/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200703.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 133

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: King Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
A&J COLLECTION: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Nieves Suit
ABIOMED INC: Continues to Defend NY Shareholders Class Suits
AINOS CORP: Mojica Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Hicks TCPA Class Suit in Initial Stages

ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Underway
ALJ REGIONAL: Continues to Defend Marshall Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Partovich Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
ANNETT HOLDINGS: Class Certification in Roland Suit Reversed
ARCONIC INC: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Still Pending

AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Delaware Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Facing Parker Class Suit in Delaware
BIG FISH: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Order in Thimmegowda Suit
BLUE BRIDGE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Daniel Says
BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing

BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Langley Complaint
BOWMAN CONSULTING: Turnbull Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
BUILTUSA LLC: Faces Botterill Suit Over Misleading Spam E-mails
C.O. BIGELOW: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
CALIFIA FARMS: Settlement in Cicciarella Suit Gets Prelim. Approval

CALIFORNIA GRAND: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
CAPITOL CASINO: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Says Faria Suit to Conclude This Year
CELSION CORP: O'Connor Shareholder Derivative & Class Suit Ongoing
CEMIG: Class Suits Against Cemig GT Underway

CEMIG: Class Suits Over Electricity Supply Contracts Ongoing
CEMIG: Suit Over Capim Branco Hydroelectric Plant Ongoing
CEMIG: Unit's Appeal in Suit Over Tariff Increases Pending
CHEETAH MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Marcu Suit Pending
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Court Certifies Settlement Class

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kater Suit
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Saucy Brew Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
CONAGRA FOODS: Objector Henderson Appeals Ruling in Briseno Suit
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Wins Summary Judgment in Heisler FDCPA Suit
CORE VALUES: Linz & Mahan FLSA Suits Moved to Spokane, Washington

DCM SERVICES: Thompson Sues in D. New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
DENKA PERFORMANCE: 5th Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Butler Suit
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Farley May Pursue PAGA Claim, Says Court
DON BARNES: Court Grants Bid for Provisional Class Certification
EAGLE BANCORP: Defendants Seek to Dismiss Class Suit in SDNY

ELDORADO RESORTS: Caesars Merger-Related Suits Now Concluded
ELECTROCORE INC: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Named in Securities Suit
EXPEDIA GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Class Cert. Bid
EXPEDIA GROUP: Trial in Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit Vacated
EXXON MOBIL: Goldstein Class Suit Ongoing

FIRST AID BEAUTY: Williams Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of ADA
FOUR STAR GREENHOUSE: Reyes-Trujillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Pay
FRED MEYER: 9th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Walker FCRA Suit
GARDEN CITY: Begg Sues in N.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
GENFIT S.A. Facing Elafibranor Related Class Suit in Massachusetts

GEORGIA: Todd Can't Intervene in Gumm Prison Condition Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Falsely Labels Benefiber, White Claims
GRANDVISION USA: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
HANOVER INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Fink Says
HF FOODS GROUP: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Suit in Cal.

HIGHMARK INC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
HP INC: Calif. Judge Narrows Claims in Forsyth Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Hearing in Chieftain Case Postponed
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Short Suit Pending
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wylie Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

INTREPID INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage of COVID Losses, Monday Says
INTUIT INC: Refuses to Pay Fees for PPP Loan Agents, Ratliff Says
J.C. CHRISTENSEN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Greene Suit
JAGUAR HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Plant Class Action
JERRY'S SEAMLESS: Hubbard Seeks to Certify Gutter Installers Class

JOBE SPORTS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
KNOXVILLE HMA: Tenn. Middle District Dismisses Brown RICO Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in "Mitchell" Denied
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Bermejo Suit in Calif. State Court
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Davis &Vargas Class Suit in Cal.

LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
MDL 2915: Capital One Compelled to Produce Mandiant Report
MDL 2938: Hampton v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
MDL 2939: Bid to Centralize Proceedings in Family Dollar Suit Nixed

MEREDITH CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Iowa Class Action
MILESTONE MANAGEMENT: Faces Cota Employment Suit in California
MINNESOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Jensen METO Suit
MONEYLION INC: Dicarlo Appeals Ruling in Lending Suit to 9th Cir.
NCL CORP: Faces 3 Class Suits Related to COVID-19 Statements

NEPTUNE MANAGEMENT: Lowe Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code
NET 1 UEPS: Lead Plaintiff Agrees to Drop SDNY Securities Suit
NEW YORK: BOD Files 7 Appeals in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit
NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Coleman Filed in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Rodriguez Filed in Gulino Suit

NOVA LIFESTYLE: July 20 Final Pretrial Conference Set in "Barney"
NVIDIA CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Suits Ongoing in Cal.
OAKLAND, MI: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Cameron Suit
OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing
OHIO CIVIL SERVICE: Court Denies State's Bid to Dismiss Allen Suit

OHIO TEACHERS: First Motion to Dismiss Denied as Moot in Dennis
PAIGE LLC: Faces Quinn Suit Over Misclassification of Employees
PBF ENERGY: Aug. 17 Final Approval Hearing on Kendig Settlement
PET FOOD EXPRESS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
PETMED EXPRESS: Court Approves Joint Proposed Consent Decree

PG&E CORP: Appeals Bankruptcy Court Judgment vs. Tort Claimants
PHILLIPS 66: Troy Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
PROCTOR FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Martin UCL Lawsuit
QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners' Lawsuit Stayed
REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Class Certified in Grant TCPA Suit

REGEIS CARE: Faces Atuogu Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
RHODE ISLAND: Hanson Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ROCKER LLC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
RUSHMORE LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in Sharma FDCPA Suit
RUSHMORE LOAN: Wortman Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation

SACRAMENTO, CA: Mary Woo Law Sues in California Over Tort Claim
SAM'S WEST: Taylor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
SANCHEZ OIL: Hutchins Seeks to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers
SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION: Sarmiento Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SEALY INC: Court Denies Certification of Final Wages Class

SKY SOLAR: Bid for Leave to Amend Barili Complaint Pending
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bid to Strike & Dismiss Ciccio Pending
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: IPO-Related Litigation Ongoing
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Wurth Suit Moved From Kentucky to W.D. Missouri
SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS: Wenckaitis Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

ST. LOUIS, MO: Defendant Judges Seek to Decertify Class
SYMMETRY MANAGEMENT: Certification of FDCPA & FCCPA Classes Sought
SYNACOR INC: Appeal in SDNY Class Suit Pending
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
TAK COMMUNICATIONS: Diaz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Technicians

TARGET CORP: Ornelas et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
TERMINAL ISLAND: Provisional Class Certification Sought
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Plumley Suit Balks at Sale to Melinta
TEXAS: Faces Hotze Sues Over Unlawful COVID-19 Contact Tracing
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Bang Says

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Poughkeepsie Sues Over Breach of Contract
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Anderson Suit
TWC ADMINISTRATION: Gibbs Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Transgenders Class Sought in Immigration Case
USDA: Hall & Summers Seek to Certify Class of SNAP Recipients

VALDEZ PAINTING: Brasier Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALGREEN CO: Le Appeals C.D. Cal. Order in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
WEATHERTECH DIRECT: Sosa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: CUTