
"regular rate of pay."

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges DEFENDANT required PLAINTIFF to
work while clocked out during what was supposed to be PLAINTIFF's
off-duty meal break. Further, DEFENDANT failed to provide PLAINTIFF
and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members with a second off-duty meal period
from time to time in which these employees were required by
DEFENDANT to work ten (10) hours of work. According to the
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order, DEFENDANT is
required to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for
all time worked.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Carter's Retail, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to Attorney
Nicholas De Blouw.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Orange County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco
County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees
on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid
wages,overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful
termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.

***THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT*** [GN]


CBD AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Heavy Metal Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. R. Pegg, writing for IEG Policy, reports that a Missouri-based
CBD company has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the
company falsely claims its products are free of heavy metals.

Complaint contests CBD American Shaman's claim its products contain
no copper, lead, and other contaminants. [GN]


CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Hightower Alleges Telescope Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL HIGHTOWER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC; SYNTA
CANADA INT'L ENTERPRISES LTD.; SKYWATCHER USA; SKY-WATCHER CANADA;
SW TECHNOLOGY CORP.; OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.; OLIVON USA,
LLC; COREY LEE; SYLVIA SHEN; JEAN SHEN; JOSEPH LUPICA; DAVE
ANDERSON; LAURENCE HUEN; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-03639 (N.D. Cal., June 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' unfair competition and violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and the
Cartwright Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired with one
another in order to fix prices of consumer telescopes, divide the
market, retaliate against competitors, mislead U.S. authorities,
illegally acquire assets, and dominate the U.S. distribution
market. As a result of this unlawful conspiracy, Defendant
Celestron controls at least 70% of all U.S. consumer telescope
sales, including sales to consumers like Plaintiff and his fellow
class members, who are forced to pay supracompetitive prices.
Moreover, in addition to colluding on pricing of consumer
telescopes, the Defendants and their co-conspirators, who should
have been competing against one another, operated their businesses
as a conglomerate for the mutual benefit of one another.

The Defendants' unlawful practices were revealed to the public in
September 2019 when documents were unsealed in an antitrust
proceeding brought by Optronic Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Orion
Telescopes & Binoculars, where a jury awarded over $52,000,000 in
damages against Defendants' co-conspirators.

Celestron Acquisition, LLC is an importer and seller of telescopes
in the U.S. and abroad. It is headquartered in Torrance,
California.

Synta Canada Int'l Enterprises Ltd. is a Canadian telescope
manufacturing company.

Skywatcher USA is a telescope seller headquartered in Southern
California.

Sky-Watcher Canada is a wholly-owned subsidiary of telescope
company Synta Technology Corp.

SW Technology Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of telescope
company Synta Technology Corp.

Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is a telescope distributor
headquartered in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.

Olivon USA, LLC is a telescope distributor headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         J. Noah Hagey, Esq.
         Matthew Borden, Esq.
         Ronald J. Fisher, Esq.
         Gunnar Martz, Esq.
         Athul K. Acharya, Esq.
         BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
         351 California Street, 10th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 599-0210
         Facsimile: (415) 276-1808
         E-mail: hagey@braunhagey.com
                 borden@braunhagey.com
                 fisher@braunhagey.com
                 martz@braunhagey.com
                 acharya@braunhagey.com

CENTENE CORP: Harvey Appeals Class Certification Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Harvey has filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal asking
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revise a trial
court decision rejecting her motion for class certification in the
case, Harvey et al v. Centene Corporation et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-00012 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 11, 2018).

Opening Brief is due Sept. 4, 2020.  Appellees Brief is due Oct. 5,
2020.

Following a hearing held May 12, 2020, District Judge Salvador
Mendoza Jr. ruled that, because the Court finds there are superior
alternatives to a class action to resolve Plaintiff's claims, and
because necessary individualized determinations make a class action
impractical, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
of all Ambetter customers between 2012 and the present."

Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on January 11, 2018, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and
Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and
state requirements for provider networks and directories with
regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to
pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances
adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. In
March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each
defendant.

In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First Amended
Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff, dropped
Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants,
abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington
State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant.

In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second
Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a
Third Amended Complaint, on November 28, 2018, against Centene
Management Company and Coordinated Care Corporation (Defendants),
both subsidiaries of the Company. Defendants filed an answer on
December 12, 2018.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 8,
2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

Centene said, "Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many
uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of
operations."

Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a
healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to
government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured
and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two
segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides
member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in
accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also
provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist
members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company
is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Faces Class Action Over Union Dues
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Masterson, writing for wttw, reports that a pair of educators
are suing the Chicago Teachers Union and the Board of Education,
claiming their First Amendment rights "to stop subsidizing CTU and
its speech" have been violated by an "unconstitutional policy"
forcing them to pay union dues.

The class-action lawsuit filed in federal court on May 4 challenges
a CTU policy that only allows nonmembers to terminate their union
dues during an "escape period" each August. The plaintiffs, Joanne
Troesch and Ifeoma Nkemdi, claim this violates First Amendment
protections defined by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2018
ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.

"This is another anti-worker lawsuit from a reactionary,
Koch-funded law project, filed as part of a coordinated, national
right-wing effort aimed at undermining the rights of workers and
their unions," CTU General Counsel Robert Bloch said in a statement
on May 5.

"We operate stringently within the letter of the law, including
Section 11.1 of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, which
governs dues collection procedures. We expect the court to reject
this lawsuit out of hand."

Troesch works as a technology coordinator at Jones College Prep,
while Nkemdi teaches second grade at Newberry Math and Science
Academy.

In the lawsuit, both women state that in 2017, they signed a form
authorizing the Board of Education to deduct CTU dues and
contributions to the union's Political Action Committee from their
paychecks.

A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Janus decision,
which meant Illinois could no longer force public workers
--including teachers -- who chose not to join unions to pay
"fair-share" fees that fund collective bargaining efforts.

According to their lawsuit, Troesch and Nkemdi didn't know they had
a constitutional right "not to financially support the CTU" until
last fall, when they each conducted research about how to continue
working during the teachers union's October strike.

When they learned they wouldn't have to continue paying dues if
they weren't union members, they each sought to resign their CTU
memberships and told the board they no longer authorized them to
deduct union dues or fees from their paychecks.

"Per the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. AFSCME, I cannot
be required to pay any dues or fees to a union to maintain my job,"
both Troesch and Nkemdi wrote in identical letters addressed to the
union last October. "Therefore, neither the Union nor my Employer
is authorized to enforce any authorization."

CTU Financial Secretary Maria Moreno responded to the women in
November, informing them that in accordance with the original union
agreement they signed, the "dues revocation window" extends only
from Aug. 1 to Aug. 31. Thus, Troesch and Nkemdi would have to
continue paying dues until Sept. 1, 2020.

According to the lawsuit, those deductions have continued since
last November.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is
providing Troesch and Nkemdi with pro bono legal representation in
the case, is asking a federal judge to order the CTU and Board of
Education to reimburse their clients for those dues and stop
enforcing the "escape period" policy -- which it dubbed
"unconstitutional."

"Once again, teacher union officials are violating the First
Amendment Janus rights of teachers they claim to represent just so
they can keep the teachers' hard-earned money rolling into their
union's coffers," Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work
Foundation, said in a statement.

"The Foundation is proud to stand with Ms. Troesch and Ms. Nkemdi,
and will continue to defend all educators who simply want to serve
their students and community without being forced to subsidize
union activities."

Spokespersons from Chicago Public Schools did not respond to a
request for comment on May 5. [GN]


CHINA: Lawyers to Present Coronavirus Cover-Up Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Olson, writing for Fox News, reports that the lawyers behind
one of the several class-action lawsuits against China claim to
present a damning narrative with new information on the alleged
cover-up of the coronavirus crisis in its early stages by the
Chinese government in an amended complaint filed on May 4.

The allegations in the suit extensively detail Chinese research
into bat coronaviruses at a lab in Wuhan, China, claiming that's
where the disease first appeared, and China's alleged knowledge
about, and ensuing cover-up of, the outbreak.

Fox News has reported that U.S. intelligence agencies are
investigating whether the coronavirus may have escaped from a
research lab in Wuhan. Sources told Fox News that the genome
mapping of the virus shows it was not genetically altered or
engineered to be made as a bioweapon, but that they believe the
research into the virus was part of an effort to show that China's
ability to identify and combat viruses is equal or greater than
that of the U.S.

Among the new allegations in the amended complaint are that China's
"Surveillance Reporting System" (SRS), which is designed to detect
outbreaks of diseases like the coronavirus, was kneecapped by
orders to doctors to not report information about the coronavirus.

"The SRS failed here, because the Wuhan doctors and hospitals were
forbidden from entering the information, and the doctor-controlled
Chinese CDC was overridden by the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]
controlled WHC [Wuhan Health Commission]," the suit reads.

"On December 30, 2019, WHC released a notice to medical
institutions that patients visiting the Wuhan Seafood Market had
contracted a pneumonia-like illness," it continues. "The notice
warned medical professionals: 'Any organizations or individuals are
not allowed to release treatment information to the public without
authorization.'"

The Berman Law Group, which is running this particular class-action
suit against China, said in a statement that it believes the new
information bolsters its case, which faces significant obstacles
like the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a law that
generally prevents American citizens from suing other countries
except in a handful of exceptions.

"[T]he Communist Government of China clearly hid the apparent
leaking at the lab, failed to properly contain the virus, withheld
disclosure of the ease of human-to-human transmission, and allowed
the virus to needlessly devastate the world," the statement says.
"CCP also silenced all Chinese doctors from speaking the truth and
made them acquiesce to their terms. Their direct actions will allow
us to overcome old obstacles and properly hold them accountable in
the U.S. Courts."

Some of the new information in the firm's suit, particularly about
the failure of the SRS, comes from a report, shared with Fox News,
compiled by Dr. Wang Weiluo, a Chinese scientist in Germany with a
history of being critical of the Chinese government. The report is
a compilation of other reports that have previously been made
public, but forms a timeline that purports to build proof of the
Chinese government's malfeasance.

The suit also cites other information, including retribution
against doctors who raised the alarm about the coronavirus, details
Chinese officials' interaction with outside organizations --
including its denial to the WHO that human transmission of the
virus is possible -- and that the Chinese government was already
conducting tests "on patients with COVID-19 symptoms between Dec.
18 and 29, 2019, with symptoms attributed to '[a] novel bat-borne
[coronavirus].'"

Additionally, the amended complaint filed on May 4 adds dozens of
new plaintiffs to the suit.

This suit is just one of at least seven in American courts against
China over the coronavirus, and one of five seeking an undetermined
amount of monetary damages. One is seeking $20 trillion and another
seeks $8 trillion.

Some American legal observers, including Yale Law Professor Stephen
L. Carter, have said it is unlikely any of the suits will be able
to advance because of the FSIA. But the Berman lawyers say their
case should fall under the exceptions to that act.

"The suit also incorporates new jurisdictional statements from
research on the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), as well as a
reference to the 9/11 FSIA exception law passed in 2016," the
firm's statement on the amended complaint says.

Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report. [GN]


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Uptown Dental Files Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cincinnati
Insurance Company. The case is styled as DMD Betty Jo
Hirschfield-Louik, t/a Uptown Dental, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, trading as Uptown Dental, Plaintiff
v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Casualty
Company and The Cincinnati Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00816-MRH (W.D. Pa, June 3, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company, operating since 1950, stands
among the nation's top 25 property casualty insurer groups based on
net written premiums.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com



CNA FINANCIAL: Sued for Refusing to Cover COVID-Related Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that a
Kansas City, Missouri, radiology practice is suing its commercial
insurer after the company refused to cover losses caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Alliance Radiology first filed suit against CNA Financial Corp. on
April 29, saying it has lost business as leaders have looked to
comply with state orders to postpone nonurgent imaging. The 28-rad
practice said its policy does not have a virus-related exclusion,
and believes the pandemic constitutes "physical damage," which
would trigger a payout, Business Insurance reported on May 1.

In making its case for the class action suit, Alliance Radiology is
citing the "sue and labor" clause. Such policies are typically
found in maritime insurance and are meant to make policyholders
whole, for instance, if they need to toss cargo off of a ship to
prevent it from sinking, the report noted.

The practice said in the suit that its sue-and-labor clause
requires it to take steps to protect its property from damage.
Leaders have done so, they argue, by complying with the state's
stay-at-home orders. Several major policy holders similarly cited
sue-and-labor clauses when suing for Y2K-related business losses in
the year 2000. [GN]


CRIMSHIELD INC: Foley Sues Over Background Check
-------------------------------------------------
The case TRAVIS FOLEY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRIMSHIELD, INC., a
domestic for-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-00929-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2020) alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 ("FCRA")
by providing consumer reports used for employment purposes without
certification from Jaguar Technologies, Inc. and other users to
whom it provided consumer reports that such users would abide by
the FCRA's disclosure, authorization and notice requirements.

According to the complaint, in the procedure and system used by
Jaguar and CrimShield, both entities participated in taking the
alleged adverse action against Plaintiff. CrimShield initially used
a consumer report for determining whether or not an applicant was
eligible for employment based on pre-determined criteria. After
CrimShield made its determination, Jaguar abided by CrimShield's
determination and denied employment to applicants/consumers deemed
ineligible.

The Defendant also violated the FCRA by furnishing consumer reports
containing public information likely to have an adverse effect on a
consumer's ability to obtain employment but failing to provide at
the time notification to the consumer that such information was
being reported and to whom it was being reported.

CrimShield, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency headquartered in
Mesa, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

CUROLOGY INC: Slade Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Curology, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda
Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Curology, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04198 (S.D. N.Y., June 2, 2020).

Curology, Inc. produces and ships prescription skincare products
for acne and anti-aging. The Company offers medications for various
treatments that include acne, clogged pores, dark spots, skin
firmness, texture, and wrinkles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DARP INC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Rulings in Fochtman Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DARP, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion & Orders dated March 9, 2018, June 27, 2018,
January 31, 2019, and September 27, 2019, Supplemental Opinion &
Order dated November 12, 2019, and Order and Judgment both dated
April 20, 2020, and Order dated May 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
styled Mark Fochtman, et al. v. DARP, Inc., Case No.
5:18-cv-05047-TLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Timothy
L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' request for damages in their Motion for Summary
Judgment.

On Sept. 27, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.  The Court
denied Defendant DARP's and Defendant Hendren's motions, but
granted in part and deferred ruling in part on the Plaintiffs'
motion. In particular, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment with respect to liability, finding that the
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages owed to the
class for their failure to pay minimum-wage and overtime
compensation. With respect to the calculation of damages, however,
the Court deferred its ruling in favor of receiving supplemental
briefing on two of the Defendants' affirmative defenses.

In particular, the Court asked the Plaintiffs to consider: (1)
whether the Defendants were entitled to a credit against damages
for the value of in-kind services provided to the class in an
amount equal to the statutory cap of $0.30 per hour, as provided in
Section 11-4-213(a) of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"); and
(2) whether the Defendants were entitled to a credit against
damages for the value of so-called "stipend" payments that DARP
made to certain class members for their successful completion of
the program.

In summary, the class members will receive compensatory damages for
all regular and overtime hours they worked at Hendren while
residing at DARP. The parties agree that these hours translate to
$615,308.44 in regular compensation and $20,909.06 in overtime
compensation. The Defendants are entitled to the maximum statutory
credit against the compensatory damages award for the value of the
in-kind services they provided the class members when they resided
at DARP's facility. The Plaintiffs stipulate that these in-kind
services were actually provided to the class and that the Court
should apply the full $0.30-per-hour deduction on all regular hours
worked, per Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-213(a). The only remaining
question to resolve regarding the $0.30-per-hour deduction is
whether it applies to regular hours, overtime hours, or both.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Fochtman, et al. v. DARP,
Inc., Case No. 20-2068, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 7, 2020;

   -- Appendix is due on July 17, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellants Hendren Plastics, Inc. and DARP, Inc.
      is due on July 17, 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 Mark Fochtman, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          John T. Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 W. Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net   
                 tim@johnholleman.net

Defendant-Petitioner DARP, Inc., is represented by:

          William B. Putnam, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW FIRM
          112 W. Center Street
          P.O. Box 3457
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-0000
          Telephone: (501) 443-5222


DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
KDKA reports that Dick's Sporting Goods is facing a class action
lawsuit from 18 assistant store managers in 14 states related to
overtime payments.

The Pittsburgh-based company is accused of violating several laws
regarding unpaid overtime.

The assistant managers say the company classified them as "exempt"
from overtime; however, they claim state and federal laws do not.

In a statement, attorney Gregg I. Shavitz, from the firm that filed
the suit, said, "Dick's Sporting Goods settled a similar overtime
lawsuit for assistant store managers nationally for $10 million in
2016. The lawsuit claims Assistant Store Managers continue to work
long uncompensated overtime hours."

They are now asking for overtime pay and other damages dating back
three years.

In April, Dick's furloughed thousands of its employees due to the
Coronavirus pandemic. [GN]


DOLLAR TREE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Ex-Employee's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that an agreement in principle
has been reached to settle the class action suit initiated by a
former employee of the company.

In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging that the company failed to
provide all non-exempt California store employees with compliant
rest and meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements
and final pay upon termination of employment.

Dollar Tree said, "We have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter which will be submitted to the court for
approval."

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.

DOLLAR TREE: Facing N.Y. Consumer Suit Over Almond Milk Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the company is a defendant
in a consumer class action suit filed in New York, related to its
mislabeling of its Almond Milk product with "Vanilla" featured
prominently on its packaging.

In January 2020, a consumer class action was filed against the
company in New York alleging Almond Milk sold by the company with
"Vanilla" featured prominently on its packaging is mislabeled
because it does not contain the expected amount, type, and
proportion of vanilla relative to non-vanilla flavor components.
The legal claims include New York consumer protection laws,
negligent misrepresentations, breach of warranties, fraud and
unjust enrichment.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DONEGAL INSURANCE: Denies COVID-19 Insurance Claims, Lawsuit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRUNCH LOGISTICS INC., T/A MONTY’S SANDWICH SHOP., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DONEGAL
INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02525-TJS (E.D. Pa.,
May 28, 2020) is a class action seeking declaratory relief arising
from Plaintiff and Class members' insurance contracts after
Defendant has provided Plaintiff a letter denying any and all
claims for business losses amid the global coronavirus disease 2019
pandemic.

Defendant issued an insurance policy to Plaintiff (policy number is
BOP-9019101) that included coverage for business interruption
losses, incurred by Plaintiff from October 16, 2019 until October
16, 2020. The policy, currently in full effect, includes coverage
for, among other things, business personal property, civil
authority and extended business income.

According to the complaint, the Defendant asserts its insurance
policies do not provide coverage for business interruption closures
for all similarly situated Class members because of the "Exclusion
Of Loss Due To Virus Or Bacteria." Defendant also asserts that
there is no coverage under the policy's Business Income, Extra
Expense, and Civil Authority provisions because they each require
direct physical loss of or damage to property, which it claims does
not exist here or, upon information and belief, for any similarly
situated Class member. On information and belief, Donegal sent a
letter or would intend to send a similar to all Class members that
file a business interruption claim in these circumstances.

Plaintiff further seeks a Declaratory Judgment affirming that
Defendant's Policies provide coverage to Plaintiff and the Class
for any current and future business personal property losses, loss
of business income, and extended business income losses as a result
of Civil Authority Orders affecting the operation of their business
due to physical loss or damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Crunch Logistics Inc. owns, operates, manages, and/or controls
Monty's Sandwich Shop in Pennsylvania.

Donegal Insurance Group is an insurance carrier headquartered in
Marietta, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                 kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Laurence Berman, Esq.
          Frederick Longer, Esq.
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          Michael Weinkowitz, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com
                 flonger@lfsblaw.com
                 dlevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                 rachel.boyd@beasleyallen.com
                 paul.evans@beasleyallen.com

DREW UNIVERSITY: Dougherty Seeks Tuition Refund Due to COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTA DOUGHERTY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DREW UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-06518-SRC-CLW (D. N.J., May 28, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for the
Spring 2020 Semester at Drew University, and who, because of
Defendant's response to the novel Coronavirus ("COVID-19")
pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid,
and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having
their tuition and fees refunded to them.

According to the complaint, Defendant has not held any in-person
classes since at least March 10, 2020. Classes that have continued
have only been offered in an online format, with no in person
instruction.

As a result of the closure of Defendant's facilities, Defendant has
not delivered students the educational services, facilities, access
and/or opportunities for which Ms. Dougherty and the putative class
contracted and paid. The online learning options being offered to
Drew University students are subpar in practically every aspect,
from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty.
Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote
learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person
education for which Plaintiff and the putative class members
contracted and paid.

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

Drew University is a private university with its principal place of
business in Madison, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          1990 North California Blvd. Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

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

DUNKIN BRANDS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Chen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding wrote an article in JD Supra on the Second Circuit
affirming dismissal of false advertising class action involving
Dunkin Brands Inc., holding that registering to do business in New
York does not constitute consent to general personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, the Second Circuit upheld the Eastern District of New
York's dismissal of false advertising claims against Dunkin Donuts,
rejecting the out-of-state plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The court held that registering to do business in New
York does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction in the
State—an issue of first impression in the circuit. The court also
rejected the remaining New York plaintiff's claims on the merits.

* In 2018, five named plaintiffs filed a class action suit
  alleging that Dunkin Donuts deceptively marketed its Angus
  Steak & Egg Breakfast Sandwich and Angus Steak & Egg Wake-Up
  Wrap to consumers. Plaintiffs' main beef with Dunkin Donuts
  was that the company's ads allegedly deceived consumers into
  believing that the sandwiches contained an "intact" steak,
  even though the sandwiches actually contained ground beef
  patties with additives. Plaintiffs asserted violations of
  various state consumer protection laws, including New York
  General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350, and the Magnuson-Moss
  Warranty Act.

  -- Dunkin Donuts is incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in
     Massachusetts, and has franchises throughout New York. It
     is registered to do business in New York under New York
     Business Corporation Law Sec.  1301.

* The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that
  Dunkin Donuts could not be subject to general personal
  jurisdiction in New York with respect to the claims of the
  four named plaintiffs who purchased sandwiches at franchises
  in other states. The court also held that Dunkin Donuts'
  advertisements were neither deceptive nor misleading to a
  reasonable consumer.

* On appeal, the Second Circuit first addressed the plaintiffs'
  contention that Dunkin Donuts consented to general personal
  jurisdiction by registering to do business and designating an
  agent for service of process in New York. New York's highest
  court has not decided whether the act of registering to do
  business under Sec.  1301 confers general jurisdiction over a
  non-resident defendant.

  -- The Second Circuit observed that, while inferior New York
     courts were divided on the issue, New York's intermediate
     appellate courts had uniformly interpreted the act of
     registering under Sec.  1301 as consenting to general
     jurisdiction in the State. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's
     decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the court explained that
     a state's exercise of general personal jurisdiction over a
     foreign corporation will not comport with due process
     unless the corporation's affiliations with the state are so
     "continuous and systematic" as to render the corporation
     essentially at home in the forum. As a result, a
     corporation is "at home" only where it is incorporated or
     has its principal place of business, absent an "exceptional
     case."

  -- The court expressed reservations about whether Daimler
     permitted a state to coerce a foreign corporation to
     consent to general jurisdiction merely by registering to do
     business in the forum state. Such coercion raised
     constitutional concerns in the post-Daimler general
     jurisdiction regime.

  -- Moreover, nothing in the text of Sec. 1301 expressly
     conditioned registration on consent to general jurisdiction
     in the state. Accordingly, the court predicted that New
     York's highest court would hold that registering to do
     business under Sec.  1301 was not sufficient to confer
     general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.

  -- Dunkin Donuts also was not subject to general jurisdiction
     based on the presence of franchises in New York, as there
     was no showing that the company's relationship with New
     York was in any way significant compared to its nationwide
     activity.

* As for the merits, the court rejected the New York plaintiff's
  Secs. 349 and 350 claims, which were based on the allegation
  that Dunkin's television advertisements were deceptive because
  they used the word "steak." The ads all concluded with
  multiple zoomed-in images that clearly depicted the "steak" in
  the sandwiches as a beef patty. The court also noted that the
  word "steak" can be defined as "ground beef prepared for
  cooking or for serving in the manner of a steak," which meant
  that Dunkin's descriptions of the sandwiches would not have
  misled a reasonable consumer.

* The Second Circuit's general jurisdiction analysis confirms
  that non-resident plaintiffs face a high bar in suing a
  corporation that is not incorporated or headquartered in the
  forum state, at least absent some connection between the
  plaintiff's claims and the defendant's forum-based activities.

The case is Chen v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc., No. 18-3087-cv (2d Cir.).
[GN]


E.C. ROUSTABOUT: Underpays Laborers, Pena Claims
------------------------------------------------
The case, YORDANIS PENA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E.C. ROUSTABOUT SERVICE, INC., and
ERNESTO CARDENAS, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00137 (W.D. Tex.,
May 28, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful pay
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a pusher/laborer from
approximately February 2017 through May 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week. But, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for
overtime worked in excess of 40 hours and instead, paid Plaintiff
at a reduced hourly rate for all hours worked.

Moreover, Defendant failed to maintain accurate time and pay
records for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees.

E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. is an oilfield services company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          Website: https://www.mooreandassociates.net/


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, 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 the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al.


On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold
Holdings and Oak Valley Resources, LLC.

The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution agreement
dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the
"Bold Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone, EEH,
Lynden US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold.

The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the business
combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement (the "Bold
Transaction") to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain
adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On
February 6, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments
from the Plaintiff's and Defendants' counsel.

On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes.

Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are
entirely without merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.

Earthstone said, "The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain,
and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential
monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this
time."

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

Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


ECOLAB: Hospital Workers File Class Action Over OxyCide
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Bradley, writing for Daily Hornet, reports that in
February, a class action lawsuit was filed by three hospital
workers who developed long-term health problems after using
OxyCide(TM) Daily Disinfectant Cleaner, a powerful
hospital-cleaning chemical.

OxyCide is advertised as a way to boost hospital safety by
eliminating hard-to-kill microbes, like spores of Clostridium
difficle. Unfortunately, it is making housekeeping workers and
nurses sick.

"Some of our members started complaining of fairly severe
symptoms," said the president of AFT-Vermont, a union representing
healthcare professionals.

OxyCide has been used at over 500 hospitals nationwide since it was
introduced in early 2013 by Minnesota-based Ecolab Inc.

Since 2013, hospital workers have consistently reported health
problems, including burning eyes, nose and throat symptoms,
coughing, headaches, dizziness, nausea, nose bleeds, asthma-like
symptoms, lung irritation, skin burns, rashes, and breathing
problems.

OxyCide contains a dangerous mixture of chemicals, including
Peroxyacetic Acid (PAA), a substance that is known to trigger
asthma-like reactions even at low levels.

"It's like working with onions," one hospital worker told the
Pittsburgh City Paper. "You have no relief, unless you take a break
and go some place that's well ventilated so you can get some air."

In 2015, several employees at a hospital in Pittsburgh filed
complaints about OxyCide. Most of the complaints came from
Environmental Services (EVS) technicians who were using OxyCide,
but a large number of nurses and medical assistants also reported
health effects.

Their complaints resulted in a federal investigation by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
which released a Health Hazard Report in 2016, based on multiple
inspections during 2015.

During to the NIOSH investigation, workers commonly reported eye
and airway symptoms due to OxyCide -- especially when cleaning
areas with poor ventilation, such as bathrooms, shower stalls, or
closets.

Investigators were also concerned about the long-term health
effects of OxyCide. Despite low levels of exposure to OxyCide,
several workers at the Pittsburgh hospital had chronic airway
problems.

Asthma and other chronic breathing problems were also more common
among nursing staff. As early as 2007, multiple case reports have
described asthma caused by PAA exposure in hospital workers.

In 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed by a woman who worked as
an EVS technician at Mercy One Hospital in Mason City, Iowa, where
she used OxyCide to disinfect facilities.

The lawsuit accuses Ecolab of failing to adequately test OxyCide
for safety, or warn hospitals about the potential risk to their
employees.

The issue is with the OxyCide Dilution Management System. The
product's safety-data sheet recommends that workers wear goggles,
gloves, aprons, and respirators if non-diluted OxyCide is handled.

However, protective gear is not recommended when OxyCide is used in
its diluted form, which is how it is typically used by hospital
workers.

Lawyers claim that Ecolab jeopardized worker safety by promoting
their product as safe to use without adequate protective gear.
Ecolab is also accused of failing to issue a recall or update
safety warnings, which continues to threaten hospital workers'
health and safety.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2020 in the U.S. District Court
for Minnesota -- Case No. 0:20-cv-00570-SRN-ECW. [GN]


EDUCATIONDYNAMICS LLC: Steele Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
GENNA STEELE, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONDYNAMICS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00731-KAD (D. Conn., May 28, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant sent pre-recorded messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number 203-XXX-4562 on April 15, 17
and 21, 2020 in an attempt to promote its online education
services. Plaintiff was not interested in any such program and did
not provide prior express written consent to receive such calls
from Defendant.

Plaintiff claims that her privacy has been invaded by Defendant's
calls and she was temporarily deprived of legitimate use of her
phone.

EducationDynamics, LLC provides marketing and information services
for higher educational institutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (617) 485-0018
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


ELKTON FCI: Seeks Sixth Cir. Review in Wilson Habeas Corpus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Mark Williams and Michael Carvajal filed an
appeal from a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Craig
Wilson, et al. v. Mark Williams, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00794, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Youngstown.

Mark Williams is sued in his official capacity as Warden of Elkton
Federal Correctional Institution.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the emergency
habeas action was brought by the inmates at Elkton Federal
Correctional Institution, seeking release from Elkton due to the
spread of COVID-19 within the prison. The Petitioners claim to
represent both a class of all Elkton inmates, as well as a subclass
of medically vulnerable inmates.

The appellate case is captioned as Craig Wilson, et al. v. Mark
Williams, et al., Case No. 20-3547, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Petitioners-Appellees CRAIG WILSON, ERIC BELLAMY, KENDAL NELSON and
MAXIMINO NIEVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David Joseph Carey, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF COLUMBUS
          1108 City Park Avenue, Suite 203
          Columbus, OH 43206
          Telephone: (614) 586-1972

Respondents-Appellants MARK WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as
Warden of Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, and MICHAEL
CARVAJAL, in his official capacity as the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Director, are represented by:

           James Raymond Bennett, II, Esq.
           OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
           801 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 400
           Cleveland, OH 44113
           Telephone: (216) 622-3600


EMORY UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Downey, writing for AJC, reports that across the country,
college students are filing lawsuits and launching petitions
alleging their virtual experience was inferior to their in-person
classes, and they are entitled to reimbursement of tuition and
fees.

Among the colleges facing legal challenges are Emory, University of
Miami, Michigan State, Columbia, Purdue, Drexel and Liberty.While
the students understand their campuses had to close in the face of
the coronavirus pandemic, they contend, as a lawsuit against the
University of Pittsburgh says, that virtual instruction is a
"materially deficient and insufficient alternative."  Students have
begun petition drives at dozens of campuses seeking refunds for
their Covid-19 quarter.

A petition at UCLA states:

"Due to COVID-19 the world has changed drastically. Governments
worldwide are taking extreme measures to prevent the virus from
spreading. In times like this, the access to a remote-form of
education is highly valuable."

"Nonetheless, I speak for many that remote-learning does not have
the same value as attending classes in person. And thus, we should
not have to pay the same amount of tuition for services we are not
having."

One of the campuses named in a lawsuit is Emory University in
Atlanta.  A class-action lawsuit filed on May 8 alleges that
students deserve a repayment of tuition in light of COVID-19.

The law firm in the case, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, has
filed similar suits against the University of Southern California,
Boston University, Brown University, George Washington University
and Vanderbilt University.

"We believe that Emory's community -- the students that regularly
fill its campus, and the parents and guardians who afford their
enrollment -- deserve payback for the tens of thousands of dollars
they paid for tuition and other expenses following Emory's campus
closure and lack of accessible resources to its student body," said
attorney Steve Berman in a statement. In its response statement,
Emory said: "When the spring semester was disrupted by COVID-19,
Emory University continued to provide our students with an
excellent education as they make academic progress toward earning a
degree. "Essentially, the lawsuit argues students signed up for
Emory, not the University of Phoenix. The lawsuit contends the
shift to online classes limited students access to professors,
functional lectures and activities.

"In matriculating at Emory University, Plaintiff, like other
students, enrolled at Defendant for in-person classes to obtain a
hands-on educational experience, avail herself of top academic
instruction, and directly interact with faculty and classmates to
increase her knowledge. On top of this, Plaintiff enrolled at
Defendant to obtain not only the many benefits of Emory University
as a whole but also the small-school, small class size environment
promoted by Defendant."

Whereas Plaintiff could previously connect with her professors and
classmates, Plaintiff's lecture-based classes immediately decreased
in quality. Some of Plaintiff's lectures went from in-person
sessions to pre-recorded, asynchronous lectures, or a mix thereof.
With such shifts, real opportunities for her professors to adapt
the lecture to facilitate student understanding were lost.
Preplanned assignments that were part of Plaintiff's coursework and
which required interactions with her classmates were cancelled with
the shift to online learning. And opportunities to interact with
her professors before, during, and/or after classes ended or was
restricted to pre-scheduled, email-arranged meetings.

Emory and most other universities issued partial refund for dorms
and meals, but the lawsuit contends it was not enough. "While
Plaintiff vacated campus at Defendant's direction on March 17,
2020, Defendant limits its refunds to a prorated period starting
March 23, 2020. And Plaintiff's balance of dining dollars was
refunded at a 40% basis," according to the complaint. It is not
only students already in college who are concerned about the
effectiveness and experience of online learning. Newly accepted
high school seniors -- some of whom are delaying putting down
deposits or considering a gap year -- also don't want to pay full
freight if fall classes stay online. [GN]


ENDO INT'L: Astora Funds AMS Vaginal Mesh Settlement in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Astora Women's Health
Holding LLC has funded the settlement of a class action lawsuit in
Canada.

Since 2008, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, including
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (AMS) (subsequently
converted to Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into
Astora Women's Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS and/or
Astora), have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in
various state and federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia), and in Canada, Australia and
other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ
prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

The company's subsidiaries have not sold such products since March
2016.

Plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries, including chronic
pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel function and
permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages,
where available.

Various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements
have resolved up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled U.S.
mesh claims. These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at
various times between June 2013 and the present, were solely by way
of compromise and settlement and were not in any way an admission
of liability or fault by the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlements and the release of
funds.

In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of QSFs into
which the settlement funds will be deposited, establish
participation requirements and allow for a reduction of the total
settlement payment in the event participation thresholds are not
met. Funds deposited in Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) are
considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating product use, the
dismissal of any lawsuit and the release of the claim as to the
company and all affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual
claimant must represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights
or other claims identified in the claims administration process
have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant.

Confidentiality provisions apply to the settlement funds, amounts
allocated to individual claimants and other terms of the
agreement.

In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a
class action settlement covering unresolved claims by Canadian
women implanted with an AMS vaginal mesh device. Astora funded the
settlement in February 2020.

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.


ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
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 that the company and
its subsidiaries continues to defend opioid-related class action
suits.

Since 2014, multiple U.S. states as well as other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada
have filed suit against the company and/or certain of its
subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc.
(EGHI), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and
DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and in Canada, Paladin, as well as
various other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and/or
others, asserting claims relating to defendants' alleged sales,
marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to
prescription opioid medications, including certain of our products.


As of April 30, 2020, filed cases in the U.S. of which the company
was aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20 cases
filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,780 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 280 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers and approximately 160 cases filed
by individuals.

Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions.

The Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on
behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and
territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid
healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids,
as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of
Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid
medications.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts.
The cases are at various stages.

The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties
(Track One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go
forward after most defendants settled. EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI
executed a settlement agreement with the Track One plaintiffs in
September 2019 which provided for payments totaling $10 million and
up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT(R) and/or ADRENALIN(R).

Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be
entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive
resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement
agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was
not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of
our subsidiaries. The earliest trial is currently scheduled for
August 2020; however, trials may occur earlier or later as timing
remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors.
Most cases remain at the pleading and/or discovery stage.

The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including
but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public
nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws
and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust
enrichment.

The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or alleged failures to take adequate steps
to identify and report suspicious orders and to prevent abuse and
diversion.

Plaintiffs have generally sought various remedies including,
without limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive relief;
compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution,
disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees, costs
and/or other relief.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

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.


ENDO INT'L: Direct Purchaser Settlement in Zetia(R) Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 the court has granted
the direct purchaser settlement in the class action suit related to
Zetia(R).

Beginning in February 2018, several alleged indirect purchasers
filed proposed class actions against the company's subsidiary Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and other pharmaceutical companies
alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement
of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of
Zetia(R) (ezetimibe).

The various complaints asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes
and/or state common law and sought injunctive relief, damages,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2018, these and other related cases, including proposed
direct purchaser class actions in which PPI was not named as a
defendant, were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial
proceedings in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In September 2018, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs dismissed
their claims against PPI without prejudice. In June and July 2019,
the MDL court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs and certain
retailer plaintiffs leave to file amended complaints adding PPI as
a defendant.

In July 2019, PPI entered into settlement agreements with both the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and the retailer plaintiffs. The direct
purchaser settlement was subject to court approval, which was
granted in March 2020.

Endo said, "The settlement agreements were solely by way of
compromise and settlement, were not in any way an admission of
liability or fault and involved no monetary payment."

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.


ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit involving alleged price-fixing of
generic drugs currently pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs and state attorneys
general have filed cases against the company's subsidiary Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and/or, in some instances, the Company,
Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), as well as other
pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other
corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and
other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic
pharmaceutical products.

These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf
of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers,
as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated
and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert
claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer
protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages,
treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies and
other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. Under
these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to hold all
alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and
severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy,
not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by
a particular defendant.

The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive
orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and
discovery is ongoing.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

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.


ENDO INT'L: Pelletier Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
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 the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Pelletier v. Endo
International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu
P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act relating to the pricing of various generic
pharmaceutical products.

In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' and Retirement
Board Employees' Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in
the action. In September 2018, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part in
February 2020.

In particular, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
claims with prejudice insofar as they were based on an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy; the court otherwise denied the motion to
dismiss, allowing other aspects of lead plaintiff's claims to
proceed.

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

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.


ENDO INT'L: Settlement Reached in Makris Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
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 settlement in
principle has been reached in the suit entitled, Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.

The statement of claim sought class certification, declaratory
relief, damages, interest and costs based on alleged violations of
the Ontario Securities Act arising out of alleged negligent
misrepresentations concerning the Company's revenues, profit
margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a subpoena from the
state of Connecticut regarding doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline
hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and
oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of the Company's U.S. generic
pharmaceuticals business.

In January 2019, plaintiff amended her statement of claim to add a
claim on behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian
investors who purchased Endo's securities between January 11, 2016
and June 8, 2017, based on our decision to voluntarily remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

In April 2020, the parties reached a settlement in principle, which
will be subject to court approval.

The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company and is
expected to be funded by the Company’s insurers.

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.


ENTERPRISE LEASING: Wordlaw BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAWON A. WORDLAW, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENTERPRISE LEASING
COMPANY OF CHICAGO, LLC; ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2020-CH-03702 (Filed April 3, 2020), was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 29, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03200 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she was
employed by the Defendants and that she was required by the
Defendants to use a biometric time clock system to record her time
worked.

Enterprise Leasing, doing business as a rent-a-car company, rents
automobiles. The Company offers new and used cars and trucks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, PC
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Email: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erin Dougherty Foley, Esq.
          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Oxyer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 460 5000
          Facsimile: 312 460 7000
          E-mail: edfoley@seyfarth.com
                  tahlering@seyfarth.com
                  aoxyer@seyfarth.com


EQUIFAX INC: Indian Tribe & City of Chicago Class Suits Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has settled separate
lawsuits that were brought by three Indian Tribes purportedly on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally
recognized Indian Tribes and Nations, as well as a lawsuit brought
by the City of Chicago related to a 2017 cybersecurity incident.

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


EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Reached in Financial Institutions MDL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the company has reached an agreement in principle to
enter into a class-wide settlement in the Financial Institutions
MDL Litigation.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to enter into a
class-wide settlement that, upon submission of the final settlement
documents and necessary court approvals, will resolve the
consolidated financial institutions class action cases pending
before the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. District Court
(MDL Court) (the "Financial Institutions MDL Litigation").

The settlement contemplates payment for claims up to a maximum
amount and certain non-monetary relief.

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
notice, and preliminary and final court approvals.

Equifax said, "We can provide no assurance that all conditions will
be satisfied or that the necessary court approvals will be
obtained."

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


ERIE INSURANCE: HTR Restaurants Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as HTR Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Seibs PUB,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Defendant, was
transferred from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas with
the assigned Case No. GD-20-5138 to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on June 3, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00819-DSC.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

Erie Insurance Exchange is an insurance company based in Erie,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John P. Goodrich, Esq.
   Goodrich & Associates, P.C.
   429 Fourth Avenue
   900 Law & Finance Building
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 281-1455
   Fax: (412) 232-4545
   Email: amber@goodrichpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Tara L. Maczuzak, Esq.
   DiBella, Geer, McAllister & Best, P.C.
   20 Stanwix Street
   11th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 261-2900
   Email: tmaczuzak@dgmblaw.com



EVERLASTINGCAPITAL: Fabricant Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. EVERLASTINGCAPITAL CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04761 (C.D.
Cal., May 28, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking
to solicit its services beginning in or around August of 2018. The
Defendants' calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls.

Further, the Defendants failed to establish and implement
reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent
telephone solicitations in violation of the law.[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
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

EVOQUA WATER: Wins Dismissal of New York Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. 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 the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water Technologies
Corp. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320, has
been granted.

On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua
Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging
that the Company and senior management violated federal securities
laws.

On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In
re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master
File No. 1:18-CV-10320.

On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of
the Company's Board of Directors, senior management, other
executives and/or employees, AEA Investors LP and a number of its
affiliated entities, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
accounting practices.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to
be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to
the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.  

On June 26, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing in connection with the motions to
dismiss was completed on October 4, 2019.

On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the
Exchange Act claims and denied the motions to dismiss the
Securities Act claims.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Content Moderators' Class Action for $52MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Garger, writing for New York Post, reports that Facebook
will pay content moderators who are tasked with repeatedly
monitoring graphic material on its platform $52 million as part of
a class-action lawsuit settlement.

The social media company was sued in 2018 by third-party
contractors who argued Facebook failed to adequately protect them
against psychological injuries than can result from continued
exposure to disturbing posts such as child sexual abuse and
beheadings.

US moderators who were part of the suit will receive $1,000 each
from the settlement.

Workers who were diagnosed with conditions stemming from their job
duties will get medical treatment and up to $50,000 in damages.

The preliminary settlement was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo.

The company said in a statement it is "grateful to the people who
do this important work to make Facebook a safe environment for
everyone.

"We're committed to providing them additional support through this
settlement and in the future." [GN]


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Ober Sues Over "Oppressive" Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AIDA OBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. and LVNV
FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02569
(E.D. Pa., June 1, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff has a debt obligation that was allegedly incurred to
Comenity Bank, and was purchased by Defendant LVNV for collection.

According to the complaint, Defendant LVNV contracted with
Defendant FRS to collect the alleged debt of Plaintiff by sending a
collection letter on or about March 23, 2020. However, the
collection letter was threatening and harassing by implying legal
action if the full balance is not paid which is a violation of the
15 U.S. Code Section 1692d.

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. and LVNV Funding LLC are debt
collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 326-9179
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Crockford Insurance Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kelvin Crockford, Aimee Crockford, husband
and wife and the marital community comprised thereof, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. First American
Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 20-00002-05999-0,
was removed from the  Washington Superior Court, Pierce County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
June 1, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-05511 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

First American Property & Casualty Insurance Company operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers auto, homeowners, landlords,
condos, and renters insurance products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Candler Smart, Esq.
          95 S Jackson St., Ste. 100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: (206) 203-9100
          Fax: (206) 785-1702
          Email: wsmart@plaintifflit.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel D Siegel, Esq.
          Paul Kakuske, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 S Figueroa St., Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 892-5050
          Email: joel.siegel@dentons.com
                 paul.kakuske@dentons.com

               - and -

          Rory W Leid, III, Esq.
          Christopher Joseph Roslaniec, Esq.
          COLE WATHEN LEID HALL PC
          Westlake Union Center
          1505 Westlake Ave. N, Ste. 700
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Phone: (206) 622-0494
          Fax: (206) 587-2476
          Email: rleid@cwlhlaw.com
                 croslaniec@cwlhlaw.com

               - and -

          Sonia Martin, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 882-2476
          Email: sonia.martin@dentons.com


FITBIT INC: Lopes Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephen Lopes, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Stephen Lopes, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06665-JST, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jon S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francsico Division, has issued an order setting
schedule for filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint and the
Defendants' responses thereto. The action is a proposed class
action alleging violations of the federal securities laws against
the Defendants.

By Order dated April 25, 2019, the Court appointed Irving Lubman as
the Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action and approved his
selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Lead Counsel.

Following the appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead
Counsel, the parties have met and conferred and agreed on a
schedule for the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint and for the Defendants' responses thereto.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Lopes, et al v. Fitbit,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-16033, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Richard Chester, Stephen Lopes and Irving
      Lubman's opening brief is on due July 27, 2020;

   -- Appellees Fitbit, Inc., James Park and William Zerella's
      answering brief is due on August 26, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHEN LOPES, IRVING LUBMAN, and RICHARD
CHESTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Email: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                 rprongay@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.com
                 csadler@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis Herman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          One Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          Email: dennish@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK and WILLIAM ZERELLA
are represented by:

          Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Esq.
          Alexis Caloza, Esq.
          Susan Samuels Muck, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Email: jbretan@fenwick.com
                 acaloza@fenwick.com
                 smuck@fenwick.com


FLEX LTD: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 1, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has vacated the hearing date set to
consider the motion to dismiss a class action complaint, and took
the motion under submission without argument.  

On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) filings made during the putative class period of
January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.

On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process.

On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 8, 2019, lead
plaintiff filed a further amended complaint.

On December 4, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The motion has been fully briefed. On March 12,
2020, the Court vacated the hearing date and took the motion under
submission without argument.

No decision has yet been issued.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.


FLORIDA REFORESTATION: Johnston Seeks OT Pay for Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH FLORIDA REFORESTATION SERVICES, INC.
and ROBERTS SITE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00539-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 1, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly-situated non-exempt laborers proper overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
paid laborer in Lake Butler, Union County, Florida from January
2013 through May 2020.

North Florida Reforestation Services, Inc. (NFRS) is a for-profit
corporation that operates site development preparation companies,
with its principal place of business in Lake Butler, Union County,
Florida.

Roberts Site Development, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that
operates site development preparation companies, with its principal
place of business in Lake Butler, Union County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:           
         
         Noah E. Storch, Esq.
         RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
         10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
         Davie, FL 33324
         Telephone: (866) 344-9243
         Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
         E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

FLORIDA: Grad. Student's Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimena Tavel, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a University
of Florida graduate student is accusing the Florida Board of
Governors, which oversees the state's 12 public universities, of
"unlawful" behavior, alleging the refusal to issue prorated refunds
to students after campuses shut down mid-semester to prevent the
spread of the novel coronavirus is unfair.

Anthony Rojas filed a class-action lawsuit on May 4 in a Leon
County Circuit Court in Tallahassee. He is representing all Florida
residents who paid fees to enroll at a public university this
spring, or at least 300,000 students, according to his lawyers'
calculations.

Rojas is demanding that state schools, including Florida
International University and Florida Atlantic University in South
Florida, partly reimburse students for charges like athletics,
activities and services, transportation and other mandatory fees
paid for the spring semester.

However, the lawsuit does not include tuition, because students
completed their courses online, and room and board rates, because
universities have returned some of those funds already.

"We're very huge supporters of our school system and of our state
so it took us great thought before we were willing to take on the
Florida Board of Governors but in this case it just seems to us so
unreasonable to deprive over 300,000 struggling students with
thousands of dollars for something they physically cannot obtain,"
said Adam Moskowitz, a University of Miami law professor and one of
Rojas' lawyers.

Renee Fargason, the Board of Governors spokeswoman, said she could
not comment on pending litigation. The board was scheduled to meet
on a conference call on May 5.

Across the country, public and private universities are facing a
backlash from discontented students and family members. Moskowitz
said university systems in other states, including Arizona and
California, have received similar lawsuits.

Moskowitz said his co-counsel on the case, Matthew S. Miller, has
filed some of those. The lawsuit also states the State University
System of Georgia already agreed to refund students after being
served.

The Florida lawsuit states the Board of Governors profited from its
breach of contract with students, who had paid for resources that
they could no longer access after the board forced colleges to
empty their dorms and transition to remote learning on
March 11. It also includes claims for unjust enrichment and
conversion.

"Even if FBOG claims that it didn't have a choice, it nevertheless
has improperly retained funds for services it is not providing,"
the complaint states.

The on-campus fees that students paid at the beginning of the
semester vary per university. UF, cited in the lawsuit, charged
each of its undergraduate students about $64 on a per-credit basis.
Some costs include $6.76 for capital improvement trust fund, $5.25
for financial aid, $5.25 for technology and $15.81 for health.

The lawsuit also mentions Florida colleges will receive at least
$740 million from the federal government after Congress approved
the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security --
CARES -- Act in late March. [GN]


FLORIDA: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in Miller Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed in the class
action lawsuit styled as Bud Miller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, proposed class, Plaintiff v. Florida
Department of Corrections Secretary and Warden Love Dade
Correctional Institution, in their respective official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22309-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020).

The Florida Department of Corrections operates state prisons in the
U.S. state of Florida. It has its headquarters in Florida's capital
of Tallahassee.

The Florida Department of Corrections operates the third largest
state prison system in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FLORIDA: Prisoners File Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the government
officials in Florida. The case is styled as David S. Hastings,
Dennis Mitchell, Stephen Fowle, Anthony Holley, Allan Koonce, Lee
Sloppy, Ken Pollak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ron Desantis, in his official
capacity as Governor of Florida, Ron Desantis, individually, Mark
Inch, in his official capacity as Secretary of Corrections, Mark
Inch, individually, Ricky Dixon, in his official capacity, Ricky
Dixon, individually, Thomas Reimers, in his official capacity,
Thomas Reimers, individually, Hope Gartman, in her official
capacity, Hope Gartman, individually, Darren Fancher, in his
official capacity and Darren Fancher, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01275-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2020).

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

Defendants are government representatives exercising their
duties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.



FORCE FACTOR: Faces Frantz Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Force Factor, LLC.
The case is styled as Eric Frantz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Force Factor, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01012-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 1, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Statutory Actions for
FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales."

Force Factor is a sports nutrition brand founded in 2009.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


FRESH DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Criminal History Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Outten & Golden disclosed that two NYC job applicants to Fresh
Direct, one who had already performed the work of the job for
approximately five months, filed a class action lawsuit against the
grocery delivery service alleging that they and others who were
otherwise qualified to work for FreshDirect were illegally rejected
based on the companies criminal history screening process in
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. FreshDirect has
"instituted a sham process for evaluating applicants' criminal
histories," it says. The complaint alleges violations of New York
State and City civil rights laws requiring an individualized
assessment of qualifications for employment before an applicant is
denied a job because of his or her criminal record. According to
the complaint, FreshDirect instead uses "categorical bans on wide
swaths of convictions before any individual Article 23-A analysis"
while also "excessively weighing certain Article 23-A factors over
other factors" and "refusing to solicit relevant information from
applicants before performing its analysis as required under the
law."

The public policy of New York City and State is to encourage the
employment of persons with criminal convictions and "reverse the
long history of employment discrimination against" them by
"eliminating many of the obstacles to employment."  The recently
enacted New York City Fair Chance Act codifies even greater
protections for such individuals, dictating how an employer must
complete its Article 23-A analysis and the steps it must take
before denying employment to an applicant because of criminal
history. Similar "ban-the-box" laws that bar employers from
factoring criminal convictions into employment decisions have been
enacted in 35 states and more than 150 cities and counties.

Outten & Golden partner, Ossai Miazad -- om@outtengolden.com --
says: "This lawsuit is crucial to ensuring that the strong
protections enacted by the people of New York State and City are
put to work for the benefit of all New Yorkers with criminal
records." Outten & Golden attorney, Christopher McNerney --
cmcnerney@outtengolden.com -- adds: "During this unemployment
crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is even more vital to
ensure that employers that continue to hire workers live up to
their obligation to give a fair shake to applicants with criminal
records."

Causes of Action: New York City Human Rights Law, New York State
Human Rights Law.
Relief: Injunction barring unlawful practices; class certification;
compensatory and punitive damages.
Potential Class Size: All job applicants and employees denied
employment by Fresh Direct throughout New York State.

Attorneys: Ossai Miazad and Christopher M. McNerney with Outten &
Golden LLP filed the complaint.

The case is Soler v. Fresh Direct, Inc., S.D.N.Y., No.
1:20-cv-03431, filed 5/1/2020.

Outten & Golden LLP focuses on advising and representing
individuals in employment, partnership, and related workplace
matters both domestically and internationally. The firm counsels
individuals on employment and severance agreements; handles complex
compensation and benefits issues (including bonuses, commissions,
and stock/option agreements); and advises professionals (including
doctors and lawyers) on contractual matters. It also represents
employees with a wide variety of claims, including discrimination
and harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity
and expression, race, disability, national origin, religion, and
age, and retaliation, whistleblower, and contract claims. The firm
handles class actions involving a wide range of employment issues,
including economic exploitation, gender- and race-based
discrimination, wage-and-hour violations, and other systemic
workers' rights issues.

Outten & Golden has nine practice groups: Executives &
Professionals, Financial Services, Sexual Harassment & Sex
Discrimination, Family Responsibilities & Disabilities
Discrimination, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ)
Workplace Rights, Discrimination & Retaliation, Whistleblower
Retaliation, Class & Collective Actions, and WARN Act.

Outten & Golden has offices in New York, Chicago, San Francisco,
and Washington, D.C.

For media inquiries, contact Christopher M. McNerney at (212)
245-1000 or email at 239142@email4pr.com [GN]


FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Wash. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, 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 motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the
Superior Court of Washington in and for King County remains
pending.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County. Two of the King
County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January
16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January 30,
2018), were filed against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on March 27, 2018), were
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
entities affiliated with ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C. ("ACON"),
Fundamental Capital, LLC and Funko International, LLC
(collectively, “Fundamental”) and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain
of the Company's officers and directors, and ACON.

On May 8, 2018, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed,
and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County. On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Jacobs v. Funko, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.

On May 21, 2018, the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and
on June 12, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.

On October 1, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss that action.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss on October 31, 2018, and the Company filed its reply to
plaintiffs' opposition on November 30, 2018. Oral argument on the
motion to dismiss was held on May 3, 2019.

On August 2, 2019, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County dismissed the consolidated action, allowing plaintiffs leave
to amend the complaint. The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko"s
statements regarding its financial disclosures were not materially
false or misleading" and that "plaintiffs have not shown that
Funko's 'opinion statements' were false or that such statements
were not simply corporate optimism or puffery."

On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss that complaint on December
5, 2019.

The motion was fully briefed as of March 17, 2020, and the Company
anticipates that oral argument on the motion will take place in May
2020.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Insurance Dept. Seeks to Stay Skochin Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, 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 the Indiana Department
of Insurance filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay,
seeking to stay the current schedule for class settlement in the
case, Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry Huber, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth
Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company, and delay the
date of the final approval hearing in light of disruptions caused
by COVID-19.

In January 2019, Genworth Financial and Genworth Life Insurance
Company (GLIC) were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and
Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life
Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance
policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and
inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term
care insurance policies.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud,
fraudulent inducement and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named
plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents), and seeks damages
(including statutory treble damages under Pennsylvania law) in
excess of $5 million.

On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company
replied to on April 1, 2019. In July 2019, the Court heard oral
arguments on the company's motion to dismiss.

On August 29, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss the claim with regard to breach of
contract, but denied its motion with regard to fraudulent omission,
fraudulent inducement and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law.

On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
dropping Genworth Financial as a defendant and reducing their
causes of action from four counts to two: fraudulent inducement by
omission and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who
are Pennsylvania residents).

The parties engaged in a mediation process and, on October 22,
2019, reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a
nationwide basis.

On November 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York ("GLICNY") as a
defendant and expanding the class to all fifty states and the
District of Columbia.

On January 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and set the final approval hearing for July 10, 2020.

On March 26, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Leave to
Amend certain aspects of the settlement, which was approved by the
Court on March 31, 2020.

On April 10, 2020, the Indiana Department of Insurance filed a
Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay, seeking to stay the current
schedule for class settlement and delay the date of the final
approval hearing in light of disruptions caused by COVID-19.

On April 14, 2020, the class administrator sent out class notices
to potential settlement class members. On April 17, 2020,
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Indiana Department of
Insurance's motion to stay.

Genworth said, "Based on the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement, we do not anticipate the outcome of this matter to have
a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial
position. If the court does not approve the final settlement, we
intend to continue to vigorously defend this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GEORGIA: Ex-Trooper Files Class Action Against State Patrol
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Summers, writing for WEIS, reports that the Georgia State
Patrol has been served with a lawsuit by an ex-State Trooper
claiming he and other patrol personnel worked sixty hour weeks but
were only compensated for forty-hour weeks.  Richard Andrew Justice
claims he is owed $11,957.12 in back pay in the class-action
lawsuit and hundreds of others are due back pay totaling $5 million
-- that, according to a report by the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution.

Justice says that while in trooper-school, cadets were paid for
forty-hour weeks but worked at least sixty hours per week.
Justice, who is no longer in law enforcement, was one of the state
troopers fired earlier this year as the result of a cheating
scandal.

A spokesperson for the Georgia State Patrol confirmed that the
agency was served with the lawsuit but could not comment. [GN]


GERON CORP: Securities Class Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that two putative securities
class action suits related to the Company's alleged failure to
disclose IMbark trial results have been consolidated.

On January 23 and February 14, 2020, two putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court,
or the Court, for the Northern District of California, or the
Northern District, naming as defendants the company  and one of its
officers.

On March 5, 2020, a third putative securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, naming as defendants the company and two of its
officers. On March 19, 2020, the New Jersey lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

The remaining putative securities class action lawsuits allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company
related to IMbark during the period from March 19, 2018 to
September 26, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company failed
to disclose facts related to the alleged failure by IMbark to meet
the two primary endpoints of the trial, spleen response rate and
Total Symptom Score, and that the company's stock price dropped
when such information was disclosed.

The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees.

On May 14, 2020, the Court consolidated the remaining putative
securities class action lawsuits, appointed a lead plaintiff, and
invited applications for lead counsel.

Geron said, "It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or
other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors
as defendants. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend against the pending lawsuits."

Geron Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that currently
supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc.


GITHUB: Ontario Judge Scolds Class Action Bar
---------------------------------------------
Anita Balakrishnan, writing for Law Times, reports that in deciding
which law firm will proceed with a class action lawsuit, an Ontario
judge used the opportunity to scold the class action bar.

Justice Paul Perell said that class action lawsuits are being
written to please class members or "vilify the defendants in the
media," a tactic the Perell deemed unprofessional and
"disappointing."

"[In] reading the materials for the carriage motion, on more than
one occasion I grimaced, and I suppressed the urge to gag," wrote
Perell in the decision, Del Giudice v. Thompson, 2020 ONSC 2676.

"As unfortunately has become too common in class actions, the prose
is prolix, tedious, whiningly-polemic, conceited, pompously
preachy, wanting in objectivity, and grossly overstated. I could
give examples, from this and other class actions but why make the
reader retch."

Two sets of firms were competing for carriage of the dispute, which
centred on an arrested hacker, and companies Capital One, GitHub
and Amazon. These parties were allegedly involved in an incident
that compromised personal information of an estimated 6 million
Canadian Capital One customers.

One set of firms, representing plaintiff Rina Del Giudice, included
Cambridge LLP, Gardiner Roberts LLP, Hotz Lawyers and Scher Law
Professional Corporation; the competing consortium, representing
plaintiff David Slapinski, included Du Vernet Stewart, Landy Marr
Kats LLP and McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP.

Perell dinged both groups for breaking the rules in their
pleadings, citing 35 paragraphs of the 105-paragraph statement of
claim in the Slapinski action, and 120 paragraphs of the
227-paragraph amended statement of claim in the Del Giudice
action.

Despite the criticism, Perell said that either law firm could serve
the clients well enough in the class action, as both sides achieved
"passing grades" in their efforts to win carriage of the case.

"[It] was a close call as to which action should be granted
carriage of the proposed class action," wrote Perell in the case.

"The claims and causes of action pleaded in both actions are not
fanciful or frivolous and the competing litigation strategies are
both reasonable and defensible . . . . although I repeat that
neither action is a lock for certification."

While the claims and causes of action were not that different
between the two teams, there was one major difference, Perell said:
The Del Giudice team included GitHub and Amazon as party
defendants. Perell weighed the choice to include the two companies,
noting the companies had "Mariana Trench deep pockets" and were
arguably wrongdoers that should be held to account. But excluding
them would make the action faster and more manageable, as the two
technology companies posed "more extreme litigation risks," Perell
wrote.

"The duty of care in the relationship between a bank and its
customers is developed legal territory. The duty of care of a
remote Internet service provider or of an Internet chat room
provider to a banker's customer is undeveloped or underdeveloped
legal territory," said Perell in the decision.

Perell ultimately awarded carriage to the team representing Del
Giudice, but said he will consider costs "against counsel
personally" if the lawyers failed to comply with case management
direction.

"Capital One, GitHub, and Amazon will each be formidable foes foe,"
Perell wrote. "And there is something to Sun Tzu's lesson in the
The Art of War that 'In all history, there is no instance of a
country having benefited from prolonged warfare, which seems the
ambition of the Del Giudice's Counsel in its ambitious all-fronts,
all theatres of war strategy." [GN]


GRAND CANYON: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 13
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LOPE) between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Grand Canyon investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Grand Canyon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1761.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Grand Canyon University ("GCU") would not be and is not a
proper non-profit organization as it remains under the control of
Grand Canyon; (2) Grand Canyon would not be a third-party service
provider to GCU but rather would and does continue to effectively
operate the entity; (3) Grand Canyon employees served as executives
of GCU; and (4) GCU functions as an off-balance-sheet entity to
which Grand Canyon is able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange
for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand
Canyon's financial results. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 13,
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-1761.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contacts:

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


GROUPON INC: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued a
notice of the filing of a class action on behalf of shareholders in
the following publicly-traded Groupon, Inc. (GRPN).

Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the dates
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Investors Affected: November 4, 2019 - February 18, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Groupon, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing fewer customer
engagements in its Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on its Goods
category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday season;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to
experience reduced sales; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/groupon-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=6394&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

          The Gross Law Firm
          15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
          New York, NY, 10018
          Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
          Tel: (212) 537-9430
          Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


GROUPON INC: June 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of purchasers of Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ:GRPN) securities
between November 4, 2019 and February 18, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The case is captioned Macovski v. Groupon, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-02581, and is assigned to Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The
Groupon securities class action lawsuit charges Groupon and certain
of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Groupon securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Groupon securities
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Groupon securities class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Groupon securities class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Groupon
securities class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Groupon securities class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the Groupon securities class
action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or
contact J.C. Sanchez at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Groupon
securities class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than June 27, 2020.

Groupon offers a marketplace that connects consumers to merchants
through mobile applications and websites. Historically, Groupon
operated in three categories: (1) Local, which comprises
subcategories of local experiences, including events and
activities, health and beauty, food and drink, home and garden, and
automotive; (2) Goods, which includes product revenue from
merchandise inventory sold directly to customers and service
revenue from third-party merchants who sell products using Groupon
marketplaces; and (3) Travel, which offers hotels, airfare and
package deals at discounted and market rates.

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

On February 18, 2020, Groupon reported sales of $612.3 million, a
23% decline year-over-year. Groupon's adjusted EBITDA for fiscal
2019 was reported at $227.2 million, a significant miss from its
November 2019 forecast of $270 million. Groupon also announced a
"transformational plan to exit Goods" in North America by the third
quarter and globally by the end of the year. On this news,
Groupon's share price fell more than 44%.

On March 25, 2020, Groupon abruptly announced that its Chief
Executive Officer, Rich Williams, and Chief Operating Officer,
Steve Krenzer, were "no longer serving" in their roles, but would
continue as Groupon employees.

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

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]


GROUPON INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of those who acquired Groupon, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GRPN) securities during the period from November 4, 2019
through February 18, 2020. Investors have until June 29, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Groupon failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements in its Goods
category; (ii) Groupon relied on its Goods category to drive its
sales, especially during the holiday season; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced
sales.

On February 18, 2020, after the market closed, Groupon reported
sales of $612.3 million, a 23% decline year-over-year. In the same
press release, Groupon announced a "transformational plan to exit
Goods" in North America by the third quarter and globally by the
end of the year.

On February 19, 2020, before the market opened, Groupon held a
conference call during which CEO Rich Williams stated that "Midway
through the fourth quarter, it became clear, however, that we were
seeing far fewer customers engaged with Goods, and it impacted
overall traffic to our site. The lower traffic ultimately impeded
performance in all of our categories."

On this news, Groupon shares fell $1.35 per share, or 44.3%, to
close at $1.70 on February 19, 2020.

If you acquired Groupon securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

Contact:

         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
         Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/
[GN]



GROUPON INC: Levi and Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Groupon,
Inc. (GRPN). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff
have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

GRPN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=6399&wire=1

GRPN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 4, 2019
- February 18, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 29, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=6399&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Groupon,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing fewer
customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on
its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the
holiday season; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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


GROUPON INC: Portnoy Law Notes of June 29 Class Action Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors in publicly traded Groupon,
Inc.  Shareholders interested in taking an active role in these
cases have until June 29, 2020 to petition the court. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

The lawsuit alleges that during the period, November 4, 2019 and
February 18, 2020, Groupon misled investors and failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements
in its Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on its Goods category to
drive its sales, especially during the holiday season; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience
reduced sales; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in
pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding
partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors.

Contact:

         The Portnoy Law Firm
         Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
         E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
         Tel: 310-692-8883
         Web site: www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


GSX TECHEDU: Glancy Prongay Notes of June 16 Class Action Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 16, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of GSX Techedu Inc. ("GSX" or the
Company") (NYSE: GSX) securities between June 6, 2019, and April
13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired GSX securities during the
class period, you may move the Court no later than June 16, 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.

Contact:

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


GSX TECHEDU: Gross Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued a
notice of the filing of a class action on behalf of shareholders in
publicly traded GSX Techedu Inc. (GSX).

Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

GSX Techedu Inc. (GSX)

Investors Affected : June 6, 2019 - April 13, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
GSX Techedu Inc . The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) GSX overstated its profitability, revenue,
student enrollment figures, teacher qualifications, and teacher
selection process; (ii) the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/gsx-techedu-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=6404&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
         Tel: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


GW UNIVERSITY: Parent's Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Wardwell, writing for The GW Hatchet, reports that a parent
is suing the University for a refund of tuition, fees and room and
board payments for the spring semester in light of the switch to
online classes.

In a 22-page class-action complaint filed in the D.C. District
Court on May 1, Mark Shaffer -- a parent of a female student --
alleges the University breached its contract with students by not
providing in-person education and campus facilities during the
instructional continuity period. Shaffer is demanding the
University provide a partial refund to his daughter and all other
students who paid for "tuition, fees and/or room and board" in the
spring semester.

"Despite sending students home and closing its campuses, Defendant
continues to charge for tuition and fees as if nothing has changed,
continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars
from students," the complaint states.

The plaintiff's daughter has noticed a dropoff in "academic rigor"
since the virtual learning period began, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit states that the cancelation of student organization
activities and suspension of access to "vital" library tools only
available on campus have added to the University's failure to
provide services that students should expect to receive.

The complaint states that the switch to online courses has led to
"back loading of work" and delayed deadlines, increasing difficulty
for students trying to communicate with faculty and staff.

"While Plaintiff paid GW for an in-class experience that would
enable his daughter to communicate directly with her professors,
attend office hours and work through issues in person, such
experiences are non-existent following Defendant's campus closure,"
the complaint states.

The lawsuit alleges the University collected tuition payments from
students and families despite understanding the payments were
involuntary, "unjust and inequitable."

"Defendant wrongfully exercised control over and/or intentionally
interfered with the rights of Plaintiff and members of the Class by
effectively closing its campus to in-person education and switching
to an online-only format," the complaint states.

The lawsuit states that the University has neglected to consider
how layoffs and furloughs are affecting family incomes and has
"financially damaged" students and families. The lawsuit states
that GW needs to follow in the footsteps of other universities that
have offered more extensive refunds to students.

"While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, Defendant excludes itself from such
other institutions treating students fairly, equitably and as
required by the law," the complaint states.

Shaffer is requesting a trial by jury, according to the lawsuit.

University spokeswoman Crystal Nosal said officials have not yet
been served a lawsuit related to the repayment of tuition but are
aware one has been filed.

She said faculty and staff have "worked hard" to provide students
with a "quality academic experience" and "provide mechanisms" for
students to engage with each other.

"GW knows this is not how our students expected to complete their
classes this spring," Nosal said in an email. "While our classes
usually meet in person, sometimes they do not. And in these
extraordinary circumstances, they cannot."

She said the University has followed public health experts'
recommendations for safety measures in transitioning to online
classes.

Nosal said officials have applied credit to students' accounts for
housing costs from March 20 to the end of the semester, which
students can have refunded or apply for future housing. She added
that students can request reimbursements for dining plan funds and
parking permits for the number of days the virtual learning period
lasts.

She said officials have reimbursed students for international
program fees and the cost of international travel.

"We continue to work with students and families who are in
financial distress due to the coronavirus pandemic," she said. "The
GW Cares Student Assistance Fund provides critical support to GW
students in need as a result of unexpected financial hardship,
including needs resulting from COVID-19 prevention and response."

More than 2,000 students have signed an online petition posted in
March demanding officials refund half of students' tuition for
online classes.

The complaint comes amid a wave of student lawsuits filed against
universities nationwide demanding spring semester refunds because
of the pandemic's effect on holding classes. [GN]


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on May 5, 2020, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against Hallmark Financial Services,
Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is March 5, 2019 through March
17, 2020.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-hallmark-financial-services-inc/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Hallmark
Financial Services, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, July
6, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        Robin Hester
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/[GN]


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL)
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of Hallmark between March 5, 2019 and March 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Hallmark investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants 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 would be forced to report a $63.8 million
loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) as a result,
Hallmark 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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Hallmark
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the July
6, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in Hallmark Financial Services, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HALL) who have suffered significant losses to submit their
losses now. A securities fraud class action was filed and certain
investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Mar. 5, 2019 - Mar. 17, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/HALL

Contact An Attorney Now: HALL@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed: (1) that the Company lacked effective
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related
to reserves for unpaid losses; and (2) that the Company improperly
accounted for reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business.

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint,
through a series of disclosures beginning on Mar. 2, 2020, when
Hallmark announced it was exiting the Binding Primary Commercial
Auto business and reported a $63.8 million loss development for
prior underwriting years.

Then, on Mar. 11, 2020, Hallmark announced it had dismissed its
independent auditor BDO over a "disagreement" concerning the
Company's estimated reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses throughout 2019.

Finally, on Mar. 17, 2020, Hallmark disclosed a letter from BDO to
the SEC revealing that BDO had expanded significantly the scope of
its audit on Jan. 31, 2020, with respect to the matters of
disagreement, and that "a substantial portion the requests had not
been received and/or tested prior to our termination."

These disclosures caused Hallmark shares to decline over 75% lower
between Mar. 2 and Mar. 18, 2020.

"We're focused on proving Defendants intentionally misled investors
about the Company's internal controls and the sufficiency of its
loss reserves," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.

If you purchased shares of Hallmark and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Hallmark should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email HALL@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com.

Contact:

        HAGENS BERMAN
        Reed Kathrein
        Tel: 844-916-0895
        Twitter: @classactionlaw [GN]


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Hallmark
Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL) for violations of
Secs.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 5,
2019 and March 17, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, go to
https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=hallmark-financial-services-inc&id=2461

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Hallmark Financial failed to maintain
appropriate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting, specifically over reserves for unpaid losses. The
Company's accounting unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
were improper and ineffective. This resulted in the Company being
forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior
underwriting years. Ultimately, the Company withdrew from its
Binding Primary Commercial Auto business, which was the primary
source of the improper accounting. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Hallmark Financial, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contacts

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/
         Office: 310-301-3335
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN]


HENDREN PLASTICS: Appeals Decisions in Fochtman Suit to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Hendren Plastics, Inc., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion & Orders dated March 9, 2018, June 27,
2018, and January 31, 2019, Opinion & Order dated April 30, 2019,
Memorandum Opinion & Order dated September 27, 2019, Supplemental
Opinion & Order dated November 12, 2019, Order and judgment both
dated April 20, 2020, and Orders dated May 1, 2020 and May 18,
2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Mark Fochtman, et al. v.
Hendren Plastics, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05047-TLB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Timothy
L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' request for damages in their Motion for Summary
Judgment.

In particular, the Court asked the Plaintiffs to consider: (1)
whether the Defendants were entitled to a credit against damages
for the value of in-kind services provided to the class in an
amount equal to the statutory cap of $0.30 per hour, as provided in
Section 11-4-213(a) of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"); and
(2) whether the Defendants were entitled to a credit against
damages for the value of so-called "stipend" payments that DARP
made to certain class members for their successful completion of
the program.

In summary, the class members will receive compensatory damages for
all regular and overtime hours they worked at Hendren while
residing at DARP. The parties agree that these hours translate to
$615,308.44 in regular compensation and $20,909.06 in overtime
compensation. The Defendants are entitled to the maximum statutory
credit against the compensatory damages award for the value of the
in-kind services they provided the class members when they resided
at DARP's facility. The Plaintiffs stipulate that these in-kind
services were actually provided to the class and that the Court
should apply the full $0.30-per-hour deduction on all regular hours
worked, per Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-213(a). The only remaining
question to resolve regarding the $0.30-per-hour deduction is
whether it applies to regular hours, overtime hours, or both.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Fochtman, et al. v. Hendren
Plastics, Inc., Case No. 20-2061, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 7, 2020;

   -- Appendix is due on July 17, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellant Hendren Plastics, Inc., is due on
      July 17, 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 Mark Fochtman, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          John T. Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 W. Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                 tim@johnholleman.net

Defendant-Petitioner Hendren Plastics, Inc., is represented by:

          Melissa McJunkins Duke, Esq.
          Abtin Mehdizadegan, Esq.
          CROSS & GUNTER
          500 President Clinton Avenue
          P.O. Box 3178
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3178
          Telephone: (501) 371-9999
          Email: mduke@cgwg.com
                 abtin@cgwg.com

               - and -

          Timothy Chad Hutchinson, Esq.
          Laurence Mullins McCredy, Esq.
          James Robert Renner, Esq.
          RMP, LLP
          5519 Hackett Road, Suite 300
          Springdale, AR 72762
          Telephone: (479) 443-2705
          Email: thutchinson@rmp.law
                 lmccredy@rmp.law
                 brenner@rmp.law


HOEHNER'S TECHNICAL: Hartman Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NMMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hartman, Noah Guerrero and Lance Heger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harold Hoehner, Jr.,
Hoehner's Technical Services, Inc., and Cactus Drilling Company,
LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00503-SLP (N.D. Okla., May 29, 2020), seeks
to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and the class members in accordance with the FLSA or the
NMMWA. The Plaintiffs contends that they and the Class Members were
paid as independent contractors instead of as employees. As a
result, the Defendants failed to pay them at time and one half
their regular rate of pay for hours worked in a workweek in excess
of 40 hours.

The Plaintiffs and class members are the Defendants' current and
former employees, who were employed as electricians.

Hoehners Technical is in the oil field services. Cactus Drilling
Company provides drilling services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Victor R. Wandres, Esq.
          4835 S. Peoria Ave., Suite 1
          Tulsa, OK 74105
          Telephone: (918) 200-9272
          Facsimile: (918) 895-9774
          E-mail: 7104@paramount-law.net

               - and -

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: 817-416-5060
          Facsimile: 817-416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


HORIZON TRUST: Threadford ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE THREADFORD and
WILLIAM HOLMES, on behalf of the McKinney Communications
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class
of all other persons similarly situated v. HORIZON TRUST AND
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, N.A., RODDY McKINNEY, and JANICE McKINNEY,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00188 (Filed Feb. 28, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern)
on May 29, 2020.

The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00750-SGC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Staci G. Cornelius.

The action is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 for losses suffered by the McKinney Communications
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its participants
caused by Horizon when it caused the Plan to buy shares of McKinney
for more than fair market value in 2016.

The Plaintiffs are Plan participants.

Horizon Trust provides investment management services. The
McKinneys were selling shareholder in the ESOP Transaction.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          333 S Wabash Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 995-7143
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110

Defendant Horizon Trust is represented by:

          Andrew Salek-Raham, Esq.
          Lars C Golumbic, Esq.
          Sean C Abouchedid, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP CHTD.
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 861-5408
          Facsimile: (202) 659-4503

               - and -

          Rebecca H. Fischer, Esq.
          LADERER & FISCHER PC
          525 E Colfax Ave., Unit #101
          South Bend, IN 46617
          Telephone: (574) 284-2354
          Facsimile: (574) 284-2356

The McKinneys are Represented by:

          Brian L. McDermott, Esq.
          Howard Shapiro, Esq.
          Juan C. Obregon, Esq.
          Melissa K. Taft, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          211 N Pennsylvania St., Ste. 1700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 489-6930
          Facsimile: (317) 489-6931


IDAHO: Court Orders Wolf to File Second Amended Prisoner Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW J.J. WOLF, Plaintiff, v. IDAHO STATE BOARD OF
CORRECTION; DAVID McCLUSKY; DODDS HAYDEN; KAREN NIELL; JOSH TEWALT;
JEFF ZMUDA; ASHLEY DOWELL; CHAD PAGE; ROSS CASTLETON; RANDY BLADES;
AMANDA GENTRY; WALTHER "WALLY" CAMPBELL; JOHN "JACK" FRASER; KEITH
YORDY; RANDY VALLEY; TIMOTHY RICHARDSON; TERRIE ROSENTHAL; MATHEL
CASTLETON; MARK WAY; COREY SEELY; SABINO J. RAMIREZ; BENJAMIN K.
LEE; ALAN STEWART; DARRYL BLANCHARD; CHESTER MARTIN; AMANDA DIETZ;
LUKE KORMYLO; MICHAEL J. RICE; ALBERTO RAMIREZ; GARY HARTGROVE;
SUSAN WESSLES; JEREMY HRANACA; MR. TEATS; RICHARD WINTERS; J. DOE
1; AMANDA HOTTINGER; NICHOLAS HALE; and RAUL MITCHELL, JR., each
sued in their individual and official capacities, and their
successors in office, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00025-BLW (D.
Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho directed the Plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department
of Correction, currently incarcerated at the Idaho Maximum Security
Institution.  Some of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff's
claims occurred while he was incarcerated at the Idaho State
Correctional Institution.

The Plaintiff brings numerous claims against 38 Defendants.  He
primarily asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging
violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  He
also asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  Finally, the Plaintiff invokes
International Law and National Standards regarding torture, cruel
and inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Plaintiff asserts claims not only on behalf of himself, but
also purportedly on behalf of a class of similarly-situation
prisoners.  However, the Court has not certified a class in the
action.  Moreover, because the Plaintiff is not an attorney, he
cannot represent others in litigation.  Thus, the Plaintiff may not
rely on injuries allegedly suffered by other inmates but must,
instead, assert only his own claims.

Judge Winmill reviews the Amended Complaint to determine whether it
should be summarily dismissed in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1915 and 1915A.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has
not alleged sufficient facts to proceed with the Amended Complaint.
The Judge will, however, grant him 60 days to file a second
amended complaint.  

If the Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, the
Plaintiff must demonstrate how the actions complained of have
resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights.  Plaintiff
must also allege a sufficient causal connection between each
Defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation.  Further, any
second amended complaint must contain all of the Plaintiff's
allegations in a single pleading and cannot rely upon, attach, or
incorporate by reference other pleadings or documents.

The Plaintiff must set forth each different factual allegation in a
separate numbered paragraph.  The amended complaint must be legibly
written or typed in its entirety, and it should be clearly
designated as the "Second Amended Complaint."  The Plaintiff's name
and address should be clearly printed at the top left corner of the
first page of each document filed with the Court.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Winmill gave the Plaintiff 60 days
within which to file a second amended complaint as described.  If
the Plaintiff does so, he must file (along with the amended
complaint) a Motion to Review the Second Amended Complaint.  If he
does not amend within 60 days, the case may be dismissed without
further notice.

Because a second amended complaint is required in the case, the
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied as moot.
The Plaintiff may renew the request for counsel if he files a
second amended complaint.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Take Judicial Notice is granted in part,
to the extent that the Court takes judicial notice of its own
records in the cases identified in the Motion.  The Motion is
denied to the extent that it requests judicial notice of the truth
of the allegations in any of those records.  If the Plaintiff
intends to cite to any records of other cases in the Court, he must
do so by case number, docket number, and page number, to the extent
possible.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Initial
Review Order is available at https://is.gd/HtOYJT from Leagle.com.


IKEA US: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Tip-Over Incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Russell, writing for Furniture Today, reports that two law
firms have filed a class action lawsuit against Ikea US Retail LLC
and Ikea North America Services LLC on behalf of consumers who
purchased Ikea chests dressers that were involved in tip-over
incidents.

The lawsuit, filed May 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, was filed on behalf of Diana and John
Dukich, who purchased Ikea's Malm dressers in 2012.  The suit
alleges that Ikea marketed and sold the dressers knowing they were
unsafe and prone to tip-over.

It also alleges that Ikea did not contact its customers by mail,
email or text message to personally notify them of the initial
recall of the Malm dressers on June 28, 2016, and a re-announced
recall on Nov. 21, 2017.

It further alleges that Ikea is not honoring the terms of the
recalls and describes the difficulty that the plaintiffs and other
customers have experienced in returning the dressers, getting cash
refunds and getting Ikea to pick up the dressers in their homes.

Ikea was not immediately available for comment.

"Most purchasers of the defective chests and dressers did not
receive notice of the recall, as a consequence of Ikea's decision
not to contact purchasers directly by mail, email, text or other
means," the lawsuit said. "Further, plaintiffs and class members
who were aware of the recall received no refund, even though
plaintiffs and many other consumers tried to return the defective
and dangerous chests and dressers and sought the full refund
promised under the voluntary recall.

"Now, plaintiffs and a class of purchasers and owners of the
defective chests and dressers seek through a class action to compel
Ikea to honor the promise it failed to keep because of its anemic
voluntary recall."

The suit also noted that measures to compensate customers,
including the issuing of Ikea gift cards, have been inadequate.

"Gift cards for use at Ikea did not and do not adequately
compensate consumers who paid cash for the defective and dangerous
chests and dressers, incurred costs in returning defective and
dangerous chests and dressers to an Ikea retail location, or paid
to have the furniture delivered at the time of purchase," the suit
said. "Moreover, gift cards are not an adequate remedy for
consumers who no longer wish to have IKEA furniture in their home,
but would prefer another brand, or who have no need or desire for
any Ikea product at all."

The 2016 recall affected some 29 million chests and dressers sold
in the U.S., including 8 million in the Malm collection. These
items were linked to tip-over incidents involving seven fatalities
dating back to 1989. Last June, child safety and advocacy groups
said there were at least 10 child deaths linked to tip-overs
involving Ikea chests and dressers.

The law firms of Feldman Shepherd, Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock
Dodig LLP and Francis Mailman Soumilas filed the suit on behalf of
customers that have purchased Ikea chests and dressers in recent
years. The dressers included in the 2016 recall, it said, did not
comply with voluntary standards that required stability testing and
have caused death and injury to children.

"At all times relevant hereto, and since at least the year 2000,
Ikea knew that its chests and dressers failed to meet minimum
stability requirements for tip-over prevention contained in
industry standards, including ASTM F2057. 31," the suit said. "By
July 22, 2015, Ikea was aware of multiple deaths and injuries
resulting from tip-over incidents involving the defective chests
and dressers. Nevertheless, Ikea continued to sell the defective
chests and dressers.

"By June 28, 2016, Ikea had become aware of two additional deaths
and 13 additional injuries resulting from tip-over incidents
involving the Malm line of defective chests and dressers. Ikea was
also aware of tip-over incidents involving chests and dressers sold
by Ikea other than the Malm series, which resulted in the deaths of
three children and injuries to nineteen more. … By Nov. 21, 2017,
Ikea had learned of an additional child death resulting from a Malm
tip-over incident and an additional 91 injuries."

The suit seeks to represent individuals who purchased or owned the
chests and dressers made between January 2002 and June 2016. It
believes the overall number of plaintiffs affected by the class
action exceeds 100 and that the "aggregate value of the claims of
the individual class members exceeds the sum or value of $5
million, exclusive of interest and costs."

It seeks damages for "consumer protection violations, Ikea's
failure to issue refunds as promised in the recall and for Ikea's
inadequate attempts to notify purchasers of the recall." [GN]


INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in Northtup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq. -- brent.owen@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that a TCPA defendant faces the prospect of a nationwide class
action of thousands of individuals seeking to recover
(collectively) millions of dollars in statutory fines, attorneys'
fees, and interest.  To defeat that kind of lawsuit, a TCPA
defendant will invest years, extensive company resources, and
hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees.   Yet the
individual who files the underlying TCPA lawsuit faces no
comparable downside risk.

This dynamic played out recently in Florida in Northrup v.
Innovative Health Ins. Partners, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-1890-T-36JSS,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82596 (M.D. Fla. March 26, 2020).  The lead
plaintiff there filed suit after allegedly receiving text messages
that violated the TCPA.  After several years of litigation --
including the certification of a nationwide class of similarly
situated individuals -- the defendants prevailed on summary
judgment.  The trial court held that the "text messages at issue
were not sent with an automatic telephone dialing system."

Yet when the defendant companies moved to recover a modest portion
of their costs, the trial court trimmed the award down to just
$1,156.  Despite the defendant's clear victory, the Court quibbled
with numerous expenses, including declining to award "print and
copy fees" because the defendant did not meet its "burden" of
establishing the $78.26 in such costs.

This case provides a stark reminder of the disparate risks facing
parties to a TCPA lawsuit. [GN]


INTEGRITY INSPECTION: Spivey Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SPIVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRITY INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01912 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2020) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for
its alleged unlawful employment policies, practices, and procedures
in violations of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Day Rate Worker from
approximately August 2019 through April 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff consistently worked over 40
hours per week because he was assigned to daily job shifts at least
10 hours in length. But, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at not
less than 1.5 times his regular rate of pay.

Moreover, Defendant failed to factor in non-discretionary job
bonuses into Plaintiff's regular rate for determining overtime pay,
and failed to keep accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees.

Integrity Inspection Services, LLC operates oilfields around the
U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375
          Emails: Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
                  Dcimera@fslawfirm.com


INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Settlement Agreement Reached in Sawyer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Money Express, 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 has been reached in the class action suit initiated by
Stuart Sawyer.

On May 30, 2019, Stuart Sawyer filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq. ("TCPA"), based on
allegations that since May 30, 2015, the Company had sent text
messages to class members' wireless telephones without their
consent.

Following a mediation held on October 7, 2019, the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a term sheet providing the general terms for
the settlement of the action, which was memorialized in a
definitive Settlement Agreement on March 16, 2020 subject to
subsequent Court approval.

The Settlement Agreement provides for resolution of Mr. Sawyer's
TCPA claims and the claims of a class of similarly situated
individuals, as defined in the complaint, who received text
messages from the Company during the period May 30, 2015 through
October 7, 2019, and for the creation of a $3.25 million settlement
fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class
counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement also established procedures for the
notification of claimants and the processing of claims. The
settlement fund will be managed by a duly-appointed settlement
administrator which will be authorized to communicate with class
members, process claims and make payments from the fund in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the final
judgment in the case. No amount of the settlement fund will revert
to the Company; instead, any unclaimed funds will be sent to a
consumer advocacy organization approved by the Court.

The remaining balance of the amount payable under the Settlement
Agreement of approximately $2.9 million is included in accrued and
other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
March 31, 2020.

International Money Express, Inc., through its subsidiary, operates
as a money remittance services company in the United States, Latin
America, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The
company offers remittance services, including a suite of ancillary
financial processing solutions and payment services. It provides
services through sending and paying agents and company-operated
stores, as well as through online and Internet-enabled mobile
devices. The company was formerly known as FinTech Acquisition
Corp. II. International Money Express, Inc. is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


IQIYI INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 15 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IQ) ("IQ" or the
"Company") of the June 15, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you invested in IQ stock or options between March 29, 2018 and
April 7, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/IQ. There is no cost or obligation to you.
You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:

         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
IQ securities between March 29, 2018 and April 7, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The case, Lee v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 20-cv-01830 was
filed on April 16, 2020.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1)
iQIYI inflated its revenue figures; (2) iQIYI inflated its user
numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated its expenses to cover up other fraud;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research released a report alleging that
"IQ was committing fraud well before its IPO in 2018 and has
continued to do so ever since." Wolfpack estimates that iQIYI
inflated its 2019 revenue by approximately RMB 8-13 billion, or
27%-44%, by overstating its user numbers by approximately 42%-60%.

On this news, IQ's share price fell from $17.30 per share on April
7, 2020 to a closing price of $16.51 on April 8, 2020: a $0.79 or a
4.57% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding IQ's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

IQIYI INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming June
15, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of purchased iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IQ)
investors who purchased securities between March 29, 2018 and April
7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period).

If you suffered a loss on your iQIYI 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 March 29, 2018, iQIYI conducted its initial public offering
("IPO"), issuing 125,000,000 American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
priced at $18.00 per share.

Then, on April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research ("Wolfpack"), a global
financial research and due diligence firm, published a report
alleging that the Company "was committing fraud well before its IPO
in 2018 and has continued to do so ever since."  Wolfpack estimates
that the Company inflated its 2019 revenue by approximately RMB 8
billion to RMB 13 billion, or 27% to 44%, by overstating its user
numbers by approximately 42% to 60%.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.79, or over 4%, to
close at $16.51 per share on April 8, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) iQIYI inflated its revenue figures; (2) iQIYI inflated its user
numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated its expenses to cover up other fraud;
and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired iQIYI securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 15, 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
the firm at:

         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Charles Linehan
         Tel: 310-201-9150
              888-773-9224
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
         Web site: www.glancylaw.com
[GN]


IQIYI INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired iQIYI, Inc.
(NASDAQ: IQ) securities during the period from March 29, 2018
through April 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
June 15, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that iQIYI failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company inflated its revenue figures; (ii) the Company inflated its
user numbers; and (iii) the Company inflated its expenses and
prices of assets to cover up other fraud.

On April 7, 2020, the investment research firm Wolfpack Research
released a report alleging that iQIYI "inflated its 2019 revenue by
approximately RMB 8-13 billion, or 27%-44%" by "overstating its
user numbers by approximately 42%-60%" and "inflat[ing] its
expenses, the prices it pays for content, other assets and
acquisitions in order to burn off fake cash to hide the fraud from
its auditor and investors." On this news, iQIYI ADSs fell $0.99 per
share over the rest of the trading day and the next full trading
day, or 5.6%, to close at $16.51 on April 8, 2020.

If you acquired iQIYI securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

Contact:

         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
         Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/
[GN]


IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 17, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit against iQIYI, Inc. and certain
executives (IQ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

         David J. Schwartz
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         Tel: (800) 321-0476
         E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com
                 recover@labaton.com
[GN]

IQIYI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded iQIYI, Inc.
(IQ). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details
about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

IQ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/iqiyi-inc-loss-form?prid=6396&wire=1

iQIYI, Inc. (IQ)

IQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 29, 2018 -
April 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 15, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/iqiyi-inc-loss-form?prid=6396&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, iQIYI,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) iQIYI inflated its revenue figures;
(2) iQIYI inflated its user numbers; (3) iQIYI inflated its
expenses to cover up other fraud; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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


JAANUU INC: Kiler Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaanuu, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion
Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Jaanuu, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02436 (E.D. N.Y., June 2, 2020).

Jaanuu, Inc. manufactures apparels. The Company offers women tops,
skirts, and jackets for the medical and hospital industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




JEAN PIERRE: Faces Miller Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jean Pierre, Inc. The
case is styled as Scott Miller, individually on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Jean Pierre, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-02393 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Jean Pierre, Inc., specializes in cosmetic remover wipes, nose &
face strip & oil absorbing pads.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


JOHNSON & WALES: Hazel Seeks Refund of Tuition Over COVID Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN HAZEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. JOHNSON & WALES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-22251-CMA (S.D.
Fla., May 29, 2020), seeks to recover damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief resulting from JWU's retention of the full
tuition paid by Mr. Hazel and the other putative class members for
services not being provided.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a partial tuition reimbursement to
compensate for the diminished value of remote instruction along
with the portion of the tuition that funds on-campus services,
facilities, and extra-curricular activities that ceased when JWU
closed the campus.

In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, JWU, like many other
universities, moved all learning online for the remainder of the
Spring 2020 Term. As a result, all on-campus classes, including
laboratory classes, were no longer available to JWU students.

Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer learn on
campus, JWU required students to pay (and many to borrow) full
tuition for the Spring 2020 Term, failing to take into account the
diminution in value of the education the school is now offering
compared to what students were promised, the Plaintiff contends.

Mr. Hazel enrolled at JWU for the "Spring 2020 Term," which was
scheduled to run from March 9, 2020, through May 22, 2020.

JWU is a Rhode Island corporation with its principal place of
business located in Providence, Rhode Island. JWU has four
campuses: Providence, Rhode Island; North Miami, Florida; Denver,
Colorado; and Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  levine@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jennifer Thelusma, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jthelusma@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          350 Sansome St., Suite 680
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com


KEMET CORP: Accord in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Awaits Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 1, 2020, that the settlement made in the class
action suit entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No.
3:14-cv-03264-JD, is awaiting court approval.

KEMET and KEMET Electronics Corporation (KEC), along with more than
20 other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries were named as
defendants in a purported antitrust class action complaint, In re:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on
December 4, 2014 with the United States District Court, Northern
District of California (the "U.S. Class Action Complaint").

The complaint alleged a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
for which it sought injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages.

On November 8, 2019 KEMET and KEC entered into a settlement
agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the
U.S. Class Action Complaint by which, in consideration for the
release of KEMET, KEC, and their affiliates from all claims
relating in any way to the conduct alleged in the U.S. Class Action
Complaint and from claims which could have been asserted in the
U.S. Class Action Complaint to the extent they relate to the sale
of capacitors in the United States, KEMET agreed to pay an
aggregate of $62.0 million to the settlement class of plaintiffs.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, KEMET paid $10.0
million into an escrow account on December 6, 2019. The remaining
amount will be paid by KEMET within 12 months of the date of the
Settlement Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement KEMET and KEC did not
admit to any violation of any statute or law or any liability or
wrongdoing.

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

KEMET Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMET CORP: Bid to Dismiss Inductors Antitrust Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended February 1, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re: Inductors
Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD-NC, remains pending.

On July 2, 2018, TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. were named as two of
20 defendants in a purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuit,
In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD-NC,
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, regarding the sale of inductors brought on behalf of
direct product purchasers and indirect product purchasers.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Act, for which it sought injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages.

On September 24, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit; the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the
complaint.

On November 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint,
in which TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. remained as two of 21 named
defendants.

On January 15, 2020, TOKIN and TOKIN America filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint; the plaintiffs’ motion in
opposition was filed on March 16.

KEMET Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KINGDOM ANIMALIA: Williams Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingdom Animalia,
LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Kingdom Animalia, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04157 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).

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

Kingdom Animalia, LLC, doing business as Hourglass Cosmetic,
manufactures cosmetic 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


LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP disclosed that a class action is
currently being litigated with respect to a data breach alleged to
have been perpetrated by Spencer Brydges ("Brydges"), a former
student, at Laurentian University of Sudbury ("Laurentian").  The
class action was brought on behalf of certain Laurentian students
and staff members against both Laurentian and Brydges.

The Plaintiff and Brydges have reached a settlement with respect to
the claims against Brydges only. The Settlement has no impact on
the litigation against Laurentian, which will continue to be
litigated. The proposed class action against Laurentian has not
been certified to proceed as a class action and the Plaintiff's
claims against Laurentian have not been evaluated on their merits.

In consideration for Brydges' cooperation in the litigation against
Laurentian, the action will be dismissed against Brydges. Please
note, if you wish to object to the terms of the proposed Settlement
with Brydges, you must do so by October 9, 2020.

More details (including a copy of the Settlement Agreement and
Court approved notice), will be posted at www.mckenzielake.com.
[GN]


LIFELOCK INC: July 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Miguel Avila, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LifeLock Inc., Todd Davis, Chris G. Power, and Hilary A.
Schneider,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01398-SRB

To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock") publicly traded
common stock and/or call options, and/or sold LifeLock publicly
traded put options during the period from July 31, 2014 through
July 21, 2015, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby ("Settlement
Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement
Class, and LifeLock, Todd Davis, Chris Power, and Hilary Schneider
(collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in
the amount of $20,000,000 (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, on
July 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.  at the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse,
Suite 522, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
March 27, 2020; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution to
Settlement Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv)
approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.  The Court may
change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it
telephonically, without providing another notice.  You do NOT need
to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website of the Claims Administrator,
www.LifeLockSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

LifeLock Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91368
Seattle, WA 98111
www.LifeLockSecuritiesLitigation.com
877-545-0231

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP

Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY  10016
www.bernlieb.com
212-779-1414


LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
888-219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 16,
2020.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than June 30, 2020.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than June 30, 2020.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: May 4, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
[GN]


LIVEWATCH SECURITY: Silver Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Livewatch Security,
LLC. The case is styled as Jacob Silver, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Livewatch Security,
LLC, d/b/a Brinks Home Security f/k/a Bolster LLC d/b/a Safemart
and Monitronics International, Inc., d/b/a Brinks Home Security,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02478 (E.D. N.Y., June 3, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or
Truth-In-Lending filed over Breach of Contract.

LiveWatch Security LLC provides security systems. The Company
offers wireless home security, internet based security, custom
alarm system, fire monitoring, carbon monoxide detection, burglary
alert, and protection systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq.
   Schlanger Law Group, LLP
   9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 500-6114
   Fax: (646) 612-7996
   Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net




LOMA NEGRA: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Carmona Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sandor Karolyi and Eugenio Carmona filed an appeal from
the District Court's Opinion & Order dated April 27, 2020, and
Judgment dated April 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled
Carmona v. Loma Negra Compania Industrial, Case No. 18-cv-11323, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Loma Negra
Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima said in its Form
20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has issued an opinion granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Eugenio Carmona.

The plaintiffs brought these Exchange Act claims against Loma Negra
and two of its board members, on behalf of purchasers, who bought
Loma Negra shares on the open market from November 2, 2017, to May
23, 2018. The new Exchange Act claims allege that the company's
offering materials, and certain public filings and statements
contain material misstatements and omissions concerning our
prospects for future growth.

On September 19, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss and on December 6,
2019, the Company filed a reply to their opposition.

On April 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an opinion granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The order dismissing the complaint
remains subject to appeal.

The appellate case is captioned as Carmona v. Loma Negra Compania
Industrial, Case No. 20-1672, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Sandor Karolyi and Eugenio Carmona,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina
Sociedad Anomina, et al., are represented by:

          Douglas P. Baumstein, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-8586
          Email: dbaumstein@whitecase.com


LUCI'S EXPRESS: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA/NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CECI HAYDE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LUCI'S EXPRESS DELI INC. (DBA AS LUCI EXPRESS
DELI) and RIGOBERTO CRUZ, Case No. 0:20-cv-02405 (E.D.N.Y., May 29,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

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

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 2014 until
March 2020. She was primarily employed to perform various duties of
a cook at the Defendants' Deli.

The Defendants own, operate or control a Deli under the name
"luci'sExpress Deli" in Rockville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LYONS DOUGHTY: Thompson Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LYONS, DOUGHTY &
VELDHUIS, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Julia Thompson, aka
Julie Penamon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:20-cv-06648 (D.N.J., May 31, 2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis is a creditors' rights law firm dedicated
to consumer collections in the states of New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Ohio and Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTERCARD: Says GBP14BB Merchant Fee Class Action "Overblown"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Mastercard said on May 13 that a proposed GBP14
billion (US$17.2 billion) consumer lawsuit over its merchant fees
is "overblown and impractical," telling Britain's Supreme Court the
claims should not have been brought under the country's class
action regime.  The former head of the Financial Ombudsman Service
is seeking to sue Mastercard on behalf of 46 million consumers.
[GN]


MATIC INSURANCE: Kay Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Workers
--------------------------------------------------------
RYAN KAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATIC INSURANCE SERVICES INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02812-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 1, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated non-exempt employees
proper overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt inside
sales representative beginning in or around January 2020 through
April, 2020.

Matic Insurance Services Inc. is an insurance agency with principal
place of business located at 585 S. Front St., #300, Columbus,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:         
         
         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 949-1181
         Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
         E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

MDL 2878: MSP Recovery Antitrust Suit v. Ranbaxy, Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES
LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and SERIES PMPI, a designated series of
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC v. RANBAXY INC. and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., Case No. 5:20-cv-00982 (Filed May 6, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston) on May 29, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11023-NMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

The MSP case is being consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation titled MDL 2878, In re: RANBAXY GENERIC DRUG APPLICATION
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 11, 2019. These actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.

In its Feb. 11 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Plaintiffs
all allege that Ranbaxy adopted a practice of ignoring FDA
regulations and protocols to obtain first-to-file status for its
generic drug applications. The lead case is Case No.
1:19-md-02878-NMG.

Ranbaxy operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
manufactures and distributes generics, specialty, over-the-counter
products. Ranbaxy Labs was merged into Sun Pharma, and all
liabilities of Ranbaxy Labs, including contingent liabilities, have
been transferred to and vested in Sun Pharma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
          PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
          1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          Facsimile: (504) 523-0699
          E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com


MERVIN MANUFACTURING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mervin Manufacturing.
The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mervin Manufacturing, Case No.
1:20-cv-04156 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).

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

Mervin Manufacturing is a designer and manufacturer of
snowboarding, surfing, skiing and skateboarding 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


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Brown Class Cert. Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 class action suit initiated by Nathaniel Brown
is still pending.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against Mid-America
Apartments, L.P. (the Operating Partnership), as the successor by
merger to Post Properties' primary operating partnership, and MAA
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division.  

The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post
Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney's fees and
costs.  

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

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiff's 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.  

The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals.  

Mid-America said, "Management estimates that the Company's maximum
exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and summary
judgment ruling, is $8.4 million, which includes both potential
damages and attorneys' fees but excludes any prejudgment interest
that may be awarded."

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

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: Young Sues in W.D. Michigan Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as John Young, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00479 (W.D. Mich., May
29, 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:

          James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Zitronenbaum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chaya Zitronenbaum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-02408 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 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:

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


MOBILE MINI: Halper Sadeh Files Class Action Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, on May 13
announced the filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against
Mobile Mini, Inc. (NASDAQ: MINI) in connection with the proposed
merger between Mobile Mini and WillScot Corporation for 2.4050
shares of WillScot common stock for each share of Mobile Mini
common stock. The lawsuit seeks damages and/or equitable relief on
behalf of Mobile Mini shareholders under the federal securities
laws.

If you are a Mobile Mini shareholder and would like to join the
action or discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Mobile Mini 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 incomplete
and misleading registration statement recommending that Mobile Mini
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed merger between Mobile
Mini and WillScot. According to the complaint, the registration
statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning, among other things, Mobile Mini's financial projections
and the analyses performed by Mobile Mini's financial advisors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 13, 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/mobile-mini-inc-mini-stock-merger-willscot-corporation/
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.

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]


MRS BPO LLC: Macaraeg Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Jessica Macaraeg, Karen Sanders, Jacquelyn S.
Harrell, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. MRS BPO, LLC doing business as: MRS
Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03209 (N.D. Ill., May 30,
2020).

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

MRS BPO, LLC, is a financial services company specializing in
accounts receivables management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MULHOLLAND ENERGY: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Estrada Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MULHOLLAND ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant
(W.D. Tex., June 1, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant seeking to recover overtime compensation pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Rig Technician from
approximately December 2019 through April 2020.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant did not pay him at one and one-half
times his regular rate for all hours worked over 40 despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week.

Allegedly, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective, premium overtime wages and to record all the time they
have worked for the benefits of Defendant.

Mulholland Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield support service
company providing safe and efficient excavation and tank cleaning
services to meet the needs of customers in the Permian Basin in
Texas and New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375
          Website: https://www.fslawfirm.com/legal-team


MYER: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the historic class action run by Myer shareholders against the
retailer has been dismissed, with the Federal Court ordering the
parties pay their own costs.

The court on May 6 published orders made by Justice Jonathan Beach
on May 5 that brought the case to a close. Each party is likely to
have spent at least $10 million in legal fees.

One leading class lawyer said the outcome was "a pyrrhic victory"
for the 1000-odd class members while another said it was "like
kissing your sister".

The case was watched keenly as it was the first time a shareholder
class action had gone all the way to judgment in Australia.

The plaintiffs' claim was run by Portfolio Law and funded by
Australian Funding Partners (AFP), which was set up by
ex-MinterEllison partner Mark Elliott. Mr Elliott died in a vehicle
accident at his farm in Flinders, south-east of Melbourne, in
February.

The litigation centred on a phone call between then-chief executive
Bernie Brookes and analysts in which Mr Brookes announced Myer's
profit for 2014-15 would be higher than the $98.5 million posted in
the 2014 financial year.

Myer would issue a profit downgrade in March 2015 and eventually
report a profit of $77.5 million.

Although the plaintiffs proved Myer had misled shareholders,
Justice Beach found last October that they had not suffered any
financial loss because of "the hard-edged scepticism" of analysts.

The judge said the market doubted Myer would ever achieve its
projection to deliver a profit better than the $98.5 million it
posted in the 2014 financial year -- and this was built into the
share price.

Shortly before Mr Elliott's death, Australian Funding Partners
sought to reopen the case and provide details of financial loss. A
further hearing was scheduled in March but did not proceed.

Leading class actions plaintiff lawyer Damien Scattini, of Quinn
Emanuel, said the result was "like kissing your sister".

"It shows that parties bringing a class action have to consider all
of the elements of the case that they have to prove. That includes
causation: did the conduct actually make a difference?

"If not, run -- don't walk -- away from that case. It's a hard
lesson."

Herbert Smith Freehills partner Christine Tran said that for the
promoters "it was a costly endeavour given it ended as a pyrrhic
victory".

"The initial judgment was a mixed bag for both parties, resulting
in legal uncertainties for how the issues of loss might be
resolved, any subsequent appeals and the ruling on costs.

"Commercial reality would also be in play, given the death of a
driving figure in the funder's camp."

In a statement to the market, Myer said it was "pleased to
announce" the end of the proceedings. However, King & Wood
Mallesons partner Justin McDonnell said he didn't think there was a
winner.

"Myer will claim a victory. The claim dismissed. However, it has to
endure findings that its former CEO's 'rosy picture' was not
believed by the market."

Mr McDonnell said the real winners were "the now notorious market
analysts and market makers with their 'hard-edged scepticism'.

"They come away with reputations intact." [GN]


NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions 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 company continues
to defend class action suits related to its merger with C&J Energy
Services, Inc.

On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") among the Company, C&J Energy
Services, Inc. (C&J) and King Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub").

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, the following complaints have been filed: (i)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J
stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, (ii) two putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder
on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members
of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, (iii)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported
stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or
affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of
directors, and (iv) one putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company
on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
members of the Company's board of directors.

The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v.
C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D.
Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.) (collectively,
the "Stockholder Actions").

In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and
abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in
connection with the proposed C&J Merger allegedly omitted or
misstated material information.The Stockholder Actions seek, among
other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the
C&J Merger, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

C&J, the Company and the other named defendants believe that no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the
C&J Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder
Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and
the Company filed a Form 8-K on October 11, 2019 making certain
supplemental disclosures in connection with the C&J Merger.

Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods,
Bushansky and Palumbos actions voluntarily dismissed their claims
as moot on October 16, 2019, October 29, 2019 and November 20,
2019, respectively.

Nextier said, "Neither of the remaining Stockholder Actions have
been served or otherwise necessitate further response, but the
Company continues to believe that the allegations therein lack
merit and no supplemental disclosures were required under
applicable law, and intends to defend itself vigorously should
service be sought and the claims become active."

Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


NOLI YOGA: Conner Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------
Noli Yoga, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Noli Yoga, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02438 (E.D. N.Y., June 2, 2020).

Founded in 2015, Noli Yoga offers yoga pants and fitness
apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOOM: Faces Class Action Over Enrollment "Renewal Scheme"
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
targeting the weight-loss giant Noom for its alleged enrollment
"renewal scheme" that "traps" trial customers into pricey
"auto-recurring plans," a New York-based law firm and its
California client on May 12 launched a putative nationwide class
action against the company in Manhattan federal court. [GN]


NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Student Sues for Breach of Fin'l Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George Barker, writing for The Huntington News reports that
Northeastern graduate psychology student Manny Chong filed a class
action lawsuit against Northeastern University, alleging that the
university breached its Financial Responsibility Agreement with
students, which all students must sign before classes begin each
fall.

The contract states students who "pay all tuition, fees and other
associated costs assessed as a result of my registration and/or
receipt of services" are entitled to "educational services," which
Chong alleges are now "inferior" since the transition to online
classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The phrase "educational
services" is not defined in the contract, the suit says.

Chong declined to comment and his lawyers did not respond to
inquiries from The News.

The suit also states that the Commission on Accreditation of the
American Psychological Association, which accredits Northeastern's
Counseling Psychology PhD-level program, recognizes predominantly
online coursework as "pedagogically inferior" and that the classes
Chong enrolled in ahead of the semester were listed by the
university to be taught in person on the Boston campus.

Northeastern moved to online courses after March 11 in response to
the spread of the coronavirus. The university also ordered students
to move out of dorms and have not been able to access on-campus
resources like Snell Library, Marino Recreation Center or any
classrooms. The suit noted that "Northeastern markets the virtues
of its campus facilities to prospective students" and recommends
taking a tour of campus before enrolling.

The university provided a prorated housing refund to students who
had to move out, but the cost of tuition has not changed. The last
classes of the semester occurred April 14, with finals concluding
April 24.

As a result, the suit alleges that the university unjustly enriched
itself by retaining full tuition payments. Chong is seeking
judgment against the university to refund part of his tuition.
Being a class action lawsuit, a decision against Northeastern would
open the door for other students to potentially claim part of their
tuition back. Chong, a 2018 graduate of Boston University, is a
masters student in counseling psychology and paid $23,400 in
tuition for the spring semester, according to the suit.

"From March 12, 2020 onward, [Chong] and [other Northeastern
students] have been deprived of the benefit of that in-person
educational instruction which they paid for upon contracting with
[Northeastern]," the suit states.

When asked about the case, university spokesperson Shannon Nargi
wrote in an email to The News that "the university cannot comment
on a complaint that we have not received and therefore have not
reviewed. It is important to note that all colleges and
universities moved classroom instruction online this spring in
compliance with public health requirements."  

College students around the country have filed similar suits, with
Boston University, Drexel University, Vanderbilt University, Purdue
University and University of California, Berkeley, among the more
than 25 schools facing cases, according to the Associated Press.
[GN]


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Avila Suit Against Unit Settled for $20MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended April 3, 2020, that the company has settled the
case, Avila v. LifeLock et al., and will pay $20 million to the
class.

On August 29, 2019 the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate remanding a
securities class action lawsuit, originally filed on July 22, 2015,
against the company's subsidiary, LifeLock, as well as certain of
LifeLock's former officers (the "LifeLock Defendants") for further
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.


The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the
August 21, 2017 decision of the District Court, which had dismissed
the case with prejudice.

The complaint in the remanded action alleges that, during a
purported class period of July 30, 2014 to July 21, 2015, a period
that predates the company's acquisition of LifeLock, the LifeLock
Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

NortonLifeLock said, "We have settled this lawsuit and will pay $20
million to the class in the settlement. The settlement is subject
to approval by the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona. As a result of this settlement, we recorded a charge of
$20 million in General and administrative in fiscal 2020."

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Securities Suit Underway in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended April 3, 2020, that the company and certain of
its former officers remain defendants in a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against us and certain of our
former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an
order dated June 14, 2019.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and a proposed first amended complaint on July 11, 2019.

The Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the
first amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019.

The Court's order dismissed certain claims against certain of our
former officers. Defendants filed answers on November 7, 2019.

No trial date has been set.

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

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


ON THE SUN: Sued for Allegedly Underpaying Workers
--------------------------------------------------
Dean Blake, writing for Inside Retail Australia, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against convenience retailer On
The Run (OTR), on the grounds that it has underpaid more than 8000
current and former employees by between $50 and $70 million.

The lawsuit is being fronted by Adero Law, which has also headed
cases against Coles, Woolworths, Target and Big W.

According to the claims, OTR used up to seven different methods of
underpaying workers, including unpaid work, unpaid meal breaks,
involuntary overtime, unpaid work after shifts, insufficient
salaries, incorrect rates for trainees, and unlawful deductions
from wages.

"The system has failed to protect many thousands of workers –
Employers have been allowed to build empires and expand their
business portfolios on the backs of employees being paid less than
the minimum award entitlements," said Adero Law lawyer Kellie
Pledger.

"The Respondent has had every opportunity to implement fair
business practices and has failed to do so, instead they choose to
push for settlements without admissions of guilt and continue with
business as usual."

According to OTR, it has made it clear to Adero Law, several times,
that it intends to correct any payment errors made to its
attention. And OTR said the lawfirm had deemed it ‘unhelpful' to
work with the retailer on fixing this problem.

"In these circumstances, OTR has no choice but to defend the case,"
an OTR spokesperson said.

"The challenges of managing a 24/7 business, with a large workforce
across multiple sites and industrial instruments means that
mistakes are always possible, which is why businesses, including
OTR, have processes in place to investigate and fix any potential
issues raised."

OTR said this process would fix any wage discrepancies raised by
employees at no cost to the employee, and would ensure they get 100
per cent of money owed.

Class actions under the microscope

As the threat of underpayment continues, with many large scale
businesses having declared they too failed to remunerate staff
correctly, more and more workers are turning to class actions to
hold business to account.

Things could change soon, however, as the Morrison Government
announced it would lead a parliamentary inquiry on the impact of
class actions on businesses hit by the coronavirus.

And it will also look at the relationship between litigation
funders and lawyers acting for class action members, with these
gunders regularly taking up to 30 per cent of legal settlements and
leaving members to split the rest.

Attorney general Christian Porter said the outcomes were not
consistent with the interests of justice.

"Why would we not inquire into that phenomenon?" Porter asked,
according to AAP.

Shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus, however, said the inquiry was
nothing more than a shameless attempt to protect big business, and
that class actions provide a vital path for justice for ordinary
Australians.  [GN]


ONECOIN: Judge Reopens Ponzi Scam Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Nirmala Velupillai, writing for Bitcoin Exchange Guide, reports
that victims of the fraudulent cryptocurrency, OneCoin, have
recently persuaded the Judge to reopen the case, reports BehindMLM.
As per the claims made, a letter expressed the viewpoints of both
plaintiffs and defendants. Obviously, the former wants justice,
while the latter prefers to have further legal processes halted
once and for all.

Valerie Caproni, the judge that presided over the case, lifted the
stay and provided the defendant with a deadline for submission of
May 8. Within this time, the defendant must be prepared to answer
outstanding complaints.

For the time being, OneCoin's members Mark Scott and David Pike are
currently in the eyes of the justice system for laundering money
from the accounts. In particular, Scott was convicted back in
November 2019, while Pike has been talking to the DOJ and could end
up pleading guilty.

In the confines of the class action suit, Scott and Pike face
separate charges of money laundering and bank fraud.

Interestingly many players seem to have been involved in this scam.
An example is that of Florida attorney, Nicole Huesmann, who played
the role of laundering funds through Mumbelli Group. Additionally,
former head, Konstantin Ignatov, and his sister, Ruja were also
involved -- where the trio is holding a neutral position in lifting
the stay.

As per Behind MLM, plaintiffs have since been advised to file a
proposed schedule by May 8, 2020. [GN]



ORACLE CORP: Class Action Over Pay History Policies Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Oracle
Corp.'s alleged tying of workers' pay to their prior salaries
proved key in a recent court win for women in their compensation
and promotion lawsuit, signaling that the common business practice
could allow some discrimination class actions to survive where
others have not.

A California judge certified a class action of more than 4,000
women against Oracle, in part because the workers' attorney pointed
to the use of applicants' salary history to set their pay. A
similar argument about prior pay has been raised in a proposed pay
discrimination class action against Google Inc., also pending in a
California court.

"It's a common policy and practice that holds everything together,"
said James Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- an Altshuler
Berzon attorney who represents both the Oracle and Google workers.

Women who separately sued Microsoft Corp. and Twitter Inc. over
alleged pay and promotion imbalances have failed to convince courts
to let them pursue their claims as a group. The rulings in these
cases, filed under the federal Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, were upheld on appeal. Although the Oracle suit faced lower
class action hurdles under California's equal pay law, attorneys
say the existence of a specific prior salary policy could help
workers support other discrimination class actions.

Because women have historically made less than men, the reliance on
salary history to determine pay has been criticized in recent
years, including by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The U.S. Supreme Court could also soon consider the issue under the
Equal Pay Act, another federal anti-bias law. Several states have
already banned the practice, citing it as a business tool to bake
in discrimination.

Oracle's attorneys declined to comment, but said in court documents
that the company in 2017 instituted a ban against relying on salary
history for applicants nationwide. They added that nothing
previously prohibited the practice and decisions were left to
managers' discretion. The company also didn't respond to a request
for comment.

Women job applicants, especially women of color, are likely to have
lower prior salaries than their male counterparts, according to the
National Women's Law Center. Recent data shows women make 80 cents
for every dollar paid to their male counterparts—and compared to
white, non-Hispanic men, women of color face even larger wage gaps.
A study released in May found evidence of pay gaps shrinking, and
earnings for women increasing, in states that adopted salary
history bans.

"There's a strong correlation between wage gaps within the company
and these policies," said Andrea Johnson, the center's director of
state policy. "This is a practice, if you are using it, no matter
how much you support equal pay, is undercutting what you are doing
and setting yourself up for liability."

Still, business groups have argued that the common practice is
neutral, and a way to benefit both men and women compensated well
by previous employers. They've asked the Supreme Court to sanction
the practice as legal.

Class Action Hurdles
The California class action against Oracle was filed by former
company engineer Sue Petersen and two other women who claim that
the company paid women less than men for "substantially similar
work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and
responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions."
They said the company's reliance on salary history contributed to
the discrimination.

A separate $400 million action against Oracle, brought by the U.S.
Labor Department, also includes claims that the use of prior
salaries created a "pathway" for pay discrimination against female
and minority workers.

The California Equal Pay Act, which requires equal pay for workers
performing substantially similar jobs, makes it easier for workers
to join together as a class, in comparison to other federal or
state laws, attorneys said. Amendments to the state law say that
employers can't base an employee's pay on previous salary history.

In the Oracle case, job codes that had salary ranges associated for
the software engineer positions were used to unite the women,
Finberg said. The fact that previous salary was used before Oracle
changed its policy in 2017 was also a factor. Oracle claims that
managers had discretion to set pay based on salary.

A common policy, as opposed to managerial discretion, is key in
these cases on the federal level. The Supreme Court in its 2011
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes ruling created a high hurdle for
discrimination class actions filed under Title VII's sex
discrimination protections. It found that roughly 1.5 million women
didn't have enough in common to sue Walmart as a class. The recent
class actions against Microsoft and Twitter similarly didn't meet
that bar.

Yet, Finberg said if a company does have a practice of using prior
compensation, workers could argue that the common policy can
support a Title VII class action, as well. The difficulty is that
appeals courts are split on whether the practice violates certain
equal pay laws, something the Supreme Court could settle.

Companies have largely changed the practice of using prior salary,
said Megan Winter, a Fisher Phillips partner in San Diego, who
represents companies. She said employers could still be vulnerable
to pay equity lawsuits for decisions made years, or even decades
ago.

"Plaintiffs' attorneys are on the lookout for those scenarios as a
source of possible class liability. Even if a class claim is barred
by arbitration or cannot be certified, individual claims can be
expensive," Winter said.

Supreme Court Poised
The Supreme Court could reconsider a U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit decision that found that prior salary can't be used
to determine compensation under the federal Equal Pay Act.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Yovino v. Rizo was previously vacated
by the high court because the justice who penned the original
ruling died before it was issued. The appeals court reaffirmed the
original ruling. The case is again pending before the Supreme
Court. It has drawn interest from business groups, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which told the court that the "widely
used practice" has long been understood to be justified and has
"nothing to do with sex."

"Employers large and small, in every region of the United States,
have historically used prior salary as a metric to assess a range
of matters, including the caliber and experience of applicants, the
viability and competitiveness of their own compensation packages,
and, ultimately, the fairness of the wages they pay to employees,"
the Chamber's attorneys argued. "This sex-neutral practice can
benefit female and male applicants alike—particularly those who
were highly valued by their prior employers—by increasing the pay
that they might otherwise receive."

The Third Circuit recently upheld Philadelphia's ordinance that
bans employers from asking job applicants about their salary
history. The decision, for now, gave the city the green light to
implement a 2017 ordinance. Philadelphia's salary history ban was
among the first in the nation and the first to go into effect,
according to the city.

A wave of similar laws followed at the state and local levels.
Massachusetts passed the first state-level salary history ban in
2016. California, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and Hawaii have
adopted similar measures, while states such as New York and
Illinois have such laws affecting the public sector. But federal
legislation on the issue has stalled.

"Not only did the California legislature lead the country in
passing legislation confirming prohibition of the practice, now its
courts have affirmed a compelling blueprint for its accelerated
enforcement," said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal
Rights Advocates, referring to the Oracle class certification.
"With millions harmed by pay discrimination across the country,
this is a powerful and long overdue combination sure to impact
similar claims across the country." [GN]


ORACLE CORP: Suit Over Women's Pay Gains Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for The Mercury News, reports that a judge has
granted class-action status to a lawsuit claiming Bay Area software
giant Oracle paid women less than men in several job categories.

The ruling opens the way for more than 4,000 women who work or
worked at the Redwood City company in product development,
information technology and support functions to join the suit.

Evidence from a UC Irvine economist, whose report Oracle tried and
failed to get tossed from the case, alleged that women in those job
areas received compensation averaging $13,000 less per year than
similarly situated men.

Oracle, asked about the class-action ruling, said in a statement,
"This is just a procedural step unrelated to the merits of the case
and we look forward to trying those in court."

The suit was filed in 2017 in San Mateo County Superior Court by
engineers Rong Jewett, Sophy Wang and Xian Murray, with three
additional plaintiffs joining later.

Judge V. Raymond Swope, in his decision approving the class action,
noted that the women contend the alleged pay disparity arose mostly
out of Oracle's past practice of basing salaries on previous
compensation, which "the California legislature has found
perpetuates historical pay discrimination." California banned that
practice through a law that took effect at the start of 2018.

Damages in the case could amount to as much as $364 million, said
Jim Finberg, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. [GN]



ORANGE COUNTY, CA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Ahlman Prisoner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Don Barnes, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don Barnes, et al.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00835-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for
Central California, Santa Ana.

Don Barnes is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Orange
County, California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, who are all confined in the Orange County Jail, bring
this action because the conditions of their incarceration have put
them all at imminent risk of serious illness and death from
COVID-19.
The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don
Barnes, et al., Case No. 20-55568, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case shall proceed as
follows:

   -- the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later
      than June 28, 2020;

   -- the answering brief is due July 23, 2020, or 28 days after
      service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and

   -- the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MELISSA AHLMAN, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Peter Jay Eliasberg, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

               - and -

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Email: hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Mitchell Aaron Kamin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
          Email: mkamin@cov.com

               - and -

          John Clay Washington, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Email: jwashington@sshhlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants DON BARNES, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Orange County, California, and COUNTY OF ORANGE, are
represented by:

          Donald Kevin Dunn, Esq.
          Laura D. Knapp, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Leeds, Esq.
          Kayla Nicole Watson, Esq.
          ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
          333 W. Santa Ana Boulevard
          P.O. Box 1370
          Santa Ana, CA 92701
          Telephone: (714) 834-3300


ORGANIGRAM INC: Appeal Court Quashes Parts of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bruce, writing for the Chronicle Herald (Canada), reports
that a Halifax lawyer says a class action against a medical
cannabis producer will still go ahead despite a Nova Scotia Court
of Appeal ruling that reduces the scope of the lawsuit.

The class action against Organigram Inc. of Moncton, N.B., was
filed in March 2017 after some of its cannabis was recalled because
it contained trace amounts of unauthorized pesticides.

The lead plaintiff is Dawn Rae Downton, a medical cannabis user who
claims she experienced nausea and vomiting from consuming the pot
that was later recalled by Organigram.

A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge certified the class action in
January 2019, clearing the way for it to proceed to a common issues
trial.

But Organigram appealed, saying parts of the certification order
should be quashed.

The company did not challenge the decision to allow consumer claims
to be assessed as common issues but appealed portions of the
certification order involving personal injury claims of adverse
health consequences.

The company argued on appeal that there is no evidence that its
cannabis caused any adverse health effects, nor a "workable
methodology" for establishing any causal connection between its
cannabis and the symptoms complained of in this case.

Organigram also said the judge erred in certifying claims of unjust
enrichment.

In a decision, the Appeal Court allowed the company's appeal in
part.

"There is no evidence that there is a workable methodology to
determine that the proposed adverse health effects claims have a
common cause," Justice Peter Bryson wrote for the appellate panel.

"Proposed common issues for those claims should not be certified.
The claim for unjust enrichment is improperly pleaded and should be
struck."

Lawyer Ray Wagner, who represents the plaintiff in the class
action, said they are disappointed with the decision but respect
the court's view on the personal injury claims.

"The problem arose in addressing short-term harm," Wagner told The
Chronicle Herald on Friday. "We alleged various ailments were
caused by the unlawful use of myclobutanil and bifenazate.

"Unfortunately, there are no studies to relate the type of
biological impacts (that) result from the combustion of these
products because it would be unethical to use, by combustion,
pesticides and herbicides on humans in comparison to a control
group. Fortunately, the frequent ill effects of consuming the
product appear short-term."

Wagner said his legal team will pursue the consumer protection
aspect of the class action through to trial.

"We hope to get to the bottom of what happened, by whose direction
and with whose knowledge," he said.

"Important public policy concerns arise when producers are using
pest control products unlawfully on combustible products that are
also promoted as organic."

He said he will seek instructions from his client on whether an
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is warranted.

A news release from Organigram said it will continue to defend what
remains of the class action.

The company said it has already voluntarily reimbursed many of its
customers for the recalled product.

"Organigram previously reported the class action to its insurance
provider, which appointed counsel to defend the class action," the
release said. "Insurance may be available to cover all or a portion
of the fees or damages which may be associated with the class
action, although the company's coverage may be subject to varying
limits or exclusions.

"While the ultimate outcome of any court process is difficult to
ascertain, Organigram management does not anticipate that what
remains of the class action (including the resolution thereof) will
affect its business or operations in any material way." [GN]



PACE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Seeking Housing Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Zucker, writing for Westchester, reports that a Westchester
college is one of several class action lawsuits filed against
universities physically shuttered by the coronavirus pandemic,
making legal waves as students seek refunds on everything from meal
plans to housing.

One of the first sectors to voluntarily close its doors at the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic, education has moved entirely online
over the last several weeks. While primary and secondary school
students are learning to make do, college students are some of the
hardest hit, as entire campuses close -- dining halls, gyms,
libraries, and service offices included.

Arguing the current circumstances do not equate with the tuition,
room, and board they prepaid, students throughout the U.S. have
filed class action lawsuits in an effort to recoup some of these
costs, one of them right here in Westchester.

Along with similar claims against Columbia and Long Island
University, Pace University student Xaviera Marbury has filed suit
in the State of New York against the school, alleging that the
partial housing refunds promised by the school for on-campus
students during the spring 2020 semester are "arbitrary and wholly
inadequate."

Moreover, the suit seeks additional compensation for things like
meal plans and the promise of in-person educational and student
life benefits that are no longer available as classes occur solely
online.

"These cases are about basic fairness. Colleges and universities
are not unlike any other business in America," says Roy T. Willey
IV, the class action lawyer representing Marbury at the South
Carolina-based Anastopoulo Law Firm. "They are not any more
entitled to keep money for services they are not delivering than
the mom-and-pop bakery on Main Street."

Pace University's spring semester began January 27 and was slated
to run through May 16, however campuses have remained closed since
students left for spring break on March 11. So far, the school has
promised to issue partial housing refunds of $2,000 for Manhattan
campus residents and $1,600 for Pleasantville campus residents.

"Students and their families have pre-paid tuition and fees for
services, access to facilities and experiential education and the
universities and colleges are not delivering those services,
access, or experiences," Willey says. "It's not fair for
universities with multi-million-dollar endowments to keep all of
the money that students and their families have paid."

The lawsuit estimates Pace's current endowment at approximately
$182 million.

Though the lawsuit has been filed, the school has not yet been
served and Pace University Director of Public Affairs (Westchester)
Jerry McKinstry points out that transitional policies including
student refunds are a new and developing process.

"Pace University, like other colleges and universities across the
globe, was forced to quickly adjust to the effect of a pandemic on
our institution. The faculty, staff and leaders of Pace continue to
work tirelessly to support our students during this challenging
time," he says. "Since transitioning to remote learning, as
mandated by the State of New York, academic programs and services
have continued."

According to Pace's website, unused meal plan funds are carried
over into a student's next semester, or in the case of graduating
seniors, refunded.

The school has also implemented a pass/fail option for most
students to ease the stressful switch to e-learning and
transitioned many campus services like the learning center and
campus health services (including mental health counseling) away
from in-person methods "to provide personalized, interactive
support."

"Housing fee adjustments for students who had to leave the
residence halls are being issued," McKinstry says, adding, "We are
planning to use CARES Act funding to support our students when it
is available." [GN]


PENNSYLVANIA: DOH Sued for Lack of COVID Oversight of Nursing Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Pradelli, writing for 6abc, reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleges the Pennsylvania Department of Health is not doing
its job by failing to oversee long-term care facilities amid the
coronavirus outbreak.

"I want my dad to live . . . that's what I want," says Jodi Gill.

Her father, Glen Gill, is 81. He suffers from advanced dementia and
resides at the Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in
Western Pennsylvania, a facility that reportedly has had several
hundred cases of COVID-19 and more than 50 deaths.

"Every day I just hold my breath because I don't know what's going
on. What we know -- the number of deaths keep happening," said
Gill.

She is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit
seeks to compel the state to provide adequate oversight of nursing
homes.

"It's not just my dad, I am not asking for any money damages, I
want them to do their job and to save people," said Gill.

Philadelphia civil attorney, Marty Kardon, one of several attorneys
who filed the suit, says the state needs to do its job and resume
routine inspections of nursing homes.

"If there is a fire at your house, you want the hose directed at
the heart of the fire, not around it. Nursing homes are ground
zero," said Kardon.

Department of Health Secretary, Rachel Levine, says the state is
following guidelines by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and
still conducting complaint inspections.

"In terms of complaint inspections, we still do that and can still
do that on-site -- in fact we did do one," Levine said.

More than half of the more than 2,400 COVID-19 deaths in
Pennsylvania have been nursing home residents.

Currently, the state only releases the number of nursing home cases
by county. Kardon says nursing home staff, residents and families
deserve more transparency.

"That's very nice, but it does no one any good if you don't know
what nursing home has a lot of cases and which have none," Kardon
adds.

Glen Gill tested negative for COVID-19. The state said it couldn't
comment on the lawsuit and Brighton has not commented to Action
News.

AARP of Pennsylvania released this statement to Action News:

"While AARP Pennsylvania appreciates the actions that our state's
elected and healthcare leaders have taken to address the
coronavirus crisis, considering Pennsylvania has one of the oldest
populations in the United States and is home to nearly 126,000
people residing in nursing homes and assisted living facilities,
more must be done to protect Pennsylvania's nursing facility
residents.

It is troubling that some families remain in the dark about the
care that their loved ones are receiving, that facilities are not
communicating to families quickly about developing COVID-19 cases
in facilities, and that the workers on the frontlines are
completely overwhelmed and lack the equipment and support they
need. Our system must be more transparent.

AARP Pennsylvania has called on the Wolf Administration to
immediately address transparency concerns around coronavirus spread
and prevention in nursing homes. State officials, nursing home
operators, and family caregivers must all work together during this
crisis to ensure residents remain healthy and connected with their
families," Bill Johnston-Walsh, AARP Pennsylvania State Director
states. [GN]


PHENOS COLLECTIVE: Rohrer Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN ROHRER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHENOS COLLECTIVE, INC., d/b/a PHENOS CANNABIS
DISPENSARY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00757-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., May 29,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that at no time did she provide her cellular
number to the Defendant through any medium, nor did she consent to
receive such unsolicited text messages. She adds that she has never
signed-up for, and has never used, the Defendant's services, and
has never had any form of business relationship with the
Defendant.

Phenos is a cannabis dispensary located in the Modesto, California
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 524-2820
          Facsimile: 954 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com


PLAINS MIDSTREAM: Fails to Avert Pipeline Spill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
James Munson, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a subsidiary
of a Houston-based petroleum transportation company can't evade a
class action seeking damages allegedly caused by a pipeline spill
in central Alberta, a provincial Canadian court said.

Suzanne and Darin Rieger, representing a class of over 500 property
owners, meet the criteria for a class action under provincial
legislation, Justice Glen Poelman of the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta said in a judgment posted online on
May 12.

The class action application, filed seven years ago, covers six
actions against Plains Midstream Canada ULC, including allegations
of negligence, vicarious liability, and nuisance. [GN]


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus Ongoing in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation 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 Ride Plus
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Lynch v.
Ride Plus et al.

In Lynch v. Ride Plus et al., a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
California, a former Ride Plus driver (trade name for Provado
Mobile Health, a Company subsidiary) has sought to represent all
Ride Plus drivers in California on claims identical to the Patel
action.

This suit has only recently been served on Provado Mobile Health.

Provado Mobile Health plans to remove the case to federal court and
combine it with the Patel action or move to stay it while the Patel
action is pending, since the two actions cover the same subject
matter.

Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it
is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiff will
succeed in getting the court to certify a class, whether the
plaintiff and the class, if certified, will prevail on their
claims, or what they may recover."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PURPLE INNOVATION: Unit Facing Harper Class Suit over TCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Harper has filed a class action complaint against Purple Inc.
in Montana alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to Purple Innovation, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.

On April 2, 2020, Mary Harper, an individual purporting to reside
in Montana, filed a class action complaint against Purple Inc. in
the United States District Court District of Montana, Billings
Division.  Ms. Harper alleges Purple Inc. sent her text message
advertisements to her cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other individuals across the country in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 ("TCPA").

Purple Innovation says, "Purple Inc. does not engage in any
telephone-based marketing communication either directly or through
third party affiliates.  Purple LLC, a subsidiary company of Purple
Inc., is the operational, branding, and marketing company
associated with the Purple brand.  At all times, Purple LLC
maintained, and continues to maintain, strict compliance with
telephone marketing laws and only communicates with individual who
have provide written consent through a double opt-in process.
Purple Inc., and Purple LLC if added as a defendant, maintain that
Ms. Harper's lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously contest
it."

Purple Innovation, Inc. designs and manufactures mattresses,
pillows, and cushions. It also offers sheets, mattress protector,
bed frames, seat cushions, and weighted blanket and duvets. The
company markets and sells its products through direct-to-consumer
online channels, retail brick-and-mortar wholesale partners, and
third-party online retailers, as well as through its factory outlet
and the company owned showrooms. Purple Innovation, Inc. was
founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


QUALITY INTEGRATED: Maness Seeks Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MANESS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00179 (S.D. Tex., May 28, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a day-rate Coating Inspector
from approximately August 2018 until December 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
workers of Defendant worked in excess of 40 hours each week.
However, Defendant paid them a flat sum for each day worked
regardless of the number of hours that they worked that day,
thereby failing to pay them with overtime pay at one and one-half
times their rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40.

Quality Integrated Services, Inc. is an oil and gas construction
staffing company providing pipeline inspection and construction
management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          Emails: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and -

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


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Judge Decertifies Class in Prevagen Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that a
judge on May 4 decertified a class of consumers in a lawsuit in
California against Quincy Bioscience LLC, the marketer of Prevagen
-- a dietary supplement advertised to improve memory and the target
of a separate government lawsuit pending in New York.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted Quincy
Bioscience's motion to decertify the class in a 2015 lawsuit, which
alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). He denied competing
motions for judgment as a matter of law after a jury in January
2020 was unable to come to a verdict, resulting in a mistrial.

A judge on May 4 decertified a class of consumers in a lawsuit in
California against Quincy Bioscience LLC, the marketer of Prevagen
-- a dietary supplement advertised to improve memory and the target
of a separate government lawsuit pending in New York.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted Quincy
Bioscience's motion to decertify the class in a 2015 lawsuit, which
alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). He denied competing
motions for judgment as a matter of law after a jury in January
2020 was unable to come to a verdict, resulting in a mistrial.

In 2017, Gilliam certified a class of California consumers for
plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims. His decision was based on a
finding that the named plaintiff, Phillip Racies, presented
evidence suggesting he was motivated to purchase Prevagen based on
representations that the supplement improves memory, supports
healthy brain function, a sharper mind and clearer thinking.

During the trial, the court admitted into evidence plaintiff's
receipt for an item listed as "Prevagen Brn Cell Protect Cap 30S"
from a Walgreens in San Rafael, California. The label represented
that as people age, they "lose calcium-binding proteins that
protect our brain cells," and "Prevagen (Apoaequorin) replaces
those proteins in the body and helps protect our cells during this
natural process of aging."

But even though Racies testified at trial that he purchased
Prevagen because he was facing "some memory recall issues" and
wanted to purchase the supplement to "help me with those issues,
focus, memory, recall," he didn't present evidence of a product
label touting Prevagen to improve memory, Gilliam found.

Plaintiff neglected "to present any of the critical label evidence
submitted in support of his class certification motion at trial,"
Gilliam, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, wrote in his May 4 order. "Critically," the judge added
later in his opinion, "the 'Brain Cell Protection' label does not
contain any of the representations plaintiff claimed other class
members saw."

Gilliam set a telephone case management conference on May 12 to
discuss a plan for resolving the lawsuit.

"We are pleased with the outcome in this case and appreciate the
work put in by the jurors and the court," a spokesperson for Quincy
Bioscience said in an email. "We look forward to turning our full
attention to continuing to serve our millions of loyal customers
around the country."

Class counsel for plaintiffs, Elaine Ryan, and Stewart Weltman, did
not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Madison, Wisconsin-based Quincy Bioscience and its president, Mark
Underwood, still face a separate lawsuit brought by the FTC and
Attorney General of New York related to Prevagen. According to
court records, the dietary supplement yielded U.S. sales of $165
million between 2007 and mid-2015.

In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived
the lawsuit, which alleged violations of state and federal
deceptive advertising laws, following dismissal of the action in
2017 by U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton.

The controversy boils down to an interpretation of a randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled study on Prevagen, what the
company's lawyers described in court documents as the "gold
standard" to corroborate the advertising statements. Although the
study failed to show any statistically significant results for the
study population as a whole, statistically significant results were
identified among certain subgroups.

In July 2019, after the Second Circuit remanded the case back to
his court, Stanton largely denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
However, he threw out claims against one of the defendants, Quincy
Bioscience co-founder Michael Beaman.

The case remains in the discovery phase, and a trial has not yet
been set in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. [GN]


RASIER LLC: Fluss Files Ninth Circuit Appeal Against USDC-CALA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Fluss filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled BENJAMIN HELLER, DAVID FLUSS, ANNA LUNA, MARCY
LOKIETZ, AKASH SHETH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, AND UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-08545-PSG-GJS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Mr. Fluss seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to
vacate its order referring his driver claims to arbitration and
allow Parties to conduct discovery and/or leave to amend his
Complaint if the Court believes it is deficient in any manner.

The issue presented is whether drivers, who personally do not cross
lines, but do transport passengers and luggage traveling
interstate, including to and from airports and hotels, are engaged
in the flow of interstate commerce and, therefore, exempt from
binding arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration
Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this class action case against the Defendants for their
failure to secure and safeguard riders' and drivers' personally
identifiable information ("PII") which Uber collected in connection
with the operation of its business. On November 21, 2017, Uber
disclosed that in October 2016 hackers had stolen 57 million driver
and rider accounts and that Defendants had kept the data breach
secret for more than a year after paying a $100,000 ransom. Uber
has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident occurred, resulting
in the theft of its riders' and drivers' PII, consisting of names,
addresses, email addresses, credit card numbers and other
information. PII for Plaintiffs and the class of riders and drivers
they seek to represent was compromised due to Uber's acts and
omissions and their failure to properly protect PII.

The Plaintiffs contend that Uber could have prevented this Data
Breach. Uber disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected, failing to disclose to its riders and drivers the
material fact that it did not have adequate security practices to
safeguard PII, failing to take available steps to prevent and stop
the breach from ever happening, and failing to monitor and detect
the breach on a timely basis. As a result of the Data Breach, PII
of the Plaintiffs and Class members has been exposed, in all
likelihood, to criminals for misuse.

The appellate case is captioned as DAVID FLUSS,
Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, and RASIER, LLC,
RASIER-CA, LLC, and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Real Parties in
Interest, Case No. 20-71383, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner DAVID FLUSS is represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
          Email: pbishop@ssbla.com

               - and -

           Howard T. Longman, Esq.
           Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
           STULL, STULL & BRODY
           6 East 45th Street
           New York, NY 10017
           Telephone: (212) 687-7230
           Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
           Email: hlongman@ssbny.com
                  memert@ssbny.com

Defendants-Real Parties in Interest Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC and
Uber Technologies, Inc. are represented by:

           E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
           Allison M. Holt, Esq.
           Michelle Anne Kisloff, Esq.
           HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
           555 Thirteenth Street NW
           Washington, DC 20004-1109
           Telephone: (202) 637-5493
           Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
           Email: desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  michelle.kisloff@hoganlovells.com

                - and -

           Vassiliki Iliadis, Esq.
           HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
           1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
           Los Angeles, CA 90067
           Telephone: (310) 785-4600
           Facsimile: (310) 765-1601
           Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com


RCG RIFLE: Merino Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit & Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARISELA MERINO, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. RCG RIFLE, LLC, MICHAEL SPRADLIN and SARA
MARTZ, collectively d/b/a Rib City Grill, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01570 (D. Colo., June 1, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server at Defendants' Fruita
location.

According to the complaint, Defendants have a practice of
offsetting the minimum wages of servers, including Plaintiff, with
tips and gratuities left by Defendants' customers and distributed a
portion of the tip pool to owners, management, kitchen staff and/or
other employees who are not "customarily and regularly' tipped,
which invalidates Defendants' tip pool and nullifies Defendants'
entitlement to claim a tip credit against minimum wage.

Moreover, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and other employees
about the tip credit, and failed to provide them the meal and rest
breaks as required by the Minimum Wage Order.

RCG Rifle, LLC operates barbeque restaurants located in Grand
Junction, Fruita and Rifle, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Tel: (970) 214-0562
          Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


RECRO PHARMA: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in IV Meloxicam Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the recently Court-dismissed securities class
action suit related to the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV
meloxicam has filed a second amended complaint, according to Recro
Pharma, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that
purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the
NDA for IV meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019.

On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was
completed on the motion to dismiss.

In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019.

On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice.  

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

Recro Pharma said, "The defendants intend to file a motion to
dismiss as to this complaint.  In connection with the separation of
Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio accepted assignment by the Company of all of
its obligations in connection with the Securities Litigation and
agreed to indemnify the Company for all liabilities related to the
Securities Litigation.  The Company and Baudax Bio believe that the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it if the plaintiffs file a new complaint."

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


REVERA LIVING: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rieger, writing for CBC News, reports that a $25-million
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the company that
operates the McKenzie Towne Continuing Care Centre in Calgary,
alleging the company was negligent and did not follow proper
protocols to prevent an outbreak of COVID-19.

The outbreak at the home, operated by Revera Living, has claimed 21
lives and seen a total of 62 residents and 44 staff test positive
so far. Two residents and a staff member at a retirement home
across the street, also operated by Revera, tested positive as
well.

The outbreak at the retirement residence has been declared over but
the larger outbreak at the continuing care centre is ongoing.

The application by James H. Brown and Associates and Guardian Law,
filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Marijke Laberge, seeks damages
for residents of the home who contracted COVID-19 and their
immediate family members.

Laberge's mother moved into the home in late February, contracted
COVID-19 on March 28 and died April 4.

The class action will need to be examined and certified by a judge
before it can proceed.

Jonathan Denis, a partner at Guardian Law and a former Alberta
attorney general, said the facility fell short of the standard that
seniors deserve.

"We found there was a lack of preparation, there wasn't a plan to
deal with the pandemic, there was inadequate spacing between
residents . . . staff were entering rooms without protective
equipment and there was not enough staff to respond," he said.

"We are hoping that a matter like this brings change for better
care for seniors in this province."

Previously, nurses have told CBC News they believe staffing
shortages, a failure to properly clean and ineffective isolation
practices contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak.

But Revera has said it has been working closely with Alberta Health
Services to resolve the staffing shortages, denies any cleaning
issues and says it's practising proper isolation protocols. The
company operates more than 500 homes across North America and the
U.K.

Long-term care homes have proven to be particularly vulnerable to
outbreaks as often-frail residents live in close quarters that can
facilitate the spread of infections, and the elderly are
particularly at risk of negative outcomes if they contract the
illness.

As of May 12, there were 105 active cases and 559 recovered cases
at continuing care facilities in Alberta; 85 residents at those
homes have died.

The class-action suit against Revera in Calgary is not alone in
targeting long-term care homes for their response to COVID-19.

A suit in Ontario is seeking $100 million from Revera Retirement
Living and Sienna Senior Living, and another is in the works in
B.C. against Retirement Concepts. Neither lawsuit has yet been
certified by a judge. [GN]


REVERA RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reports that Sally Acker wants
accountability for her mom, Gloria Leitch, who died of COVID-19 on
April 28 at the Madonna Care Community in Ottawa. She was 88.

That's why Acker has joined a $100-million class-action lawsuit
filed on May 12.

The revised claim is against Revera Retirement Living and Sienna
Senior Living, which both own and manage long-term care facilities
across the country. Combined, the two companies own more than 130
nursing homes in Ontario alone.

An earlier statement of claim named Revera only, but now there are
six plaintiffs including two whose father lived at Madonna, where
as of May 13 33 residents and one staff member had died of
COVID-19.

This class action, which must be examined and certified by a judge
in order to move forward, alleges negligence and breach of
contract.

"I believe that a lot of the residents were infected with COVID
because the proper infection controls weren't being used or
followed proper procedures," Acker said. "It chokes me up. It's
terrible. It's elder abuse, and I hate to say that, but it's
neglect."

'Somebody should be responsible'

Recognizing her mother was close to death, staff at Madonna allowed
Acker to visit her during the final four days of her life. Acker
said she witnessed staff "running off their feet" during that
time.

But Acker said a camera she'd placed in Leitch's room earlier also
showed her mother was left staring at a wall for about 12 hours,
except for "toileting and feeding."

"I did call to complain, and the only answer I got was, 'That
breaks my heart, but we are so short staffed there's nothing you
can do about it,'" Acker said. "I'm not blaming the PSWs. They are
truly my heroes . . . [but] somebody should be responsible."

Communication a problem

Like Acker, Scia Shortliffe and Angele Mansfield lost a loved one
to COVID-19 at Madonna. Their father, Dennis Shortliffe, had only
lived at the home since January. He died April 23.

Shortliffe and Mansfield are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Their lawyer told CBC they were unavailable to comment for this
story.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, Scia and Angele received little to
no communication from the Defendants [Madonna] regarding the
measures that the Defendants were taking to keep their residents
safe from COVID-19," according to the statement of the claim.

Inadequate staffing, improper supervision and poor planning are
also among the claims against the companies.

'Clear outbreak protocols'

Revera Retirement Living, a subsidiary of Revera Inc., owns or
operates more than 500 properties across Canada, the U.S. and U.K.,
while Sienna Senior Living Inc. is a publicly traded company listed
on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

In a statement to CBC News regarding the initial statement of claim
filed against Revera, the company said it would be reviewing the
lawsuit and would respond in due course.

"However, we will not let it distract us from our singular focus at
this time, which is to prevent further illness and loss of life,"
the statement said.

The company adds it's been following government directives since
the outset of the pandemic.

"We all thought we were very well prepared. We deal with outbreaks
all the time: influenza outbreaks, rhinovirus, other
coronaviruses," Dr. Rhonda Collins, the chief medical officer at
Revera, told CBC in a recent interview.

"We have very clear outbreak protocols that are communicated to
staff on a regular basis. Staff are trained and educated about use
of [personal protective equipment] and about following protocols
for hand hygiene and infection prevention and control measures."

Sienna did not respond to CBC's request for comment regarding the
lawsuit on May 12.

The lawyer who filed the suit, Darryl Singer, with Diamond and
Diamond in Toronto, said he's been contacted by hundreds of people
who represent thousands of residents and family members across
Ontario.

"What we're hearing from the families is that this is an issue of
not being prepared, not adequately caring for the residents," said
Singer, who noted there's a push for these companies to put better
systems in place for the future.

"This is the initial pandemic period.  Our medical officers of
health across the country are all saying the same thing, not just
in Ontario: there's going to be a second wave and possibly a third
wave." [GN]


RIPPLE: Faces Another XRP Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Castor, writing for Decrypt, reports that a new class-action
lawsuit has been filed against crypto giant Ripple and its CEO Brad
Garlinghouse alleging securities laws violations regarding the sale
and marketing of XRP.

The lawsuit alleges that Ripple created the XRP cryptocurrency for
the sole purpose of making its founders and a few other people
rich.

The suit, filed on May 1 in the Northern California District Court,
claims that XRP, the third largest cryptocurrency by market cap,
according to data collected by Nomics, was marketed to the public
to raise more than $1 billion. In order to drive demand, Ripple
made "a litany of false and misleading statements regarding XRP,"
the suit alleges.

A curious plaintiff

The complaint was filed by attorney Pavel Pogodin through his
company, Consensus Law, located in Isla Verde, Puerto Rico. The
plaintiff is Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement LLC, a curious entity
with virtually no online presence. According to public records, the
entity was set up in March 2019 with Pogodin himself listed as the
"resident agent."  

"[Y]ou do have to chuckle at the irony of a plaintiff that looks
like it was created as a litigation vehicle making this charge,"
Stephen Palley, a partner with the Anderson Kill law firm, tweeted
earlier on May 4.

Interestingly, Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement was also the
plaintiff behind another class-action lawsuit filed in November
against crypto derivatives exchange FTX. That suit, which demanded
$150 million from the exchange in exemplary and punitive damages,
was dismissed a month later.

Ripple faces multiple class-action lawsuits from investors in
California who are claiming damages over the company's alleged
failure to register XRP as a security with the SEC and provide the
public with the appropriate company documents and disclosures. This
new lawsuit echoes many of the same claims made in previous
lawsuits against Ripple.

Is XRP a security?
XRP is a security because the purchasers were led to believe they
could expect a profit and were told that XRP would be a long-term
growth asset, the complaint alleges.  The law firm for the
plaintiff also maintains that XRP is not a currency because "there
are no products or services that can be purchased with XRP."

Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum,
which are mined by a decentralized network of nodes, all 100
billion XRP in existence were created in a centralized manner,
without incurring any significant costs by Ripple in 2013,
according to the complaint.  

At that time, 20% of the total XRP supply was given to the
founders, while the other 80% was retained by Ripple itself. Those
80 billion XRP were put into an escrow, which Ripple has contended
in the past that it can not touch. A portion of XRP are released
from escrow each month, and Ripple, in the past, has sold XRP on
cryptocurrency exchanges. (It halted this practice last year).

"Defendants have since earned massive profits by selling off XRP to
the general public, in numerous offerings, having sold $1.1 billion
in XRP to retail customers in exchange for legal tender
cryptocurrencies, (most often Bitcoin and Ethereum)" the complaint
reads.

The complaint goes on to contend that Ripple's sole value
proposition as a company depends upon the promotion of XRP, "yet
XRP is entirely or essentially pre-functional and purchased by
investors in anticipation of profit based on the efforts or
Ripple."

Ripple has in the past vigorously denied similar allegations. In
March last year, Ripple CTO David Schwarch took the stage at the
annual SXSW festival in Austin, Texas, and presented his arguments
for why XRP should not be considered a security.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has not taken a position
on whether XRP is a security. [GN]


ROBINHOOD: Faces Class Action Over March Outage
-----------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that plaintiffs
Jared Freedland, David Kostenko, and Romeo Toro filed a class
action complaint against Robinhood, a popular securities investing
and trading app, in relation to a March outage that has already
resulted in many lawsuits.

The plaintiffs claim that Robinhood falsely advertised its app as
"reliable" and that users can "trade in real time." They
highlighted the app's outage during March 2-3 and 9, when
"investors using its platform were unable to execute trades." They
also note that the outages occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic,
which has impacted the stock market and economy. The plaintiffs
said, "investors' losses were, predictably, higher as a result of
Robinhood's outages than they likely would have been but for such
volatility." They also alleged that Robinhood breached a contract
with its users because it failed to "provide access to their
accounts, equities, and money, though Defendants nonetheless
received consideration from Plaintiffs and other Class members in
the form of order flow data, interest, account fees, and fees."

Freedland noted the importance of the ability to "access" and
"control" investments during this time. As a result, "Mr. Freedland
lost approximately $1300, instead of making approximately $100 in
profit that he otherwise would have realized from that option.
Defendants' outages caused Mr. Toro to miss a trade and thereby
lose approximately $47,000 in profit. Defendant's outages caused
approximately $2000 in losses to Mr. Kostenko, not including any
profits he potentially could have made." The plaintiffs also said
Robinhood acknowledged that "[t]he outages you have experienced
over the last two days are not acceptable." While Robinhood stated
it was addressing the problem and was upgrading its infrastructure,
more outages occurred.

The plaintiffs sought class certification for their complaint.
Questions of fact and law common to the potential class, defined as
"All Robinhood accountholders within the United States as of March
2, 2020," include: Whether the "trading platform was inadequate to
handle reasonably foreseeable demand"; if Robinhood "failed to
provide contingencies to customers to execute timely trades in the
event of an outage"; if Robinhood violated "Financial Industry
Regulator Agency (FINRA)" rules, consumer protection laws, breached
"legal, regulatory, and licensing requirements," breached contracts
with Class members and their fiduciary duties, was negligent,
unjustly enriched, if Class was injured by Robinhood's actions and
if Plaintiffs and Class are entitled to relief.

The plaintiffs alleged that Robinhood breached its fiduciary duties
because the company failed to provide adequate access to its app
and financial services in a timely fashion as a result of the
outage and allegedly inadequately built and maintained app. They
claimed that Robinhood was grossly negligent as evidenced by the
outage; they allegedly failed to provide financial services via the
app as a result of their poor technology, which did not account for
market demand or fluctuations and stability. They concluded that
Robinhood did not "exercise reasonable care" as expected to provide
a suitable trading platform.

The suit was filed in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs are represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson.

Unlike other class actions that Robinhood has faced, this lawsuit
does not focus on the fact that March 2 was a record trading day;
instead, it focuses on the volatility of the market in light of
COVID-19 and the need to access and control one's investments.
Robinhood has faced 33 federal lawsuits since March. While most
lawsuits have been categorized as contract disputes, other case
types include fraud, product liability, and personal injury. [GN]


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Charleau Suit Moved From Mass. to Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAAVEED CHARLEAU, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. S-L DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10864 (Filed May 6, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) on May 29, 2020.

The Middle District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00879-CCC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Christopher C. Conner.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Defendant, according to its Web site, "is a wholesale
distributor of various snack food products manufactured by
subsidiaries and affiliates of Snyder's-Lance, Inc."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com
                  zrubin@llrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Keri L. Engelman, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 341-7700
          E-mail: keri.engelman@morganlewis.com


SCIPLAY CORP: Nevada Court Stays Good's IPO Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that a Nevada trial court has entered a stipulated
order that, among other things, stayed John Good's lawsuit related
to the company's initial public offering pending entry of an order
resolving the motion to dismiss in a similar case before a New York
state court.

On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff Good filed a putative class
action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay, certain of
its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay's underwriters with
respect to SciPlay's initial public offering.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.

On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an
order resolving the motion to dismiss that is pending in the
SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.



SCWORX CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased SCWorx Corp.
(NASDAQ: WORX) securities between April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 29, 2020 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On April 13, 2020, 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." According to
Hindenburg Research, 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," Promedical claimed to the FDA and regulators in
Australia to be offering COVID-19 test kits manufactured by Wondfo,
but "Wondfo put out a press release days ago stating that
Promedical ‘fraudulently mispresented themselves' as sellers of
its Covid-19 tests and 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 April 22, 2020, the SEC halted trading of the Company's stock.
As of the filing of the complaint, trading remains halted.

The complaint, filed on April 29, 2020, 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 SCWorx securities during the Class Period, are a
long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

        Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
        Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
        Marion Passmore, Esq.
        Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
        Tel: (212) 355-4648
        E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
        Web site: http://www.bespc.com/


[GN]



SCWORX CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of SCWorx between
April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SCWorx investors under the
federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges 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 shares closed at $12.02
per share, up $9.77, 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 and
it has remained halted as of today.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of SCWorx
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June
29, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact:

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Tel: (212) 983-1300
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com
         Web site: http://www.gme-law.com/
[GN]



SCWORX CORP: June 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Yannes v. SCWorx Corp., et
al., (Case No. 20-cv-03349) on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired SCWorx Corp. ("SCWorx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: WORX) securities between April 13, 2020 and
April 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").  SCWorx investors have until June
29, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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. Follow us for updates on Twitter:
twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased SCWorx securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than June 29, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class.  If you purchased SCWorx securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


SCWORX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded SCWorx Corp.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until
the deadline listed to petition the court.

WORX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=6286&wire=1

SCWorx Corp. (WORX)
WORX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 13, 2020 -
April 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 29, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=6286&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SCWorx
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests
had previously misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer
was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the
purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the
Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or
entirely fabricated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

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

SIENNA SENIOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Guly, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that as
the COVID-19 pandemic claims the lives of older Canadians, the
long-term care homes in which they reside are facing growing
accusations of negligence.

One of the latest allegations, came from a woman who told the
Ottawa Citizen that her father would not have died of COVID-related
complications had he received better medical care and had the home
-- run by Sienna Senior Living Inc. in the east end of Ottawa and
where nearly 30 residents have died from the virus -- practised
proper infection control.

The man's family has reached out to national firm Diamond and
Diamond Lawyers LLP, which on May 12 added Sienna, operator of 37
nursing homes in Ontario, to a class action lawsuit filed with the
Ontario Superior Court on April 29.

It's the largest COVID-19-related class action in Canada and seeks
$120 million in damages against Revera Inc., owner and operator of
105 long-term care and retirement homes in Ontario through its
subsidiary, Revera Retirement Living, and now Sienna.

In the statement of claim, the six representative plaintiffs seek
$100 million in damages for negligence and breach of contract, and
$20 million for exemplary, punitive and/or aggravated damages.

Darryl Singer, Diamond and Diamond LLP

The lawsuit alleges that Revera's and Sienna's negligence in
failing to "follow acceptable practices regarding the prevention
and containment of contagious respiratory illness, such as COVID-19
. . . to properly and adequately plan for and respond to the
COVID-19 pandemic . . . have adequate staff" within the homes "to
care for the residents in a safe and competent manner . . .  [and]
to communicate adequately with families of residents" led to the
deaths of the family members of the representative plaintiffs as
well as other similar fatalities in an action that could include as
many as 3,000 nursing home residents and 10,000 individual
family-member plaintiffs, according to Toronto personal injury
lawyer Darryl Singer, head of commercial and civil litigation at
Diamond and Diamond. "We've had two lawyers in our office doing
nothing but returning calls from people about the class action," he
told The Lawyer's Daily.

He said the firm initiated the lawsuit because it had been working
on dozens of individual negligence cases against long-term care
homes throughout Ontario over the past five years. While most of
the lawsuits settled out of court, the claims were similar to those
now levelled against Revera and Sienna.

"The allegations of negligence that we made against nursing homes
in those individual cases involved people being let out of their
rooms when they're not supposed to be; people falling out of bed
because the railing wasn't up; people sitting in their own soiled
diaper for 12 or 14 hours because the staff was ‘too busy,' "
Singer explained.

"All of these things existed prior to the COVID crisis, and when
COVID hit, it was no surprise, and so we jumped onto the class
action against Revera."

He said that in addition to the actions against Revera and Sienna,
Diamond and Diamond has been contacted by people with family
members at retirement and long-term care homes owned and operated
by Chartwell Master Care LP, and could launch a class action
against the Mississauga, Ont.-based publicly traded company.

"There are years and years of neglect here, and that applies to all
of the chains," Singer said. "You've got companies that have put
profit over the person."

He explained that Revera, which is also headquartered in
Mississauga, was originally a real estate investment trust, once
publicly traded until it went private in 2007. The year before, a
majority stake in the company was purchased by a subsidiary of the
federal Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

"The objective of a pension fund is to make as much as it can for
its stakeholders," said Singer. "I'm not suggesting they should not
be entitled to a profit. But when you're in certain types of
businesses, your obligation to make a profit is tempered by your
legal obligation to the people from whom you're making that
profit."

He said the problem with major corporations running nursing homes
is that they often put in place the "bare minimum" provincial
requirements for staffing and resident care.

In the Revera and Sienna class action, the plaintiffs contend that
the defendants breached their duty of care to residents by, in
part, failing to either establish a care plan or follow it
adequately, and "involve the residents/seniors and/or substitute
decision-maker in the plan," and failing to develop a program to
report "incidents of deficient or incompetent treatment or care of
a resident, resulting in harm or risk of harm to the resident or
senior under their care."

Last year, Revera faced about 85 lawsuits across Canada by families
who alleged negligence at the company's facilities caused or
contributed to the death of residents.

In 2018, the Ontario Superior Court discontinued a proposed class
action against Sienna, which in a statement at the time, said that
it "expects that this will be an individual claim and any potential
liability pursuant to such [a] claim will be covered by insurance
and should therefore not have a material adverse impact on the
business."

Singer said that during the COVID crisis, he's heard from employees
at nursing homes that they have not been properly equipped with
personal protective equipment (PPE). "They said when their
management calls the head office, they're told to figure it out
themselves, leaving PSWs [personal support workers] to come up with
their own safety precautions," he said.

In April, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) obtained a court
injunction on behalf of registered nurses at four private long-term
care homes that have experienced outbreaks during the pandemic and
which of the date of the April 22 hearing, had lost 54 residents to
COVID-19.

In Ontario Nurses Assn. v. Eatonville Care Facility Inc. 2020 ONSC
2467, released two days after the hearing, Ontario Superior Court
Justice Edward Morgan ordered the four nursing homes to provide
nurses working there with access to fitted N95 facial respirators
and other appropriate PPE as required. The application judge also
ordered the facilities "to implement administrative controls such
as isolating and cohorting of residents and staff during the
COVID-19 crisis."

The ONA argued that none of those measures was suitably implemented
at the four facilities: Eatonville Care Centre, Anson Place,
Hawthorne Place and Henley Place.

"We've now got a documented record from that case where the court
has said that the [two] companies that own those homes are not
doing enough for their employees," said Singer.

"Employees from Revera and Sienna have said to me that because they
didn't have sufficient PPE and the home didn't do enough to isolate
patients, they didn't want to work and were told that if they
didn't, they would lose their job."

"These aren't the nurses, who are unionized, well paid with great
pensions. These are the PSWs who are for the most part earning
minimum wage and are often the sole support for their families."

Some nursing homes have four residents to a room, with each only
separated from the others by a curtain, and isolating those who
have tested positive for COVID-19 "costs money," said Singer.

He explained that in order to move someone infected within a home
might mean moving another resident, who doesn't have the virus, out
of a private room and refund the extra paid for the upgrade to that
person.

"We're not just saying that Revera and Sienna didn't take the
appropriate steps once the COVID outbreak occurred, but that they
didn't have a crisis plan in place," said Singer. "If you're
running a long-term home, it's reasonably foreseeable that an
outbreak of an infectious disease is something that could occur and
that you have to prepare for."

Sienna did not respond to The Lawyer's Daily's request for comment
on the class action.

But Revera did, by way of a statement widely provided to the media,
in which the company said that it is "currently reviewing the class
action lawsuit and will respond in due course."

"However, we will not let it distract us from our singular focus at
this time, which is to prevent further illness and loss of life,"
the statement reads.

"Our homes regularly meet or exceed government standards, and we
have been following government directives since the outset of the
pandemic."

However, Singer said that every long-term care home in Canada has
to meet government standards or face closure.

"We say that their obligations go above and beyond their statutory
obligations," he explained. "They have a common law duty of care
and a contractual duty of care, which is at a much higher threshold
than just the bare minimum government standard."

The class action suit against Revera and Sienna states that the
companies owed a fiduciary duty of care to residents, including
their dependency on a home to "determine the best options for
assistance, care and treatment on a day-to-day basis as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic," and provide residents with "a safe and
protected environment and to keep them safe."

On behalf of the plaintiffs, Diamond and Diamond furthermore
alleges that the injuries and deaths caused by COVID-19 to nursing
home residents were caused by breach of contract, and is asking the
Ontario Superior Court for damages to reflect the fatalities that
resulted in Revera and Sienna failing to "properly mitigate the
risk," along with pain and suffering of both the class family
members and current residents of the company's properties.

Punitive damages are also sought "as a result of the egregious,
outrageous and unlawful conduct of the defendants and, in
particular, their callous disregard for the health and lives of
frail, elderly patients in Canada," according to the statement of
claim.

It alleges that while the companies promote their homes as
providing "compassionate care," they have shown "complete
indifference to or a conscious disregard for the safety of
residents and other senior in their care, justifying an award of
punitive damages and/or aggravated damages in a sum which will
serve to deter the defendants from similar conduct in the future."

In April, a class action lawsuit was launched against a
Montreal-area, Quebec government-run nursing home where, as of late
April, 88 residents had died of COVID-19 since March.

"All of these cases always come down to the facts, but as a matter
of law, the class members will have to prove that there was a
breach of the standard of care expected in the industry," said
Jasminka Kalajdzic, an associate professor and director of the
Class Action Clinic at the University of Windsor's Faculty of Law.
"For example, if the evidence is that the nursing home did not have
a pandemic plan in place that would be bad for the defendants. If
the evidence is that they didn't follow the pandemic plan or didn't
abide by the government guidelines that would also be very bad for
the defendants."

In 2009, a class action certified by the Ontario Superior Court
against the Ontario government and the city of Toronto following an
outbreak of Legionnaire's disease at a public nursing home in the
city four years earlier resulted in a $1.2-million settlement for
135 class members.

But the class actions filed against long-term care homes are just
"the tip of the iceberg -- the beginning of a trend toward
litigating any COVID-related issues," said Kalajdzic, a former
civil litigator, who noted that such lawsuits have been launched in
the U.S. involving insurance companies, universities and colleges
regarding business and service disruptions caused by the pandemic.
[GN]


SIGNATURE BANK: Quinn Suit Seeks PPP Agent Fees for Accountants
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Quinn, doing business as Q Financial Services, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Signature Bank
Corp; Signature Bank; Signature Financial LLC; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-04144 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020),
seeks compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to comply with
the CARES Act that requires them to pay out of the compensation it
received for processing Paycheck Protection Program PPP loans, for
services the Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered
on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency
loans.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been harmed by the
Defendants' practice. As a CPA firm that does payroll and other
small business support functions, the Plaintiff assisted small
business clients who submitted an application to the Defendants and
was then funded through the PPP program. The Plaintiff contends
that the Defendants have received the 5% compensation related to
this loan based upon the amount of the loan, but have not paid the
Plaintiff its 1% agent fee related to the loan.

On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's PPP which initially
authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP I). After the
initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion
additional dollars to the program (PPP II).

The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).

Q Financial Services is a Certified Public Accounting firm with its
principal place of business located in Marco Island, Florida.

Signature Bank is a New York-based full-service commercial bank
with 31 private client offices and two client accommodation offices
located throughout New York, Connecticut, and California. Signature
Financial is a subsidiary of Signature Bank and provides equipment
finance and leasing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com
                  tqn@mccunewright.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: July 21 Fairness Hrg Set in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 1:16-cv-06728-CM-SDA (S.D. N.Y.), a Summary Notice of
(I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses has been filed.

The Notice is for all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Signet Jewelers Limited ("Signet") common stock
during the period from August 29, 2013 to May 25, 2017 (the "Class
Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Class").

The Notice relates that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, the Action been certified as
a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons
and entities who are excluded from the Class.

Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of
the Action for $240,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held on July 21, 2020 at 4:00
p.m., before the Honorable Colleen McMahon at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 24A
of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine:  (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
March 16, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (v) any other
matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection
with the Settlement.

The recent outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a fluid
situation that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to
conduct the Settlement Fairness Hearing by video or telephonic
conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the
hearing by phone, without further written notice to the Class.  In
order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement
Fairness Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may
participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the
Court's docket and the Settlement website,
www.SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com before making any plans to
attend the Settlement Fairness Hearing.  Any updates regarding the
Settlement Fairness Hearing, including any changes to the date or
time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Also, if the Court
requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Fairness Hearing by telephone, the phone number for accessing the
telephonic conference will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:  Signet Securities
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91189, Seattle,
WA 98111, 1-888-964-0513, Info@SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, www.SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than August 28, 2020.  If you are a Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than June 30, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
June 30, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Signet Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91189
Seattle, WA 98111
1-888-964-0513
Info@SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.SignetSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com [GN]


SIRIUS TECHNICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, Merlino Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
FRANK MERLINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00178 (S.D. Tex., May 28, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was staffed by Defendant to Energy as a Mechanical
Supervisor from January 2014 until roughly the summer of 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay him overtime despite
routinely working 60 hours a week. Instead of paying Plaintiff at
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours each week as required by the FLSA, Defendant
paid Plaintiff straight time pay for overtime hours worked.

Sirius Technical Services, Inc. provides workforce solutions to
companies in the industrial, commercial, and government sectors.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          Emails: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and -

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


SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU: Smith Suit Transferred to Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shawn Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southern Farm Bureau
Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, was transferred from the
Lonoke County Circuit Court with the assigned Case No.
43CV-20-00346 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas on June 3, 2020, and assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00707-BRW.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company provides auto,
homeowners, life, and other insurance needs in Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Lee Lowther , III, Esq.
   Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
   519 West Seventh Street
   Little Rock, AR 72201
   Tel: (501) 312-8500
   Email: llowther@cbplaw.com

     - and -

   John M. Rainwater, Esq.
   Rainwater, Holt & Sexton P.A.
   Post Office Box 17250
   Little Rock, AR 72222-7250
   Tel: (501) 868-2500
   Email: john@rainfirm.com

     - and -

   Joseph Henry Bates , III, Esq.
   Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
   519 West Seventh Street
   Little Rock, AR 72201
   Tel: (501) 312-8500
   Fax: (501) 315-8505
   Email: hbates@cbplaw.com

     - and -

   Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
   Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
   519 West Seventh Street
   Little Rock, AR 72201
   Tel: (501) 312-8500
   Fax: (501) 312-8505
   Email: toldham@cbplaw.com





SPARTINA LLC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spartina LLC. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Spartina LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04154
(S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).

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

Spartina is an upscale women's handbag and accessory company,
featuring linen and leather handbags, accessories, jewelry and
more.[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


STATE FARM MUTUAL: Sperling Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company.  The case is styled as Wendy Ann
Sperling, individually, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an
Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01014-LAB-LL
(S.D. Cal., June 2, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
as a Diversity Action.

State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William Litvak, Esq.
   Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
   11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 550
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (310) 477-5575
   Fax: (310) 477-7090
   Email: wlitvak@drllaw.com



STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Jones Seeks to End Tender Offer Expiration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO JONES v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., IVAN BERGSTEIN, RON
BENTSUR, DARREN CLINE, ALAN FORMAN, DANIEL HUME, MARK SARD, and
KENNETH ZUERBLIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-04139 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated against the Defendants for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 14d-9.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer by
Mercury Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Berlin-Chemie AG, a subsidiary of A. Menarini-Industrie
Farmaceutiche Riunite-S.r.l. (Menarini Group).

On May 4, 2020, Stemline announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Menarini Group will
acquire all outstanding shares of Stemline for (i) $11.50 per share
in cash, plus (ii) one contingent value right per share. Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced the Offer on May 12,
2020. The Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute after 11:59
p.m., Eastern Time on June 9, 2020.

On May 12, 2020, in order to convince Stemline's public
stockholders to tender their shares in the Offer, the Defendants
filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9
with the SEC, which omits or misrepresents material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction, according to the complaint.
The failure to adequately disclose such material information
renders the 14D-9 false and misleading.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(d),
14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Stemline's stockholders
need such information in order to make a fully informed decision
whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed
Transaction or seek appraisal.

The Plaintiff is, and has been a continuous stockholder of
Stemline.

Stemline is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development and commercialization of novel oncology
therapeutics. The Individual Defendants are directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112


STUDS INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------
Studs, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Studs, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02439 (E.D. N.Y., June 2, 2020).

Studs, Inc. offers maintenance and repairs such as repairing
appliances, cutting wood, Interior/exterior painting, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SUPER MICRO: Amended Complaint Filed in NY Trades & Hotel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit headed
by the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New
York City, Inc. Pension Fund, according to Super Micro Computer,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Court has previously granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case, with leave for lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint within 30 days.

On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were
filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort
v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United
Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No.
18-cv-00850).

The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public
statements regarding recognition of revenue.

The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint
naming the Company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as
an additional defendant.

On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint naming the Company's former Senior Vice President of
International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director as an
additional defendant.

On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave for lead plaintiff to file an
amended complaint within 30 days.

On April 22, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Super Micro Computer, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops and manufactures high-performance server and storage
solutions based on modular and open architecture. Its solutions
range from complete server, storage, modular blade servers, blades,
and workstations to full racks, networking devices, server
management software, server sub-systems, and support and services.
It sells its products through direct sales force, distributors,
value added resellers, system integrators, and original equipment
manufacturers. The company has operations primarily in the United
States, Europe, Asia, and internationally. Super Micro Computer,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


TAB: Gladwin Legal Mulls Class Action over Quaddie Glitch
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Dorries, writing for racenet, reports that a Melbourne legal
firm is spruiking for business on twitter by trying to launch a
class action against the TAB over April's system glitch which
offered punters huge cash figures heading into the final leg of the
Randwick and Doomben quaddies.

The blunder occurred on Doncaster day when even losing ticket
holders were offered monster payouts.

One punter posted a picture on social media that they accepted an
offer of $235,447.87 for just over 51 per cent of the Sydney
quaddie, which ended up paying just $7506.80 for 100 per cent in
NSW.

However, the correct figures were subsequently paid on the final
quaddie dividend if punters had cashed out and were alive going
into the fourth leg -- regardless of whether they had the winner in
the final leg.

Customers who had losing bets but who cashed out were given bonus
bets in way of an apology.

But now Gladwin Legal wants to take the matter further, tweeting it
was "seeking expressions of interest from those who lost money in
relation to a possible class action" in relation to the Doncaster
day glitch or one on a Cranbourne quaddie later in April.

"Were you directly impacted by TAB's cash-out "glitch" on the
Randwick and Doomben quaddies on Saturday 4 April 2020, or the
Cranbourne quaddie on 17 April?," Gladwin Legal writes.

a) did you accept a cash out offer from TAB?

b) were you still alive in the quaddie at the time you accepted
the cash out offer?

c) did TAB make negative adjustments to your TAB account following
the cashout offer?

If you answered "yes" to all of the above, you are eligible to
register your interest in a class action against TAB."

However the move by the legal firm does not appear to have gone
down well with many twitter types, judging by some of the responses
to their tweet. [GN]


TALOS ENERGY: Faces Patel Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A stockholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Timothy
S. Duncan, et al. The case is captioned as VRAJESHKUMAR PATEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant TALOS ENERGY INC. v.
TIMOTHY S. DUNCAN, NEAL P. GOLDMAN, CHRISTINE HOMMES, JOHN "BRAD"
JUNEAU, DONALD R. KENDALL, JR., RAJEN MAHAGAOKAR, CHARLES M.
SLEDGE, ROBERT M. TICHIO, JAMES M. TRIMBLE, OLIVIA C. WASSENAAR,
RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS, LLC, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC. and
GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, and TALOS ENERGY INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 2020-0418 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties.

Talos Energy is an oil and gas company that engages in the
exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas
properties in the Gulf Coast and Gulf of Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
          Mickler F. Troupe, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES
          PO Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 654-1888
          Facsimile: (302) 654-2067
          E-mail: tmickler@ashby-geddes.com


TCA FUND: Law Firms File Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, Silver Law Group, and Gibbs
Law Group have filed the first TCA Funds Class Action Lawsuit on
behalf of investors against TCA Fund Management Group, which is the
investment advisor to the TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P., and
other TCA Funds. The lawsuit charges the defendants with
intentionally inflating the value of the Master Fund by failing to
remove bad loans and charging advisory fees that were not earned or
collectable. Attorneys at Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial,
Silver Law Group, and Gibbs Law Group are reviewing potential legal
claims on behalf of additional TCA investors.

The victims assert that TCA Fund Management Group intentionally
inflated the Master Fund's Net Asset Value with bad loans and
phantom investment advisory fees, and as a result, defendants
collected excessive management fees for advising the Master Fund,
among other things. The Master Fund announced it would be
liquidating in January 2020 following reports that TCA insiders
blew the whistle to the SEC charging that the Funds' numbers were
fabricated and that, in fact, TCA had losses of over $200 million,
according to the complaint.

"The victims of this scheme were intentionally misled and deprived
of the opportunity to make an informed decision about their
investment," said David Stein of Gibbs Law Group.

Scott Silver, managing partner of Silver Law Group added, "Our
clients were shocked to learn about TCA Management's troubled
history and involvement in multiple lawsuits."

TCA investors who would like to learn more about their legal rights
in the TCA Class Action Lawsuit may contact our team at
888-410-2925.

                     About Silver Law Group

Silver Law Group is a nationally recognized securities and
investment fraud law firm representing investors worldwide to
recover their investment losses. The law firm focuses on
plaintiff-side class action litigation and securities arbitration
claims representing individual investors and institutions in claims
against brokerage firms, investment advisors, commodities firms,
hedge funds and others. Silver Law Group also routinely serves as
counsel to receivers and trustees in matters relating to the
recovery of investor losses in Ponzi schemes. Admitted to practice
in New York and Florida, our attorneys have recovered millions of
dollars for defrauded investors.

           About Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial

Since 1999, Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial attorneys have
taken to trial or arbitrated more than 415 cases, in addition to
countless matters resolved as a matter of law or settled where
compromise was advantageous to its client. Since 2010, WWHGD
attorneys tried 132 cases to verdict.

                      About Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group is committed to protecting the rights of investors
and consumers nationwide who have been harmed by corporate fraud
and misconduct. The firm has recovered over a billion dollars for
its clients against some of the world's largest corporations, and
our attorneys have received numerous awards for their work,
including "Class Action Practice Group of the Year," "Top Boutique
Law Firms in California," "Best Lawyers in America," "Titans of the
Plaintiffs Bar," "Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California," "California
Lawyer Attorney of the Year," and "Top Class Action Attorneys Under
40." [GN]


TENAGLIA & HUNT: Feder Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenaglia & Hunt P.A.
The case is styled as Baruch Feder, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tenaglia & Hunt P.A.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04245 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 3, 2020).

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

Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A. is a full service regional law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



THOMAS GOHAGAN: UC Berkeley Alumnus Sues Over Cancelled Cruise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of Guy Saperstein, a UC Berkeley Law graduate, against
Thomas P. Gohagan & Company ("Gohagan") for failing to provide a
money refund to its reservation holders and against Travel Guard
Americas LLC ("Travel Guard") for denying benefits to its insurance
policyholders in connection with the cancellation of a cruise for
UC Berkeley alumni—European Coastal Civilizations: A Voyage from
Lisbon to London ("Cruise").

Many UC Berkeley alumni reportedly paid thousands of dollars to
book travel through Cal Discoveries Travel, part of the Cal Alumni
Association, which provides the UC Berkeley alumni community with
educationally oriented travel through Gohagan, among other tour
operators. In March 2020, in light of the pandemic, Gohagan
canceled the Cruise and denied a money refund to Mr. Saperstein and
others who paid Gohagan for the Cruise. Travel Guard also denied
trip cancellation benefits to Mr. Saperstein and others who insured
the Cruise with Travel Guard. Mr. Saperstein contends Gohagan's
failure to provide a refund breached its contract with reservation
holders and Travel Guard's denial of benefits breached its contract
with insurance policyholders, among other claims.

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

"Travel cancellation by airlines, trains, cruise ships, and other
travel companies is expected during the pandemic but so are money
refunds and/or payment of trip cancellation benefits to consumers.
Consumers should not have to bear the loss of the canceled
travel."

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

Contact:

          Adam Zapala
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
          Tel: (650) 768-8069
          E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com

                   - and –

          Elizabeth Tran Castillo
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
          Tel: (650) 259-3247
          E-mail: ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
[GN]


TICKETMASTER: Concert-Goers File Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq. -- joliver@moginrubin.com -- of
MoginRubin, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
concert-goers tired of paying "supracompetitive fees" on ticket
purchases from Ticketmaster LLC filed a class action against the
company and its parent, promoter Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.,
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 28 for abusing its more than 70% share of the primary
ticketing market (i.e. where tickets are initially sold) for major
concerts. The merged companies are also aggressively deploying
anticompetitive tactics in pursuit of the lucrative "secondary
ticketing" market where tickets are re-sold, typically at higher
prices.

Ticketmaster achieved its dominant position through a "web of
long-term exclusive dealing agreements" and other anticompetitive
activity, the plaintiffs maintain. The companies merged in 2010,
putting the ticketing giant together with the nation's "most
dominant concert promoter." Live Nation controls 60% of the
promotion business for major concerts. AEG Live is a distant number
two, with 20% market share. Now, the plaintiffs say, Live Nation
uses Ticketmaster as a loss leader to bludgeon its competitors and
strong-arm venues (Iderstine v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and
Ticketmaster LLC, No. 1:20-CV-03888-PA-GJS, C.D. Calif., Western
Div.).

"Subsidized by the supracompetitive profits Ticketmaster's business
generates from its domination of primary ticketing services for
major concert venues, Live Nation Entertainment is able to keep a
stranglehold on concert promotion services -- losing tens of
millions of dollars annually -- by paying its clients exorbitant
amounts," the complaint reads. Live Nation "regularly threatens"
concert venues with eliminating action began more than a decade ago
after the company acquired Ticketmaster. A 2010 final judgment
permitted the merger but prohibited the company from retaliating
against concert venues for using competing ticket companies,
threatening concert venues, or taking other actions against concert
venues for 10 years (United States v. Ticketmaster Entertainment,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00139-RMC [July 30, 2010]).

These are highly profitable companies. Live Nation's 2018 revenues
were $10.8 billion. Ticketmaster, a wholly-owned subsidiary
following their merger in 2010, made $1.5 billion in 2018.

Despite the 2010 judgment, the DOJ announced earlier this year that
Live Nation had been repeatedly violating it for years. The
government hopes the modified and extended judgment clarifies for
Live Nation what conduct is out of bounds and gives consumers and
venues the relief the DOJ wanted in the first place.

Historically, structural remedies (such as divestitures) have been
preferable to behavioral remedies (like consent decrees) in
addressing antitrust concerns over proposed mergers. As Live Nation
and Tickmaster are demonstrating, behavioral remedies are too
easily ignored or abused by post-merger behemoths. Too often the
benefits of violation outweigh the punishment. Their behavior also
highlights the anticompetitive effects that can result from
large-scale vertical mergers, which have been rampant in recent
years. Bundling, tying, and exclusive contracts are just a few of
the competitive concerns that we see playing out here, not to
mention a stagnation in the entry of new competitors in various
complementary markets.

Seeking relief under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
Tickemaster and Live Nation, the Iderstine v. Live Nation complaint
says:

  -- Engage in anticompetitive exclusive dealing with concert
venues;

   -- Improperly wield the conditional copyright license
Ticketmaster employs to grant access to its online platform,
blocking, for example, purchases of a large number of tickets.

   -- This forces ticket brokers into exclusivity with
Ticketmaster, and not its competitor;

  -- Bar individuals from transferring tickets unless they use
Ticketmaster to do so;

   -- Prevent secondary ticket service providers from being able to
do business -- and charge consumers lower fees -- by forcing venues
to use both their concert promotion and concert ticketing services.
In other words, tying. Ticketmaster enjoys double-digit annual
growth as a result of its "unchecked" anticompetitive conduct, the
complaint says.

   -- Use "coercion of and threats against disloyal customers,
ticket brokers, and others";

   -- Execute vertically arranged boycotts.

Ticketmaster has "clearly engaged in blatant, anti-consumer
behavior for years," the plaintiffs say. In addition to its
"behind-the-scenes efforts to feed ticket brokers huge amounts of
supply if they sold on Ticketmaster's secondary platform," the
plaintiffs cite the DOJ's extension of the 2010 consent decree.
It's only recently come to the attention of ticket-buyers that Live
Nation has been "shamelessly" violating the consent agreement for
years.  It also notes that the Federal Trade Commission ordered
Ticketmaster to stop implying ticket prices were higher on its
primary platform than its secondary re-sale platform, when the
opposite is true.

The complaint seeks certification of two subclasses:
Primary Ticketing Services Consumer Class. "All end-user purchasers
in the United States who purchased a primary ticket and paid
associated fees for primary ticketing services for an event at a
major concert venue in the United States from Ticketmaster or one
of its affiliated entities owned, directly or indirectly, by Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc. at any point since 2010."

Secondary Ticketing Services Consumer Class. "All end-user
purchasers in the United States who purchased a secondary ticket
and paid associated fees for secondary ticketing services for an
event at a major concert venue in the United States from
Ticketmaster or one of its affiliated entities owned, directly or
indirectly, by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. at any point since
2010." [GN]


TICKETMASTER: Koskie Minsky Commences Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky has commenced a class proceeding against Ticketmaster
for refusing and delaying refunds to people who bought tickets for
events that have been, or will be, postponed, rescheduled or
canceled as a result of COVID-19.

The class action is brought on behalf of all Canadian residents who
purchased one or more tickets from Ticketmaster for an event taking
place after March 13, 2020 that has been postponed, rescheduled or
canceled, or is postponed, rescheduled or canceled prior to
certification of the class action.  

It is alleged that customers are entitled to prompt refunds, in the
original form of payment, under the terms of their contracts with
the defendants or under consumer protection laws.  

Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky, stated "The defendants are
refusing to refund Class Members' money on any reasonable timescale
-- or at all -- protecting their corporate bottom line at the
expense of their customers. Canadians need this money right now."

For further information: please contact Charles Hatt at
chatt@kmlaw.ca [GN]


TIKTOK: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that TikTok has become the latest major
consumer-facing tech company to face a lawsuit under Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

The maker of an eponymous and highly popular video sharing app, and
its China-based parent company ByteDance, are now facing a proposed
class action suit in a California court. As Reuters reports, the
complaint was filed by the guardians of two Illinois children who
uploaded photos to the app and used facial filters in TikTok
videos.

In mapping digital images onto live videos, facial filter
technology necessarily entails the biometric scanning of a user's
face, whose digital map provides the frame upon which the digital
images are overlaid. According to the BIPA complaint, TikTok
collected biometric information from users without telling them it
was doing so, nor did it explain why it did so; these are
violations of BIPA regulations, which revolve around the use of
informed consent in biometric data collection.

At this point, numerous companies have allegedly run afoul of BIPA,
including Google, which faced a class-action lawsuit in February
over its use of biometric face scanning on images uploaded to its
Google Photos platform. That complaint came shortly after Facebook
settled a class action BIPA suit of its own, to the tune of $550
million.

More recently, Clearview AI, which has notoriously collected images
from across the internet and social media apps for a facial
recognition system market at police agencies (among many other
organizations), faced a preliminary injunction in its own BIPA
lawsuit asking that the company be forced to delete the biometric
data it has collected.

The numerous cases, together with the latest complaint against
TikTok, illustrate the escalating tension between the tech world's
routine collection of biometric data and a growing movement
demanding greater privacy protections for consumers and citizens.
[GN]


TMS INTERNATIONAL: Hattabaugh Seeks Unpaid OT for Pit Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP HATTABAUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00801-AJS (W.D. Pa., June 1, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated hourly-paid workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek by excluding their non-discretionary bonuses in their
regular rate when calculating their overtime pay. The Plaintiff and
Class members seek relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly pit operator
from around August of 2017 until May of 2020.

TMS International, LLC is a provider of on-site, industrial steel
mill services, with principal place of business located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Josh Sanford, Esq.         
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         One Financial Center
         650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Tordjman Files Product Liability Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Isaac Tordjman,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Toyota
Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No.
9:20-cv-80871-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
          GROSSMAN, ROTH, YAFFA, COHEN, PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 442-8666
          Fax: (305) 285-1668
          Email: szg@grossmanroth.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Zuo Files Product Liability Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yang Zuo, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-06607-ES-CLW (D.N.J., May 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVEL GUARD: UC Berkeley Alumnus Sues Over Cancelled Cruise
------------------------------------------------------------
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of Guy Saperstein, a UC Berkeley Law graduate, against
Thomas P. Gohagan & Company ("Gohagan") for failing to provide a
money refund to its reservation holders and against Travel Guard
Americas LLC ("Travel Guard") for denying benefits to its insurance
policyholders in connection with the cancellation of a cruise for
UC Berkeley alumni—European Coastal Civilizations: A Voyage from
Lisbon to London ("Cruise").

Many UC Berkeley alumni reportedly paid thousands of dollars to
book travel through Cal Discoveries Travel, part of the Cal Alumni
Association, which provides the UC Berkeley alumni community with
educationally oriented travel through Gohagan, among other tour
operators. In March 2020, in light of the pandemic, Gohagan
canceled the Cruise and denied a money refund to Mr. Saperstein and
others who paid Gohagan for the Cruise. Travel Guard also denied
trip cancellation benefits to Mr. Saperstein and others who insured
the Cruise with Travel Guard. Mr. Saperstein contends Gohagan's
failure to provide a refund breached its contract with reservation
holders and Travel Guard's denial of benefits breached its contract
with insurance policyholders, among other claims.

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

"Travel cancellation by airlines, trains, cruise ships, and other
travel companies is expected during the pandemic but so are money
refunds and/or payment of trip cancellation benefits to consumers.
Consumers should not have to bear the loss of the canceled
travel."

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

Contact:

          Adam Zapala
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
          Tel: (650) 768-8069
          E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com

                   - and –

          Elizabeth Tran Castillo
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
          Tel: (650) 259-3247
          E-mail: ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
[GN]


TURTLE FUR: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turtle Fur Company.
The case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Turtle Fur Company, Case No.
1:20-cv-04153 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).

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

Turtle Fur has been the leading headwear and accessories brand in
the outdoor, snow sports, hunting/fishing, and lifestyle markets
for more than 35 years.[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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Capriole Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Capriole, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in his lawsuit titled John Capriole, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02211-EMC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week. Plaintiff Capriole was employed by the Defendants as
driver.

The appellate case is captioned as John Capriole, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-16030, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 26, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 27, 2020;

   -- Appellants John Capriole, Martin El Koussa and Vladimir
      Leonidas' opening brief is due on September 4, 2020;

   -- Appellees Dara Khosrowshahi and Uber Technologies, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on October 5, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN CAPRIOLE, MARTIN EL KOUSSA and VLADIMIR
LEONIDAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: akramer@llrlaw.com
                 sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DARA KHOSROWSHAHI
are represented by:

           Theane Evangelis, Esq.
           Heather Lynn Richardson, Esq.
           Brandon Stoker, Esq.
           GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
           333 South Grand Avenue
           Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
           Telephone: (213) 229-7000
           Email: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
                  bstoker@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

           Blaine H. Evanson, Esq.
           GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
           3161 Michelson Drive
           Irvine, CA 92612
           Telephone: (949) 451-3800
           Email: bevanson@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

           Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
           GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
           555 Mission Street Suite 3000
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Telephone: (415) 393-8200
           Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
           Email: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com


UNILEVER US: Breyers Ice Cream Has Less Vanilla, Falborn Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Falborn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-04138
(S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's Homemade
Vanilla Ice Cream Product contains a de minimis amount of real
vanilla, with its vanilla taste provided by artificial vanillin,
not disclosed to consumers as required on the front label or
ingredient list, as required.

Unilever manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells its
Homemade Vanilla Ice Cream under the Breyers brand. The Product is
available to consumers from retail and online stores of
third-parties and is sold in cartons of 1.5 Quarts.

The relevant front label representations include "Breyers,"
"Homemade Vanilla," "It's How Homemade Should Taste," a vanilla
flower and a bucket of fresh cream.

The Plaintiff contends that the representation as "Homemade Vanilla
Ice Cream" gives reasonable consumers the impression that vanilla
is the characterizing flavor, (vanilla is contained in a sufficient
amount to flavor the product, the flavor is only provided by the
natural characterizing flavor of vanilla, and no other flavors
simulate, resemble, reinforce, extend, enhance or compensate for
any reduction in the amount of real vanilla used to supply the
vanilla taste.

Unilever manufactures personal care products. The company offers
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.
as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces,
tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
          Great Neck NY 11021-5101
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 W 93rd St., Fl. 16
          New York, NY 10025-7524
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid Time Off
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that days after
changing its pay policies, United Airlines Inc. faces a class
action brought on behalf of employees who claim the airline forced
them to take unpaid time off.

United is among at least three airlines that, despite provisions
outlined as part of their relief funds under the CARES Act, told
employees to reduce their work hours. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Education Dep't. Takes Wage Garnishment Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Collin Binkley, writing for Associated Press, reports that the U.S.
Education Department says it's ramping up efforts to contact more
than 37,000 employers who have improperly continued to garnish
wages from workers who have fallen behind on their student loans.

Congress ordered a temporary pause on involuntary collections in
March, but the Education Department was sued weeks later in a class
action case alleging that the agency failed to notify employers of
the change. A court filing on May 11 revealed that the department
was still garnishing wages from about 54,000 workers as of May 7,
and 390,000 were getting wages taken as of March 13.

In a statement, the department says it has notified employers to
stop garnishing wages from defaulted student loan borrowers, but
some have failed to comply. The agency said it sent letters to
nearly 37,500 employers on May 11 ordering them to stop, and staff
are also calling employers to make sure they received the notice.

The department also sent letters to 83,500 defaulted borrowers over
the weekend saying their wages should not be garnished and
explaining how they can contact their employers to halt the
practice.

Federal law authorizes the Education Department to garnish up to
15% of workers' paychecks without a court order if they go into
default on federal student loan payments. The agency can issue
garnishment orders to employers, and it contracts with private
agencies to enforce collection. Last year, the department garnished
$842 million from workers, according to federal data.

Congress told the Education Department to halt garnishments through
Sept. 30 as part of a coronavirus rescue package that was signed
March 27. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had already called for
the measure days earlier and said borrowers would be getting
refunds for any wages taken since March 13.

But a class action lawsuit filed on April 30 alleged that thousands
of workers were still getting up to 15% of their paychecks held
back because the department had failed to notify employers that
they must stop withholding pay.

The complaint was filed by consumer and student advocacy groups on
behalf of Elizabeth Barber, a New York home health aide, and any
other borrowers still facing garnishments. Barber says she makes
$13 per hour and has had 12% of her pay held back recently.

One of the groups behind the suit, Student Defense, said the May 11
court filing proves that thousands of workers are still being
harmed by the department six weeks after Congress' rescue package
took effect.

"For borrowers already worried about affording rent, groceries and
medication, losing part of each paycheck to an unlawful garnishment
is enough to push them into truly dire circumstances," said Alex
Elson, senior counsel at Student Defense.

The court filing said the department will issue periodic reports on
the issue while the case continues.

A group of 42 Democrats in Congress raised concern over the issue
in an April 16 letter to DeVos and Treasury Secretary Steven
Mnuchin. The letter said borrowers were reporting that employers
and collection agencies had failed to implement the suspension
weeks after it had been ordered.

Congress ordered the Education Department to pause wage
garnishments amid other loan collections as a way to relieve
financial pressure on student loan borrowers during the coronavirus
pandemic.

The lawsuit asks the court to order that DeVos halt wage
garnishment immediately and notify borrowers when it has actually
been stopped. It also demands immediate refunds for any pay that
has been withheld since March 13, the day President Donald Trump
declared a national emergency. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIF.: Berger Montague Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs' class action and complex litigation law firm
Berger Montague filed a class action lawsuit against the University
of Southern California ("USC") and its Board of Trustees to recover
tuition and fees for students whose Spring 2020 classes were
cancelled or moved online during the Coronavirus pandemic. The
lawsuit is Watson v. The University of Southern California, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The suit alleges that USC is profiting from the current crisis by
failing to provide the in-person classes, academic enrichment, and
other services that students paid for, while refusing to refund all
or part of tuition and fees despite the dramatically lower quality
and less valuable education and services it is now offering only
online.

Around March 11, 2020, in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, USC
announced its intention to cease all in-person classes and close
its campus facilities. Since that time the university has provided
only online courses and has announced that all Summer courses will
also be online. Numerous school facilities, including the school's
library, are closed.

Over 7,000 people have signed an online petition at www.change.org
requesting that USC provide refunds to students to compensate them
for the harm suffered as a result of the campus closures, failure
to provide in-person instruction, and other benefits promised by
the university and paid for by its students.

In spite of students' requests for refunds of tuition and fees, on
April 28, 2020, USC Provost Charles Zukoski sent a campus-wide
email announcing that the university would not offer students any
prorated tuition refunds for the Spring semester or upcoming Summer
sessions.

USC has received $19 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 need
emergency financial assistance.

Despite receiving this influx of federal funds, USC refuses to
refund or reimburse USC students the fees they paid for the
education and other services that are not being provided, including
fees for mandatory meal plans that are no longer available.
Plaintiffs have lost the benefits of the education, services,
housing, food, and other experiences that USC promised.

The lawsuit alleges that USC is thus profiting from the current
crisis, asking students and their families, many of whom have borne
the brunt of the pandemic themselves, been laid off, or who are ill
or suffering from financial setbacks, to shoulder additional
financial burden. Plaintiffs therefore seek to recover injunctive,
declaratory, and equitable relief, and any other available
remedies, resulting from the defendants' illegal, inequitable, and
unfair retention of the funds paid by class members.

"We believe that USC's refusal to refund students' tuition and fees
during this crisis is unconscionable," said Benjamin Galdston,
shareholder and head of Berger Montague's San Diego office.  "USC
is one of the nation's most expensive private universities with a
$6 billion endowment and flush with nearly $20 million in
taxpayer-funded relief. Having failed to provide what it promised
students, USC cannot keep their money."

USC students who have not received any tuition or fee
reimbursements for the Spring 2020 semester or Summer 2020 sessions
are encouraged to contact Berger Montague's case team at
reimbursetuitionandfees@bm.net. Berger Montague has assembled a
task force of dedicated attorneys and staff who will respond
promptly.

Berger Montague -- http://www.bergermontague.com-- is a national
plaintiffs' class action and complex litigation law firm
headquartered in Philadelphia with offices in San Diego,
Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C. Berger Montague litigates complex
civil cases and class actions in federal and state courts
throughout the United States. In its 50 years of operation, the
Firm has pioneered the use of class actions in America and
recovered well over $36 billion for its clients and the class
members it has represented.

Contact:

Benjamin Galdston
Shareholder
Berger Montague
(619) 489-0300
bgaldston@bm.net [GN]


UPS STORE: Overcharges for Notary Services, McLaren Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA McLAREN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE UPS STORE, INC.; TURQUOISE
TERRAPIN LLC, D/B/A UPS STORE #4122, in its own right and as a
representative of a class of similarly-situated UPS Store
franchisees; and JOHN DOES 1–200, Defendants, Case No.
MER-L-000919-20 (N.J. Super., Mercer Cty., May 13, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the New Jersey
Revised Statute Sec. 22A:4-14 and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all customers
of The UPS Store, Inc. (TUPSS) in New Jersey, alleges that the
Defendants charged notary fees above the required maximum amount of
$2.50. Representative Defendant and Franchisee Defendants employ
notaries to perform notarial acts within New Jersey. Despite the
legal cap set on notary fees, TUPSS mandates that each location in
New Jersey charge notary fees of $5 instead of $2.50 for each
notarial act performed. The Defendants' actions in charging
unlawful and excessive notary fees constitute an unfair, deceptive
and unconscionable practice within New Jersey's consumer production
laws and a violation of New Jersey statute prescribing proper
notary charges.

The UPS Store, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United
Parcel Service Inc. and a franchisor of the chain of retail
establishments known as The UPS Stores, with its headquarters
located at 55 Glenlake Parkway NE, Atlanta, Georgia.

Turquoise Terrapin LLC, doing business as UPS Store #4122, is a
retail store operator located at 957 R. 33, Suite 12, Hamilton
Square, Mercer County, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
           
         Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
         COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC
         127 Maple Ave.
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 747-9003
         E-mail: jmplacitella@cprlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         Raleigh, NC 27605
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and –
         
         Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         518 Monroe St.
         Nashville, TN 37208
         Telephone: (615) 921-6500
         E-mail: caroline@whitfieldbryson.com

USC: Hagens Berman Files Class Suit on Tuition Refund
-----------------------------------------------------
An anonymous student of the University of Southern California filed
a class-action lawsuit seeking to represent all USC students
enrolled at the university for the spring 2020 semester to obtain
repayment of tuition, room and board and other expenses in light of
the outbreak of COVID-19, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

The anonymous female student referred to in the lawsuit as Jane Doe
is represented by Hagens Berman, which led a landmark sexual
harassment class action against USC resulting in a $215 million
settlement with the university and its former full-time
gynecologist, Dr. George Tyndall.  Approximately 18,000 individuals
are covered by the settlement.  The firm has also recently brought
tuition and fee refund suits against Boston University, Brown
University, George Washington University and Vanderbilt University,
in which students and parents sued their universities.

The class-action lawsuit against USC and its board of trustees has
been brought by a fulltime USC student and California resident. The
case was filed May 7, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and accuses the university of breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion and violations of the
California Business & Professional Code.

If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at a
college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more about
the lawsuit and your rights.  The law firm is investigating all
higher education institutions in the U.S.

"Students at USC have been left completely powerless as their dorms
have closed, often with their belongings still inside, and campus
closures have left them without many of the amenities they expected
in attending USC and are still paying for," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney for students in the
class action. "USC, like many universities, has a choice. They can
choose to do the right thing and reimburse students and parents.
Unfortunately, USC has chosen otherwise, and we believe that choice
violates the law."

USC's Responsibility to its Students

The suit's anonymous plaintiff states in the complaint that she
enrolled at USC due to the appeal of the in-person experience she
would receive with faculty and fellow students, as well as its
academic rigor. The lawsuit says USC has failed to maintain those
promises: "While USC publicly maintains the position that it
continues to offer a high-quality education and a robust learning
environment, the reality as reflected by Plaintiff's experience is
far different."

The lawsuit says USC's in-and-out Zoom conferences, "rote emails,"
professors' "sterilized lectures" and lack of office hours have
left students empty-handed, but still holding the bill.

The suit states, "On top of these examples, her professors have
outright cut out key assignments vital to her educational
experience, including assignments that would provide her with
important learning opportunities and access to USC's alumni
network."

USC is accused of flagrantly ignoring its responsibility to
students at a time when "layoffs and furloughs are at record
levels." USC's actions, attorneys say, are further financially
damaging students, parents and guardians paying for USC's
services.

"Social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and efforts to
‘flatten the curve' prompted colleges and universities across the
country to shut down their campuses, evict students from campus
residence halls, and switch to online ‘distance' learning," the
lawsuit begins. "Despite sending students home and closing its
campus(es), Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and
room and board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the
financial benefit of millions of dollars from students."

The suit states that the Campaign for USC, a multi-year fundraising
campaign saw more than 400,000 donors provide $7.16 billion in
funds between 2011-2018. The campaign was the second largest
fundraising effort in the history of U.S. higher education. During
the spring 2020 semester, USC costs students approximately
$32,335.17 including tuition, room and board, and other expenses,
"significantly higher than online only programs."

Other Affected Universities

Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are
currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at colleges and
universities across the nation that have been forced to close due
to the outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or
college students who are paying for their own costs of college.

Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students
and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning
continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively,
these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students
despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy
campus buildings and dorms.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against colleges and
universities for tuition, room and board and other costs incurred
during the outbreak of COVID-19.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

Contact:

         Ashley Klann
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Tel: 206-268-9363
         E-mail: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com [GN]


VANDER SCHAAF: Dairy Farm Workers Sue Over Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a small dairy
farm north of San Francisco miscalculated hours, failed to pay
overtime, and didn't provide adequate rest and meal breaks required
by California labor law, a proposed class action filed in a
California superior court alleges.

According to the May 11 complaint, Vander Schaaf Dairy had a
practice of failing to pay the correct rate for overtime wages,
because management incorrectly counted hours worked as decimals. A
four hour and 45 minute shift would be incorrectly entered as 4.45
hours instead of 4.75, the complaint alleges, resulting in overtime
being forfeited. [GN]


VIVINT SOLAR: Stockholders Class Suits in E.D.N.Y. Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York has consolidated two separate,
purported stockholder class action suits.

In October 2019, two separate, purported stockholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York purportedly on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated.

The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

In March 2020, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the putative class.

The Company expects that the court-appointed lead plaintiffs will
file an amended and consolidated complaint in the action. The
Company will respond to the amended and consolidated complaint, and
it reserves all of its rights and objections with regard to
jurisdictional challenges and venue as well as any other objections
and motions related to the amended and consolidated complaint.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and has retained
counsel to represent it in the litigation. The Company is unable to
estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.

Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Suit Over Power Purchase Agreements Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 California court has
issued an order compelling eight of the plaintiffs to arbitrate
their claims, in the putative class action suit initiated by ten
customers who signed residential power purchase agreements .

In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named the Company in a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the agreements contain unlawful
termination fee provisions.

In March 2020, the court issued an order compelling eight of the
plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and has
retained counsel to represent it in the litigation.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this
time.

Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Sued Over Jail Conditions Amid COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------
James David Dickson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
seven Wayne County Jail inmates filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against Wayne County, Sheriff Benny Napoleon and others in
the Sheriff's Office, seeking mass releases from Michigan's largest
county jail due to the coronavirus outbreak.

"Hundreds of individuals caged inside the Wayne County Jail
facilities -- overwhelmingly black, poor, and medically vulnerable
-- are prohibited from meaningfully protecting themselves against
this global pandemic," reads a portion of the 71-page lawsuit,
which was filed by the inmates via several civil rights and racial
justice groups. "As COVID19 continues to gain a powerful foothold
in the Wayne County Jail, incarcerated people are at significant
risk of becoming infected and ultimately dying."

On March 10, when the coronavirus officially reached Michigan, the
Wayne County Jail had a population of 1,381. As of May 4 it had
fallen by 550, to 830. There are more people right now on tether
supervision -- 869 -- than inside its three jail facilities.

But the lawsuit concerns the inmates left behind in a jail system,
where 113 inmates and 200 sheriff's department staffers are
confirmed to have contracted the virus and four of have died. Along
with the two corrections officers who died, Deadline Detroit
reported in April that the jail's medical director and an emergency
room doctor died after contracting the virus.

"The outbreak within the jail poses a grave risk of harm and death
that is ongoing," the lawsuit reads.

"(I)ndividuals locked inside this jail are engaged in a fight for
recognition of their humanity and for their very survival during
this perilous and extraordinary time," the lawsuit continues.

In addition to Napoleon, the suit names Undersheriff Daniel
Pfannes, Chief of Jails and courts Robert Dunlap, and Deputy Chief
of Jails James Davis.

The suit alleges that "the very steps required for all of those
living outside of a jail—regular handwashing, adequately cleaning
their surroundings, access to testing, prompt medical attention,
and wearing protective gear—have been made impossible for those
confined in the jail by the very officials responsible for their
well-being."

Napoleon declined to comment as the litigation is pending.

In the past, Sheriff's Office leadership has maintained that jail
facilities have been deep-cleaned since the start of the outbreak
and that inmates are offered regular access to soap.

But jail inmates, the lawsuit argues, are denied access to the most
powerful tool of all in fighting the virus: the chance to keep a
physical distance of 6 feet between themselves and others. The
inability of inmates to maintain social distancing make the jail
environment dangerous, the suit argues.

"Public health experts agree that . . . protective measures are
insufficient to contain the virus if social distancing cannot be
achieved," the suit reads.

Jails are by design a congregant environment, even as their
populations thin across the state. As one Michigan sheriff has told
The News previously, "jails are not designed for mass quarantine."

"Contrary to public claims," the suit says, "the people detained
inside have limited and, at times no access to soap, cleaning
supplies, or personal protective equipment, Kleenex, and paper
towels; they sparingly receive clean clothing, linens, and towels;
in many cases, they sleep and eat within a couple of feet and, at
times, inches of one another; they must wait days to receive
medical attention; and, frequently, requests for medical attention
are dismissed or punished."

The suit seeks a ruling "requiring defendants to take basic and
necessary steps to protect the health and welfare of people held
inside of the jail."

It also seeks "a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction, and/or writ of habeas corpus
requiring defendants to immediately release all medically
vulnerable petitioners/plaintiffs ...or transfer them to home
confinement."

Jail officials, working alongside Timothy Kenny, chief judge of
Wayne Circuit Court; Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy; and the
attorneys representing Wayne County Jail inmates in a local
class-action lawsuit on jail conditions dating back to 1971, have
been working to determine which inmates could be released from jail
without putting the community at risk.

That effort, along with the work of defense attorneys to seek bond
adjustments for clients in the jail, and fewer arrests being made
and fewer court matters being heard, is why the jail population has
fallen so much in the past two months.

For the inmates who will remain jailed, the suit seeks improved
conditions. Among the terms it seeks are regular access to soap and
hand sanitizer, "adequate spacing" of at least six feet between
people, daily temperature checks for inmates, immediate testing for
anyone with symptoms, and the waiving of co-pays required for
doctor visits.

Seven plaintiffs, all male, are named in the lawsuit:

   -- Charles Russell, 59, "suffers from stage 3 prostate cancer,
diabetes, high blood pressure, and an umbilical hernia. Since being
taken into custody on March 20, 2020, Mr. Russell has been unable
to attend any radiation treatment sessions, which he must receive
five times per week to prevent his cancer from spreading." Russell
was sentenced to 365 days at the jail last August on auto theft
charges.

   -- Christopher Hubbard, 26, has diabetes and asthma, and is
waiting for his day in court on multiple felony charges related to
theft.

   -- Harry White, 36, "suffers from a heart murmur and localized
paralysis in his feet and hands and chronic pain from a bullet
located on his spine. He has had to relearn to walk and is unable
to stand for long periods of time." White is serving a 12-month
sentence for operating while intoxicated, causing death, that
started in late-February.

   -- Carl Smelley Jr., 38, has "sickle cell disease, hypertension,
and diabetes." Smelley has been charged in the death of a fellow
Wayne County Jail inmate, Antonio James, during an Oct. 2019 fight
at the jail's "division two" facility. Smelley was given a 12-month
sentence on a gun charge in February, and awaits his day in court
for the homicide charge.

   -- CalDerone Pearson, 30, is a father of five who is two months
into a nine-month sentence on drug charges

   -- Shane Carline, 33, is jailed "because he cannot afford to pay
his bond," the suit says

   -- Courtney White, 54, "suffers from high blood pressure and
high cholesterol."  White is five months into a six-month sentence
on drug charges.

The suit was brought on their behalf by a coalition of attorneys
and organizations, including the Detroit Justice Center, Larene and
Kriger PLC of Detroit, the Advancement Project's national office in
Washington, D.C., along with the Civil Rights Corps and Venable
LLP, both of Washington, D.C.

The Advancement Project filed a similar lawsuit against the Oakland
County Jail in federal court in April. The court granted a
temporary restraining order instructing authorities to ensure that
prisoners have access to soap and hand sanitizer and take other
measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus in the lockup.

Oakland County Undersheriff Mike McCabe, though, told The Detroit
News that the jail had already implemented the changes the lawsuit
requested, before it was filed.

As for the hand sanitizer, that part of the order has since been
reversed, McCabe said.

The jail does not grant inmates access to hand sanitizer due to an
incident in the kitchen about three months ago, where seven inmates
got access to it and were found intoxicated, via preliminary breath
tests, after consuming it. One had to be hospitalized, McCabe said.
[GN]


WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Malone Class Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Digital
Corporation. The case is styled as Nicholas Malone, for Himself, as
a Private Attorney General, and/or Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Western Digital Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
(N.D. Cal., May 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Western Digital Corporation is an American computer hard disk drive
manufacturer and data storage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Morley Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKAS
          400 108th Ave. NE, Suite 500
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Phone: (425) 233-8628
          Fax: (425) 412-7171
          Email: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com


YOGAWORKS INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on April 23, 2020, Judge Cormac J. Carney of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California dismissed
with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against a
yoga instruction company, certain of its officers, and the
underwriters for the company's initial public offering. In re
YogaWorks, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 18-10696, slip op. (C.D. Cal.
Apr. 23, 2020), ECF No. 70. The Court had dismissed plaintiff's
prior complaint as time-barred under the Securities Act because
plaintiff had alleged that the truth about purported
misrepresentations regarding the company's financial metrics had
been disclosed no later than the publication of the company's
disclosures for the second quarter of 2017 (the "Q2 2017
Disclosures"), which occurred more than one year before the suit
was filed. Although plaintiff's amended complaint removed
references to those Q2 2017 Disclosures, the Court held that this
did not cure the statute of limitations issue and dismissed the
action with prejudice.

Under the Securities Act, claims must be brought within one year
after an allegedly untrue statement or omission is discovered or
should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable
diligence. Id. at 4. In its first complaint, plaintiff had alleged
that the Q2 2017 Disclosures had demonstrated that earlier
statements had been false or misleading. Id. at 6–8. Plaintiff
argued that the amended complaint was not time-barred, however,
because it "no longer allege[d] misleading statements based on
omission" of facts later disclosed in the Q2 2017 Disclosures. That
was not sufficient for the Court, which explained that "courts may
consider prior allegations in determining the plausibility of later
pleadings," and that removing those prior allegations did not
"simply erase those allegations from the case." Id. at 5. In
addition, the Court emphasized that plaintiff's amended complaint
did not add any further alleged misstatements, but simply attempted
to change the reason why those statements were allegedly false or
misleading. Thus, the Court held that there was no reason to
disturb its prior determination that a "reasonably diligent
plaintiff would have had enough information to plead a plausible
complaint" based on the Q2 2017 Disclosures. Id. at 6.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's attempt to plead around the
statute of limitations by arguing that "damages did not accrue"
until the company announced "fatally grim" financial results at a
later date less than one year before the filing of the action. Id.
at 8. The company's stock price had declined more than 50%
following the earlier Q2 2017 Disclosures that were the focus of
plaintiff's prior complaint, id. at 9, and the Court noted that the
prior complaint had painted a picture of a longer-term trend of
declines in the company's metrics, such that a new assertion that
later results "were somehow significant on their own is
unpersuasive." Id.

The Court denied further leave to amend, finding that amendment
would be futile in light of the fact that the Court had already
provided plaintiff an opportunity to cure the same deficiency and
it failed to do so. Id. at 11.

The decision is a good reminder that, although pleadings are not
necessarily binding concessions, plaintiffs can have difficulties
running away from them through later amendments.

In re YogaWorks, Inc. Sec. Litig. [GN]


ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell Class Certification Bid Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, 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 motion for class
certification in the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., is pending.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's  common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
practices.

The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the
class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2018, the
company's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and in
November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which the company moved to dismiss in December 2018.

On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company filed
its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019.

On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the company filed its motion in opposition on
March 20, 2020.

Zillow said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not
believe a loss related to this complaint is probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


ZOOM: Faces Class Action Over Pornographic Zoombombing Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS SF reports that one of San Francisco's oldest churches has
filed a class-action lawsuit against the popular videoconferencing
app Zoom, after a pornographic zoombombing incident during a Bible
Study class.

Saint Paulus Lutheran Church is a lead co-plaintiff along with a
bible study teacher in the case against Zoom Video Communications,
Inc, filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose on May 13.

Zoom's videoconferencing app has become increasingly popular since
the coronavirus pandemic, when millions of Americans were ordered
to stay at home.

The lawsuit charges the San Jose-based video conferencing tech
giant with violating the "sanctity of the church" after a bible
study class was zoombombed twice with explicit photos of people
engaged in sexual acts with men, women and children.

The alleged incident happened on May 6.

According to the complaint, Cundle and other attendees, "most of
whom were senior citizens -- had their computer screens hijacked
and their control buttons disabled while being forced to watch
pornographic video footages . . . portraying adults engaging in
sexual acts with each other and performing sexual acts on infants
and children, in addition to physically abusing them."

The church reported the incident to Zoom and says the company told
them told the culprit was a "known offender" and had been blocked
but "refused to take any further action to remedy the situation or
to improve the security of its videoconferences."

The plaintiffs accuse Zoom of negligence, breach of implied
contract and invasion of privacy along with several other
violations, and is seeking "actual, compensatory, consequential,
punitive, and treble damages to the extent permitted by law."

The plaintiffs are also demanding a jury trial.

Zoom's videoconferencing app has become increasingly popular since
the coronavirus pandemic, when millions of Americans were ordered
to stay at home.

A Zoom spokesperson issued a statement about the lawsuit, saying:

"We were deeply upset to hear about this incident, and our hearts
go out to those impacted by this horrific event. Words cannot
express how strongly we condemn such behavior. On the same day we
learned of this incident, we identified the offender, took action
to block their access to the platform and reported them to relevant
authorities. We encourage users to report any incidents of this
kind either to Zoom so we can take appropriate action or directly
to law enforcement authorities. We also encourage all meeting hosts
to take advantage of Zoom's recently updated security features and
follow other best practices, including making sure not to broadly
share meeting IDs and passwords online, as appeared to be the case
here." [GN]


[*] Gibson Dunn Attorneys Discuss COVID Suit Mitigation Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chantale Fiebig, Esq. -- cfiebig@gibsondunn.com -- and Kelley
Pettus, Esq. -- kpettus@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, in an article for Law360, report that as businesses of all
kinds have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, many that have
canceled events or suspended services have been forced to make
difficult decisions relating to refunds or other remedies for
clients and customers. The decisions made by businesses today could
have lasting significance in class action litigation, particularly
as they relate to potential mitigation of damages.

However, the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic are
unprecedented, and many mitigation measures, such as offering
online services, would not have been possible even 15 years ago. As
a result, history cannot provide clear guidance about how companies
can prevent or lessen liability given the unique challenges of the
pandemic and the revolutionary technology that has become a part of
our daily lives.

Nevertheless, prior cases do provide important insights into
considerations companies should weigh as they navigate novel issues
relating to liability and damages stemming from canceled events or
suspended services as a result of COVID-19.

Precluding Liability and Limiting Damages

Companies in countless industries are considering a variety of
efforts to minimize disruption to their clients or customers during
the pandemic, including potentially issuing refunds, offering
alternative (or online) experiences, or providing credits for
future or extended services.

While these decisions are paramount to each company's relationships
with its customers, they can also directly affect the outcome of
class actions filed in the wake of the pandemic. Indeed, if past
cases are any indication of how courts might treat liability and
damages in COVID-19 suits, mitigation efforts taken now could have
significant implications for a company's legal risk.

Breach of Contract Claims

Most of the COVID-19 class actions filed so far relating to
canceled events or shuttered venues allege breaches of contract,
including in suits filed against entertainment companies, sports
franchises and amusement parks. In those cases, strong arguments
can likely be made that the claims should be governed by the terms
of the company's contract with consumers (including the terms of
any arbitration provisions contained in the contracts).

Although the volume of class action precedent in these
circumstances is limited, prior cases indicate that courts are
likely to be receptive to arguments that where defendants have
complied with the terms of their contracts with clients or
consumers, they are not liable for breach.   

Courts have found that when the terms of the contract provide for a
specific form of relief in the event of breach, such as a refund of
a ticket price, those terms will govern and can prevent a finding
of liability when that remedy has been provided to the consumer.
For example, in Druyan v. Jagger, a plaintiff asserted breach of
contract claims on behalf of a class after a Rolling Stones concert
was postponed because Mick Jagger had a sore throat. Ticket holders
were notified that they could either obtain a refund of the ticket
price or attend a rescheduled show, but plaintiffs instead filed
suit.

The court found that the terms of the plaintiffs' tickets and the
terms of use on the purchase website bound the plaintiffs to the
contractual remedies. Those terms provided that all events were
subject to the risk of rescheduling and that ticket holders would
be entitled to a refund of the ticket price if an event was
rescheduled. Because the plaintiffs had been offered a refund,
there was no breach and the plaintiffs' contractual claims were
dismissed.

Courts have also enforced contractual limitations on liability for
cancellations. In Ansari v. Kuwait Airways Corp., for instance, the
court found that the airline had not breached its contract to the
plaintiff by canceling his flight due to a volcanic eruption in
Iceland that closed the airport. The terms and conditions of the
ticket provided that the airline could cancel a flight because of
events beyond its control and that a refund was the only remedy in
the event of such a cancellation.

Since the volcanic eruption was beyond the airline's control, the
court held the airline's only obligation to the plaintiff was a
refund of his ticket price. The plaintiff was not permitted to
recover any costs incurred in obtaining alternative
transportation.

However, the terms of a contract may not protect against
consequential damages, particularly if a court finds them to be
ambiguous. For example, in Ibe v. National Football League, the NFL
was alleged to have failed to install sufficient seating for Super
Bowl XLV and thus denied some ticket holders entry to the game. The
terms of the ticket provided for a refund in the event that ticket
holders were denied entry.

However, the court found that the "subject to refund" language on
the ticket did not explicitly limit liability, and that plaintiffs
could seek recovery for consequential damages caused by the NFL's
alleged breach, such as expenses for travel to the game, to the
extent those costs were foreseeable and provable.

Offsetting Damages After Liability Is Found

Even where a defendant has been found liable, mitigation measures
can help offset damages. Generally, damages for breach of contract
are intended to restore injured parties to the position they would
have occupied had the contract been performed.

While punitive damages are not usually permitted, injured parties
may be able to recover for other losses caused by the breach,
including consequential or incidental losses, when there is no
contractual limitation on such damages. However, a defendant that
is found liable and assessed compensatory or consequential damages
is permitted to present evidence of value received by consumers to
offset any damages owed.

Some courts have allowed even partial refunds to offset a
defendant's damages. In Rainbow Travel Service Inc. v. Hilton
Hotels Corp., for example, the court offset Hilton's damages with
its partial refund of Rainbow's initial payment for hotel rooms. A
jury had found Hilton liable for breach of contract when the hotel
failed to honor room reservations for a travel group upon arrival
and instead reserved the group rooms at a nearby hotel. Though the
jury awarded the travel group damages, the court offset those
damages with the hotel's partial refund of the group's initial
payment for room reservations. The treatment of partial refunds
relating to COVID-19 disruptions is yet to be seen in the courts.

Courts may also (but need not) offset damages with any alternative
benefit received by the consumer in lieu of a refund. For example,
the defendant in Makaeff v. Trump University LLC was permitted to
put forth evidence of the value of the materials provided to the
plaintiffs to support a damages offset.

However, other courts have rejected offsets with gratuitous
benefits or other benefits that were not part of the original
bargain with plaintiffs.

In Rodman v. Safeway Inc., for instance, the defendant sought to
offset its damages with evidence of unquantifiable benefits of
online grocery shopping offered to the plaintiffs through its
delivery services. The court flatly rejected introduction of this
evidence because these benefits were not a part of the bargain
entered into by class members. Similarly, the court in Cappalli v.
BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. rejected evidence of additional membership
benefits offered to offset an unjust enrichment claim.

Thus, while mitigation measures are not guaranteed to offset
damages, courts may and often do consider such evidence to reduce
liability.

Time Limits for Implementing Mitigation Measures

Time matters when it comes to implementing mitigation measures.
Courts often consider when a company offered a refund or substitute
services to consumers, and a robust mitigation measure provided
early enough could even prevent certain lawsuits. Moreover, refunds
or other benefits offered before a plaintiff files suit can defeat
standing or preclude certification of a class. However, measures
offered after plaintiffs have filed suit do not always moot
plaintiffs' claims.

Preventing Standing to Bring Suit

A full refund issued to consumers prior to suit can redress
plaintiffs' injuries such that plaintiffs lack standing to bring
suit. In some instances, courts have found that refunds preclude
standing when issued directly to plaintiffs' credit cards.

For example, in Luman v. Theismann, the plaintiff's claim was
redressed such that he lacked standing where he had received a full
refund to his credit card two months prior to filing suit.
Additionally, courts have found refund checks issued prior to suit
defeat standing, even where a plaintiff has not cashed the check.

However, merely communicating that purchases may be refunded has
been found inadequate to defeat standing because a potential
plaintiff could choose to reject this "offer." For example, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed the
district court's holding in Laurens v. Volvo Cars of North America
on the grounds that the defendant's communication of a refund offer
through a generic letter did not redress the plaintiff's injury
since she did not accept it.

Critically, once a suit has been filed, refunds or other mitigation
measures may not suffice to prevent a suit from proceeding. Indeed,
in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an
unaccepted settlement offer, such as a refund, was not sufficient
to moot a claim. This may be true even when a company offers
plaintiffs all of their alleged monetary damages or more than they
could receive at trial.

Precluding Class Certification

In some instances, a full refund implemented prior to suit may be
an effective mechanism to preclude class certification. Some courts
find that a class action is not a superior means of resolving a
claim where a defendant has offered a refund prior to suit being
filed. Other courts have refused to allow a refund to defeat
superiority because a refund is not a means of "adjudication," as
required by Rule 23.

Whether a court will ultimately find that a refund program is a
superior method of resolving claims is a toss-up, and one of the
many cutting-edge class action issues likely to be clarified
through COVID-19 litigation.  

Conclusion

There are no easy answers for companies navigating the COVID-19
pandemic. Companies in every industry are undertaking herculean
efforts to minimize disruptions to their customers, while
simultaneously striving to survive in an uncertain economic
climate. Although these are unprecedented times, prior court
decisions suggest those same efforts may help those companies limit
their exposure to class action liability based on COVID-19
disruptions.

Even if courts are not ultimately persuaded to limit liability or
directly offset any damages based on refunds or other
accommodations, such efforts are likely to engender tremendous
goodwill with customers, and could position the company well if a
court or jury is ever looking back to assess its conduct during
these critical times.

For these reasons, as companies grapple with the difficult business
decisions relating to their response to the pandemic, they should
consult closely with their counsel to factor in considerations of
liability and damages that could be impacted later by decisions
made today. [GN]


[*] Grande Prairie May Join Class Action v. Opioid Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Keller, writing for EverythingGP, reports that a City
committee recommended on May 12 that Council participate in a class
action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers.

If approved, the City of Grande Prairie would be the representative
Plaintiff in the opioid crisis lawsuit with the Guardian Law
Group.

Mayor Bill Given says he believes the City joining the lawsuit
would set a good precedent.

"I think there's a recognition across North America that the
manufacturers of opioids took deliberate actions that led to these
negative consequences out in communities. We've seen in the United
States, many communities successfully pursue similar cases, and
here in Canada, the Province of British Columbia launched a similar
action in 2018 (and) last fall the Province of Alberta announced
that they would be joining that class action lawsuit."

He says the impact the opioid crisis has had on municipalities may
be overlooked.

"Those are positive and appropriate steps, but they do not
recognize the harm caused to municipalities and on municipal
taxpayers in having to respond, and that's where this action will
fill that gap."

The lawsuit claims that manufacturers falsely and fraudulently
marketed opioids as safe and non-addictive, failed to properly
perform long-term studies on the effects of the drugs, and created
a false perception of safety and efficacy of opioids in the medical
community.

It also claims that distributors of the opioids failed to report
suspicious orders, which are required by law, and dispensed,
supplied and sold prescription opioids without proper safeguards.

Mayor Given says if approved and the lawsuit is dissolved in a
positive way for municipalities, then they would be getting
financial restitutions.

"This would allow us to number one; recoup the costs of taxpayers
where we've been involved in dividing additional supports over the
last number of years, and potentially, use any recovered costs to
be able to help make improvements in the community to address this
issue which continues on to this day."

In 2019, Grande Prairie saw the highest rate of fentanyl related
deaths in the province among Alberta's major municipalities. The
latest Alberta Opioid Response Surveillance Report from Alberta
Health showed that the city had 24 people die from an apparent
opioid overdose related to fentanyl in 2019, setting the rate at
32.2 per 100,000 people. That is nearly double Lethbridge's
fatality rate, which was the second highest in Alberta last year at
16.3

Between 2006 and 2011, Canada saw the dispensing rate for high-dose
opioid formulations, including morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone
and fentanyl increase 23 per cent. More than $4 billion of
prescription opioids were sold between 2010 and 2017 in the
country.

Guardian Law Group estimates that based on partial settlements
secured on behalf of two Ohio counties for $260 Million USD, and if
the lawsuit is successful and Grande Prairie received the same
amounts per capita, it could be awarded in the area of $11.3
million CAD. [GN]


[*] Insurance Lawyers Express Concern Over Coronavirus Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Rund, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that insurance
lawyers fear class action attorneys rushing to cash in on a flood
of business interruption suits could produce undesirable rulings
due to their inexperience.

Hundreds of restaurant owners, retailers and other companies
shuttered by the coronavirus and stay-at-home orders have sued
their insurers who say the pandemic isn't covered under existing
business interruption policies or other insurance provisions.

The litigation, which is already generating proposed class actions,
is fertile ground for attorneys without much insurance experience,
much to the chagrin of lawyers with years of expertise in this
field of law.

"Lawyers who are auto accident and slip and fall lawyers, whose
businesses are dried up because no one is driving or going out, are
starting to file these," said Mark Nation, who handles insurance
disputes and related litigation for Morgan & Morgan, P.A. "There's
concern that someone dabbling in this area files a lawsuit for an
individual and ends up with a bad ruling" that everyone else is
stuck with.

Amanda Leffler, co-chair of Brouse McDowell's insurance recovery
practice group, said she worries about attorneys "who don't
normally practice in this space regularly taking the lead and
carrying the torch for policyholders."

"There's a lot to think about, and if you don't do this every day
it can be tough," Leffler said.

First-Mover Concern
The varied language used in business insurance policies, even among
those offered by the same provider, makes these cases largely
unsuited for class actions, insurance attorneys told Bloomberg
Law.

"We're seeing an uptick in class action lawyers bringing these
claims," said Joshua Katz -- jkatz@wmclaw.com -- a partner with
Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC. "It's far from certain that a class
will be certified in some cases. I'm not sure they are amenable to
a class certification."

There's also the question of what triggered a claim, and whether
some firms will tie it to the pandemic, or to the non-essential
business closures mandated by state governors. Those closures also
differ state-by-state.

"There's no doubt that for lawyers like myself, there's concern
that the first ruling that decides my particular issue involves a
firm that hasn't been working" in the insurance space, Katz added.
"It's definitely something that keeps us up at night."

The pandemic has slowed down courts across the U.S. and in some
cases delayed initial discussions about proceedings when complaints
are first filed. Attorneys say this makes it tough to tell where
the first business interruption ruling might come from, although
they suggested it would likely be in an individual case, not a
class action.

Risky Business?
Even in individual lawsuits, missteps by an inexperienced
plaintiff's attorney could upend other cases, insurance attorneys
said in interviews.

Nation said his firm, which historically worked on class actions,
decided early on during the pandemic not to get involved in any
class actions or multi-district ligation related to business
interruption coverage.

"It really wasn't a difficult decision," he said. Language varies
from policy-to-policy, meaning claims differ and making individual
cases the best path forward, Nation said.

Attorneys who specialize in representing insurance companies are
skeptical about whether many of these suits will be granted class
status and note the difficulties facing lawyers without insurance
expertise.

"Someone who doesn't necessarily have the insurance expertise, I
could see the hurdles being a little more significant for them,"
said Aneca Lasley -- aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- a partner at
Squire Patton Boggs who advises and defends insurance providers.
"Generally, my preference is to have very intelligent,
knowledgeable opposing counsel. They're often more successful in
whittling down the most critical issues and focusing on that."

Hand-in-Hand?
Insurance attorneys are leaving the door open for collaborating
with plaintiffs attorneys typically involved in class actions. Some
are already looking for ways to assist.

Nation said he's reaching out to plaintiff's attorneys he knows
have filed cases and don't operate in the insurance space, offering
to pitch in for free. It's not out of lack of respect, he said, but
to make sure those plaintiffs -- and his clients in others cases --
are in the best possible position.

A handful of class action lawyers have started seeking the help of
plaintiff's attorneys who represent policyholders, attorneys told
Bloomberg Law. There's also the potential for attorneys involved in
business interruption-related class actions to work closely and
leverage experience across their various firms.

"To the extent that consolidation occurs in these cases, I think
there's a seat at the table for class action lawyers," Katz said.
"But that seat is next to experienced coverage attorneys." [GN]


[*] K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Refund Case Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas F. Holt, Jr., Esq. -- thomas.holt@klgates.com -- Brian M.
Forbes, Esq., Robert W. Sparkes, III, Esq. --
robert.sparkes@klgates.com -- John C. Blessington, Esq., Michael R.
Cretam Esq., and R. Nicholas Perkins, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that in response to the
COVID-19 crisis, colleges and universities across the country have
closed campuses and moved classes online. Individuals who have paid
costs of attendance for the 2020 academic year have filed putative
class action suits against a growing number of these schools. In
each case, the classes are generally composed of (1) students who
have paid tuition and/or student activity fees, (2) family members
who have paid tuition and/or student activity fees, or (3) both.
The lawsuits raise similar allegations, most notably that online
learning is of lesser value than an in-person experience, whether
because of the purportedly reduced value of the service itself or
the value of an educational degree earned through online learning,
and that schools have precluded students from activities and full
use of the facilities for which they have already paid. Based on
these allegations, plaintiffs have asserted putative class claims
for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. To date,
there are over 30 suits seeking refunds of tuition, room and board,
and other fees. An analysis of the complaints filed to date
provides some insight into how schools might defend class action
COVID-19 refund claims.

Initial Considerations for Defending Class Action Refund Cases
There are a number of different tactics that schools could
potentially use to defend a class action refund case, but the two
key initial considerations include (1) the possibility of moving to
dismiss the claims entirely and (2) the potential arguments for
opposing class certification. Some initial considerations for these
two defense strategies are discussed below.

Moving to Dismiss the Claims
As a preliminary matter, many of the complaints filed to date
allege breach of contract claims, but do not attach a formal
contract between the schools and their students. Plaintiffs largely
base their breach of contract claims on alleged promises that the
schools made through various publications regarding the school's
services and on-campus experiences. Under federal pleading
standards, the complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face and raises a plaintiff's
right to relief above mere speculation. Therefore, absent reference
to specific contract language promising the specific benefits
allegedly denied to plaintiffs, putative class breach of contract
claims may be susceptible to an initial motion to dismiss
challenge.

To the extent a contractual relationship or a binding set of terms
and conditions exists, the terms governing the relationship could
give rise to a number of different arguments at the motion to
dismiss stage. For starters, a school could potentially argue that,
in closing its campus and shifting to online learning, it has
substantially performed its obligations, particularly in the
absence of provisions requiring the educational experience take
place in person. Any provisions allowing a school to implement
emergency measures, including those that may alter the academic
experience, in order to respond to a disaster or to comply with
state emergency orders, may be relevant. Most, if not all, academic
institutions have policies governing refunds of tuition, housing,
and other fees for students that voluntarily withdraw or are
involuntarily removed from the school. Although we understand that
many schools have created new COVID-specific refund policies, the
school's pre-existing terms and conditions may or may not
contemplate suspension of on-campus activity due to a pandemic or
other natural disaster. To the extent governing terms, conditions,
or policies address, or may be construed as addressing, those types
of circumstances, schools may potentially invoke terms that
expressly or implicitly limit or preclude refunds. For example, a
provision eliminating a student's right to a refund in the event of
a school closure could help defeat an argument that a refund should
be paid while a school continues to provide online education.

In addition to reviewing substantive contractual provisions or
applicable terms, conditions, or policies, schools should also
consider reviewing any provisions governing how disputes with
students are to be adjudicated. Some plaintiffs may be bound by a
mandatory arbitration agreement that contains a class action waiver
clause requiring claims to be resolved in arbitration on an
individual basis. Such provisions could provide a school with a
basis for moving to stay or dismiss the class action claims in
favor of individual arbitration proceedings. [1]

Finally, the existence and scope of any contractual obligations
could impact the viability of any unjust enrichment claims. Unjust
enrichment claims are typically subject to dismissal if there is a
contract governing the parties' dispute.

Opposing Class Certification
If a motion to dismiss is unsuccessful, a school must next consider
how best to oppose class certification. Whether or not a school
moves to dismiss, it must begin evaluating class certification
defenses immediately upon being sued. Indeed, a school should
consider all early case strategy, including motion to dismiss
arguments and pre-class certification discovery, in terms of how to
best defeat the class certification requirements. Class
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires the following criteria to be satisfied:

Numerosity: the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;

Commonality: there are questions of law or fact common to the
class;

Typicality: the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

Adequacy of representation: the representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.

To succeed on a class certification motion, a named plaintiff must
also satisfy one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). In these
refund-based cases, the plaintiffs primarily seek damages and thus
appear to focus on Rule 23(b)(3), which requires them to also
establish: (1) predominance: that common issues predominate over
individual issues and (2) superiority: that the class action
mechanism is the superior method for adjudicating the dispute.

While a school can seek to challenge all of the class certification
prerequisites, the predominance, commonality, and typicality
requirements may provide particularly useful means to oppose class
certification. A school may be able to argue that a class fails to
meet the predominance and similar commonality requirement for a
number of different reasons. For example, a class containing
students who are enrolled in different programs, situated in
different years of study, paying different costs of attendance due
to financial aid or scholarships, or even attending class with
various degrees of diligence, arguably fails to satisfy
predominance, particularly if the different groups of students are
subject to differing terms and conditions of enrollment and the
alleged harm, if any, varies widely. Indeed, to the extent a
contractual relationship is implied with each student or not
otherwise agreed-upon in writing, the individualized nature of that
relationship could preclude a finding of predominance. Further, an
argument could be made that no two class members use the in-person
resources of a school in the same way, and therefore any alleged
injuries resulting from a campus closure or shift to online
learning are arguably individualized and unfit for resolution
through the class action vehicle.

A school can also analyze the circumstances and facts of the named
plaintiff's individual claims on typicality or adequacy of
representation grounds. If a named plaintiff is sufficiently
distinct from the other class members and therefore subject to
unique defenses, e.g. he or she is on full scholarship,
participates in a unique program, or never goes to class, the
school may argue that the named plaintiff is atypical or inadequate
and, thus, that a class cannot be certified.

Additionally, a school may be able to take advantage of the
heightened Rule 23 class certification requirements federal courts
impose on named plaintiffs. A named plaintiff must affirmatively
demonstrate actual compliance with each of the required elements
through evidentiary proof. [2] A school defending a class action in
federal court may therefore be able to defeat class certification
by ensuring that the court rigorously scrutinizes whether a named
plaintiff has met his or her burden for class certification. A
school facing a state court class action should consider removing
the case to federal court to benefit from the strict federal class
certification requirements.

Apart from the above, there are undoubtedly other arguments for
opposing class certification. Indeed, opposing class certification
is a fact-specific inquiry and a school may use pre-class
certification discovery to uncover further defenses to defeat a
motion for class certification.

Conclusion
Colleges and universities may see an increase in COVID-19-related
litigation in the upcoming months, which may include more putative
class action refund cases. As discussed above, a school defending
such claims should review its enrollment agreements (if any), terms
and conditions, and fee-related policies to evaluate various
defense strategies that can be utilized at the outset of
litigation. Even if a school is unable to defeat a class action
refund claim early on, additional defenses could become available
through discovery and during later stages in the litigation.
Schools should also consider other potential avenues for mitigating
the effects of COVID-19-related lawsuits, such as liability
insurance. [GN]


[*] King & Spalding Discusses Coronavirus-Related Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in an
edition of Predominant Issues, the law firm has highlighted several
recently filed class actions related to the COVID-19 pandemic to
identify the types of exposures companies may face in this
unprecedented environment. In the coming months, we will report on
notable decisions that arise from pandemic-related class
litigation.

* Virus Exposure. Several putative class actions have been filed
against cruise lines based on allegations of exposure to COVID-19.
Archer, et al. v. Carnival Corp., No. 3:20-CV-2381 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
8, 2020).

Dalton v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-02458 (C.D. Cal.
Mar. 13, 2020).

* Data Privacy. Companies that offer video-conferencing services
are facing class action lawsuits challenging the privacy of their
communications and the safety of their data.
Ohlweiler v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03165 (C.D. Cal.
Apr. 3, 2020).

* Higher Education. A number of colleges and universities have
been sued in putative class actions following their decisions to
close campuses and provide remote, online instruction, in lieu of
in-person classes. Among other things, these suits seek
reimbursement for tuition, room and board, and/or fees related to
on-campus services that are no longer available for student use
(e.g., health facilities and student centers).
Dixon v. Univ. of Miami, No. 2:20-cv-01348 (S.C. Apr. 8, 2020).
Rickenbaker v. Drexel Univ., No. 2:20-cv-01358 (S.C. Apr. 8,
2020).

Hassan v. Fordham Univ., No. 1:20-cv-03265 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25,
2020).

Doe v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. 3:20-mc-09999 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 27,
2020).

Miller v. California State Univ., No. 2:20-cv-03833 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
27, 2020).

Brandmeyer v. Univ. of California, No. 4:20-cv-02886 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 27, 2020).

* Subscription-Based Services. Businesses that offer subscription
services are facing class action lawsuits filed by consumers who
seek refunds of their subscription fees for services and facilities
that are no longer available to customers.

Labib v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02134 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 27, 2020).

Ruiz v. Magic Mountain LLC, No. 2:20-cv-03436 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13,
2020).

Cuenco v. ClubCorp USA Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00774 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 23,
2020).

* Ticket Cancellations. The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in
the cancellation of countless spectator events and travel bookings,
and predictably, courts have seen a series of putative class
actions seeking refunds for event and travel tickets.

Alcaraz v. StubHub, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-2595 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14,
2020).

Ajzenman v. Office of the Comm'r of Baseball, No. 2:20-CV-3643
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020).

As the coronavirus continues to spread, businesses, universities,
and other organizations are presented with new and increasingly
complex challenges like the class action lawsuits identified above.
[GN]


[*] Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss COVID-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burshteyn, Esq. -- mburshteyn@mofo.com -- and Tiffany
Cheung, Esq. -- tcheung@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that class action claims have taken
on a new twist in the wake of COVID-19. Already, the global
pandemic has generated litigation across a broad swath of areas,
including privacy, data security, and consumer, among others. To
date, hundreds of business lawsuits related to the pandemic are
pending, with dozens more filed weekly. According to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center, activity to date is only the
"tip of the iceberg." Per Steven Lehotsky, chief counsel for the
Chamber Litigation Center, businesses can expect more
"opportunistic class action lawsuits down the road." In this alert,
we provide an overview of the first wave of pandemic-related class
action litigation trends and project what businesses should expect
next.

First wave of COVID-related class actions

Privacy and data security litigation. Among the first cases filed
related to the pandemic were a variety of privacy and data security
related class actions. Plaintiffs focused on companies that now
have a spotlight on them due to increased usage during
shelter-in-place orders. Across the technology industry, a variety
of online services are blitzscaling -- or rapidly growing -- based
on skyrocketing demand from consumers for food delivery,
e-commerce, and virtual social connections. In California, in
particular, the pandemic coincided with the California Consumer
Privacy Act (CCPA) coming into force on January 1, 2020. Despite
some calls to delay enforcement in light of COVID-19, California's
Attorney General plans to begin enforcing the law starting July 1,
2020 as planned. AG Xavier Bacerra's office has stated, "We
encourage businesses to be particularly mindful of data security in
this time of emergency."

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). TCPA cases continue to be
active as COVID-19 issues have emerged. MoFo's Class Dismissed blog
recently reviewed the March 20, 2020 FCC Declaratory Ruling
allowing certain calls for "emergency purposes" amidst the
pandemic. That does not mean, however, that there is a blanket
exemption from the TCPA's rules governing certain calls and
messages, and multiple TCPA lawsuits have been filed involving
coronavirus-related communications. In a case filed in late April,
the Texas Attorney General sued two parties for alleged violations
of the TCPA and the Texas state law corollary. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that a marketing service advertised health benefit
plans by stating that they "include coronavirus testing and
treatment." Another lawsuit, filed by private plaintiff attorneys
in Florida in March 2020, alleges that a golf course company sent
text messages referencing COVID-19, stating "Stay safe in these
crazy times by golfing at top 100 courses[.]"

Beyond privacy, data security, and TCPA, class actions in other
consumer areas have seen an uptick across the board.

Health claims from shutting down too late. Multiple cases filed
against cruise lines, for example, assert claims that cruise ships
improperly continued operations despite allegedly knowing that
passengers were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

Cancellation and refund claims. As businesses have been forced to
shutter in response to the pandemic, plaintiffs have filed a slew
of class actions alleging claims related to recurring membership
charges and refunds. Multiple cases throughout the country have
targeted gyms, levying causes of action for breach of contract and
consumer protection laws. Travel and vacation-related businesses
have also been in the cross-hairs. Resorts, airlines, and vacation
destinations -- and even online event businesses -- are facing a
variety of class actions alleging claims such as unjust enrichment,
fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, and breach of
contract.[3] Nor have educational institutions been spared. As
schools moved classes online, lawsuits have been filed seeking
reimbursement for room and board and reimbursement for the lost
benefits of in-person education.

False advertising related to health benefits. With hundreds of
millions of Americans suddenly seeking to stock up on supplies such
as hand sanitizers, sellers of such products have been faced with
scrutiny both from federal law enforcement officials (covered in a
recent alert by MoFo's national security and crisis group) as well
as private plaintiff attorneys.

Insurance litigation. Insurance companies face a litany of lawsuits
relating to denial of coverage for business interruption, as
insurers have claimed in some instances that losses caused by
COVID-19 are excluded from coverage. Plaintiffs such as
restaurants, bakeries, dental practices, and others forced to
shutter have filed cases. One group including several well-known
restaurateurs such as Wolfgang Puck, Daniel Boulud, and Dominique
Crenn, has banded together to create the Business Interruption
Group (BIG), whose website promises to "bring BIG legal action in
every state" against insurers.

Financial services institutions. Banks across America have moved
rapidly to participate in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic
Security Act ("CARES Act") Paycheck Protection Program (PPP),
helping small businesses procure funding to maintain jobs during
state-ordered shutdowns. Many of these institutions now face
lawsuits related to eligibility and processing for PPP loans, as
well as disputes over commercial loans and foreclosures. As with
the TCPA, state AGs have gotten involved here, too. Arizona's AG,
for instance, in mid-March 2020 sent a letter to over 1,000
financial institutions requesting a suspension of foreclosures,
repossessions, and evictions for a certain amount of time, as well
as waivers for late fees and default interest for credit card
account holders.

Securities cases. Plaintiff attorneys have aimed their sights at
securities litigation as well—bringing cases against companies
whose stock prices have fallen alongside broader market volatility.
Theories range from false and misleading statements minimizing the
pandemic's impact on a company's business, to alleged false claims
based on developments of treatments or vaccines. MoFo's Coronavirus
Task Force has been following recent U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission guidance for companies in this area.

Policy advocacy in the wake of COVID-19 litigation

As the first wave of pandemic-related cases works its way through
the pleading stages of litigation, advocates are simultaneously
working to influence litigation policy as well.

These efforts have already resulted in various liability
limitations at multiple levels of government. At the federal level,
the CARES Act contains certain liability protections for respirator
manufacturers that have had to ramp up research, development, and
distribution efforts. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services has also provided guidance on tort liability immunity
granted under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act
(the "PREP Act"), as discussed by our colleagues in MoFo's Class
Dismissed blog. Many states too have instituted liability
protections for certain healthcare industries and medical
facilities.

Others, meanwhile, have attempted to leverage the pandemic to
advance policy goals related to challenging pre-dispute arbitration
agreements. As documented by the Institute for Legal Reform, early
drafts of COVID-19 relief bills in the U.S. House and Senate, as a
result, contained provisions aimed at invalidating arbitration
clauses in disputes about business loans and employee sick leave,
among other topics.

Wave two: what to expect from the next set of COVID-19 related
lawsuits

Wave one of pandemic class action litigation has crashed ashore.
The next wave may not be far behind. In the privacy and data
security arena, we expect to see more cases. The FBI, DOJ, and
international law enforcement agencies have warned of unprecedented
criminal hacking activity in the wake of the pandemic. There have
been reports that attackers have successfully lurked in a company's
infrastructure before discovery, sometimes for weeks or even
months. Given this, the ongoing surge in COVID-19 related hacking
activity is likely to result in publicly revealed data breaches in
the coming months. Such breaches may trigger class actions under
the CCPA's private right of action, discussed here, among other
state data breach and notice statutes.

Other privacy lawsuits will stem from implementation of biometric
track and trace technology. Illinois' biometric privacy statute,
the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) -- already a source of
frequent litigation -- will continue to be the focus of new class
actions. Similar statutes, some creating even greater exposure, are
being contemplated in states such as Virginia. To facilitate virus
response and containment, organizations will look towards pooling
data and leveraging anonymized datasets to perform epidemiological
studies. Given the interest in de-anonymization and disaggregation
processes, this may lead to the filing of creative and new privacy
claims.

Just as a series of class actions arose from pandemic-related
shutdowns, so too will lawsuits come as communities begin to
re-open towards a new normal. Litigation around compliance with
government guidelines, negligence causes of action related to
safety measures, lawsuits around COVID-19 treatments, newly
developed personal protective equipment and other products, and
claims around social distancing implementation appear to be on the
horizon. As noted above, lawmakers and regulators are keenly aware
of such litigation risk and may attempt to support reopening by
crafting or expanding safe harbors. [GN]


[*] SCOTUS May Resolve Class Action Personal Jurisdiction Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Argentine, Esq., and Bessie Fakhri, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that recent activity within
the federal Courts of Appeals this spring may prompt Supreme Court
resolution of a central and unsettled issue concerning personal
jurisdiction in the class-action context causing defendants to
re-think pleading stage strategies when forced to litigate in
forums where they have minimal contacts.

Generally, out-of-state defendants (not subject to general
jurisdiction) may only be sued in a forum within that state when
the suit arises out of or relates to the defendant's in-state
conduct -- that is, where the defendant's minimum contacts with the
forum state are sufficient to exercise specific jurisdiction.
Assessments of whether specific jurisdiction exists become
problematic in mass-tort or class-action litigation involving both
resident and nonresident plaintiffs. In such cases, is it
sufficient that one or some of the plaintiffs reside or were
injured in the forum state, so as to allow out-of-state plaintiffs
to aggregate or "bootstrap" their claims?

In 2017, the Supreme Court answered in the negative, at least in
the mass-tort context. 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). There, more than six
hundred plaintiffs brought suit in California state court against a
drug manufacturer. Only eighty-six of the plaintiffs were
California residents, and the remaining plaintiffs were residents
of over thirty other states. Id. at 1778. The nonresident
plaintiffs did not argue that they obtained the allegedly defective
drug in California or that they sustained injuries or received
treatment in California. Id. The Supreme Court held that the
California court lacked specific jurisdiction over the nonresident
plaintiffs' claims, reasoning that "[t]he mere fact that other
plaintiffs . . . sustained the same injuries as did the
nonresidents . . . does not allow the State to assert specific
jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims." Id. at 1781 (emphasis
in original). The Supreme Court confirmed that a defendant's
relationship with a resident plaintiff "standing alone" is
insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over nonresidents'
claims, even where the claims are similar to those brought by the
resident plaintiff. Id. at 1783.

Although the SCOTUS decision involved a mass-tort action,
defendants have successfully argued that its holding extends to
class actions to preclude, on personal jurisdiction grounds,
nationwide claims when only one or some of the plaintiffs are
residents of the forum state. Decisions issued this spring by the
Seventh, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits, however, question or foreclose
the viability of this strategy.

In its March 11 opinion in Mussat, 953 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2020),
the Seventh Circuit held that SCOTUS ruling could not be applied to
strike the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs in a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) putative class action. The named
plaintiff, an Illinois resident, alleged he received junk faxes
from the defendant and brought TCPA claims on behalf of himself and
persons throughout the country similarly situated. Id. at 443. The
Northern District of Illinois granted the defendant's motion to
strike the class definition for lack of personal jurisdiction over
non-Illinois class members, and the Seventh Circuit reversed. Id.

In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit distinguished the Supreme
Court's ruling on the issue, highlighting that it did not involve a
Rule 23 class action and instead was brought under a California
procedural tool, similar to federal multidistrict litigation, used
to aggregate claims. Id. at 446. The court stressed that this
difference in procedural devices mattered in many ways, including
that absent class members in Rule 23 putative class actions are
typically regarded as "nonparties," not considered for purposes of
determining whether diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 or whether venue is proper. Id. at 447. The Seventh Circuit
found "no reason why personal jurisdiction should be treated any
differently from subject-matter jurisdiction and venue." Id. The
court also noted that the language and Committee Notes informing
Rule 23 indicate a focus on the named plaintiff for determining
personal jurisdiction. Id. at 448. For these reasons, the Mussat
court declined to accept the "major change in the law of personal
jurisdiction and class actions" that an extension of the SCOTUS
ruling would effect. Id.

The D.C. Circuit's March 10 opinion in Molock, 952 F.3d 293 (D.C.
Cir. 2020), a wage dispute, did not reach a decision on whether the
SCOTUS opinion applied to class actions but left the door open to
the jurisdictional argument being made later in the litigation. In
Molock, the court affirmed the lower court's denial of the
defendant's motion to dismiss nonresident class members on personal
jurisdiction grounds, reasoning that disposition was premature
before class certification. Id. at 295. Notably, though, the Molock
court relied on the principle invoked in Mussat that putative,
unnamed class members are typically considered "nonparties," such
that a ruling on personal jurisdiction would be inappropriate, as
those class members are "not yet before the court." Id. at 298.
While this alignment with Mussat's analysis may prove significant
if and when the D.C. Circuit confronts head-on the issue of whether
the personal jurisdiction limitation extends to class actions, the
Molock court's decision to defer the jurisdictional ruling until
after class certification makes the issue an additional
pre-certification discovery topic left to be explored.

In his dissenting opinion in Molock, Judge Silberman found the
majority's position that putative class members are "not parties"
is misplaced, as the real issue was claims-based: whether named
plaintiffs in class actions are entitled to bring claims on behalf
of absent, out-of-state class members. Id. at 302-03. On this
point, Judge Silberman opined, "logic dictates" that the SCOTUS
ruling applies to class actions, noting that a plaintiff should not
be permitted to bring claims on behalf of absent class members
where a court could not otherwise exercise personal jurisdiction:
"[P]rocedural tools like class actions and mass actions are not an
exception to ordinary principles of personal jurisdiction." Id. at
310. Justice Silberman's dissent also pointed out the practical and
likely onerous effect that allowing aggregation of nonresident
plaintiffs' claims may have -- absent an application in the
class-action context— since the named plaintiff would be
permitted to conduct "extensive," pre-certification discovery on
nationwide class claims. Id. at 304.

The Fifth Circuit's decision in Cruson, 954 F.3d 240 (5th Cir.
2020), issued on March 25, echoed many of the principles of the
Molock opinion in holding that the defendant did not waive its
personal jurisdiction challenge to non-Texas class members' claims
by not asserting the defense prior to class certification. Id. at
246. The Fifth Circuit, like the D.C. Circuit, maintained that
before class certification, the putative, nonresident plaintiffs
were not properly before the court, such that a personal
jurisdiction defense did not have to be raised in the defendant's
earlier Rule 12 motions. Id. at 250. Like Molock, the Fifth Circuit
in Cruson did not directly decide whether the Supreme Court ruling
applied in the class-action context, leaving the door open for
jurisdictional arguments about out-of-state class members
post-certification. The opinion similarly recognizes that
defendants may be tasked with significant pre-certification
discovery on out-of-state plaintiffs' claims.

These circuit court opinions have important implications for
parties and practitioners defending class actions in the early
stages of litigation. The Seventh Circuit decision in Mussat is of
particular importance, as defendants faced with nationwide class
claims in the Northern District of Illinois have often prevailed in
asserting jurisdictional challenges based on the SCOTUS decision.
Courts in these instances regularly found "that the logic
underlying [the Supreme Court's ruling] applies with equal force to
the class action context" and declined to exercise specific
jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs' claims. Miszczyszyn, No.
18-cv-3633, 2019 WL 1254912, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2019)
(collecting cases). The Mussat ruling now renders this argument a
largely failing one in the Seventh Circuit.

Other Courts of Appeals have not conclusively opined as to whether
the personal jurisdiction limitation applies to class actions, and
judicial inconsistency -- promoting Supreme Court resolution --
continues. For example, while a majority of cases within the Ninth
Circuit have reasoned that the SCOTUS ruling cannot be imported
into the class-action context, a recent case from the Southern
District of California held otherwise and forecasted that the
Supreme Court would likely rule the same: "if and when the Supreme
Court is presented with [this] question, it will also hold that a
state cannot assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant
for claims of unnamed class members that would not be subject to
specific personal jurisdiction if asserted as individual claims."
Carpenter, No. 19-cv-1731, 2020 WL 996947, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2,
2020).

As the trio of recent circuit court decisions makes clear, the
contours of specific jurisdiction -- including its construction in
the class-action context -- continue to be developed and defined,
and the Supreme Court is primed to provide further guidance soon.
In January, the Court granted certiorari in a case aimed to address
when an action sufficiently relates to a defendant's conduct within
the forum to exercise specific jurisdiction, an issue not
considered in previous SCOTUS rulings. In the lower court opinion,
443 P.3d 407 (Mont. 2019), appeal pending, No. 19-368 (filed Sept.
18, 2019), the Supreme Court of Montana held that specific
jurisdiction existed in a product liability suit against a car
manufacturer where the accident occurred in Montana, but the
manufacturer neither assembled nor sold the allegedly defective
vehicle in the forum state. Id. at 482, 494. The court found the
manufacturer's general advertising, sales, and service of vehicles
in Montana sufficient, without a direct causal nexus between the
manufacturer's in-forum conduct and the accident. See Petitioner's
Br. at 23. This case, set for hearing on the Court's October 2020
term, will likely address a split among courts about whether the
"arise out of or relate to" requirement is satisfied even when the
defendant's forum contacts were not the cause of the plaintiff's
claims, but there "is some general relationship" between the
defendant's in-state activity and the suit. Id. at 11.

The Montana case, along with the recent activity in the circuit
courts, signal an opportunity for the Supreme Court to further
define personal jurisdiction law in the class-action context and --
importantly -- to provide defendants greater clarity as to what
degree and in which forums they may be subject to nationwide claims
involving out-of-state plaintiffs. [GN]


[*] Slater & Gordon Mulls Suit v. Airlines Over Travel Vouchers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Business News Australia reports that a class action is on the table
for customers who have been strong-armed into accepting travel
vouchers instead of refunds for travel plans disrupted by
COVID-19.

According to class action law firm Slater & Gordon, there are
thousands of Australians that have been short-changed by major
airlines, travel agents and tour companies that implemented a
voucher scheme.

According to Slater & Gordon group leader Andrew Paull affected
customers may be able to participate in a class action against
travel companies that put in place travel voucher schemes that the
law firm believes are anti-consumer.

Paull says the firm has spoken with holidaymakers who have been
left thousands of dollars out of pocket and holding vouchers that
they may never be able to use.

Other respondents said that they did manage get back a portion of
their fares, only to be hit with hefty cancellation fees.

"We understand that everyone is doing it tough at present,
including the major airlines and travel companies, but that doesn't
give them an excuse to take advantage of their customers," says
Paull.

"Nor is it acceptable for Qantas shareholders to treat the money it
owes to ordinary Australians like its own.

"We believe cash refunds should be returned to customers, who
almost certainly need that money right now, rather than in bank
accounts gathering interest for airline shareholders. We call on
businesses like Qantas and Jetstar to do the right thing and honour
their obligations to their customers. If they won't do so, then
it's only reasonable for those customers to look at recovering
their money through a class action."

Slater & Gordon's proposed class action will allege that issuing
travel vouchers instead of cash refunds might be a breach of the
airlines' conditions.

Further, Slater & Gordon says airlines have been relying on blanked
'no refund' clauses despite having been warned by the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that the clauses will
not always be binding.

The firm also says airlines may have misled customers by convincing
customers to exchange tickets for travel vouchers.

"The airlines have presented this as an act of generosity, however
many customers will have had greater rights if they had held on
their ticket, than if they exchanged it for a restricted travel
voucher," says Slater & Gordon.

The proposal from Slater & Gordon comes after travel agent group
Flight Centre announced it would be refunding customers that were
slogged with expensive cancellation fees.

The travel operator will refund thousands of customers who, from 13
March, were charged $300 per person to get a refund for a cancelled
international flight or $50 for a domestic flight. [GN]


[*] Subscription Cos. Face Pandemic-Related Class Action Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boone, Esq. -- reboone@bclplaw.com -- and Jennifer Jackson,
Esq., of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, in an article for Law360,
report that numerous businesses will face consumer class action
claims across the U.S. related to or arising out of the worldwide
coronavirus pandemic. The wave of those claims has already
started.

Among the most vulnerable businesses are those that provide
services to consumers based on membership or subscription
agreements, and companies that sell tickets for or stage large
group events.

These include gyms, country clubs and social clubs that are now
closed; live entertainment companies, sports teams and performing
arts venues that may not be able to fulfill season ticket contracts
if their events are canceled, or if their seasons are shortened;
cable TV and streaming service providers whose normal array of
program offerings, including live sporting events, have been
limited; and online event ticketing platforms.

What will the class claims look like? The heart of the claims will
focus on the companies' alleged failure to perform their
contractual obligations to provide the agreed-upon products or
services, and to provide the full value for which the consumers
allegedly bargained. Plaintiffs will seek a variety of remedies,
from full refunds to damages for the value of the undelivered
products and services.

In response to the pandemic, many of these companies, to their
credit, have already offered alternative or additional products and
services to retain customers and to mitigate against the customers'
loss of products and services, or are making plans to do so.

Such offerings include full refunds; partial refunds; free
extension of the contractual term or period; credits for future
services, such as usage credits at country clubs for food and
services based on a percentage of membership fees paid; free
additional products and services, such as free access to cable
movie channels not otherwise included in subscriber packages; and
free or reduced-price online products and services, such as virtual
fitness classes for gym and studio members.

Some gyms and sports clubs have frozen member accounts during the
pandemic-related closure periods; others have elected not to
automatically freeze monthly dues, or are charging fees to freeze
accounts.

Short of providing full refunds (and in the absence of a
contractual right to provide a substitute benefit), offering
alternative or additional products and services likely will not
avoid class claims. Many consumers will not view these offerings as
fulfilling contractual obligations, substituting full value for the
lost products or services, or consistent with representations made
by the provider.

For instance, cable TV customers who subscribe to live sports
packages likely will not view free access to movie channels as
worth the value they paid, see it as a real benefit, or view it as
making up the difference in value when their sports package now
consists of replay programming. In short, these customers will say,
"That's not what I signed up for."

A class action recently filed against online ticket reselling
platform StubHub demonstrates that offers of alternative relief can
trigger class claims. StubHub announced in March it would give
customers holding tickets for events canceled due to the pandemic
the option to take either a full refund or a voucher valued at 120%
of the purchase price, which can be used in the next 12 months.

The company claims 70% of customers chose the voucher option.
StubHub later changed course, announcing that the voucher would be
the new standard policy. The new lawsuit -- McMillan v. StubHub
Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin -- claims that the voucher policy violates
the company's prior money-back guarantee.

Companies that decide to offer alternative or additional products
or services to keep customers happy should deploy reliable means to
track customer utilization of those products and services. Such
information may help defend against class claims, including
disproving allegations by customers that they did not accept or
take advantage of the additional products or services, or did not
receive full value under their contract.

Such information also may be very useful in defeating class
certification. Each customer likely will react differently to what
is offered -- that is, each customer's consumption of, or value
received from, contracted products and services, and alternative
offerings, will be different. For instance, some customers may take
full advantage of the additional offerings, while others may not.

Customer usage data can be used to identify and demonstrate these
nuances, and allow a defendant to argue that individualized issues
regarding customers' actions and perceived value predominate over
any common issues presented by the class claims, or that named
plaintiffs are atypical and cannot adequately represent the class.

Companies should also carefully consider what relief to provide to
customers, and ask the following questions in making those
decisions.

What is the likely range of customer reactions to the relief
offered? Will there be a media backlash if many customers'
reactions are negative? How will the company react to that? How
will the company explain the reasons it afforded the additional
relief and how it selected the additional products and services
over other alternatives? Should the relief be tied to the
coronavirus pandemic? Does the additional relief afforded make the
customer whole? Why or why not? Does the company's contract with
its customers address this situation and, if so, what is required
or permitted?

The answers to these questions can be used to identify the costs,
benefits and risks associated with providing -- or not providing --
various forms of relief to customers, and they can help prepare
companies for defending potential class claims. [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 ***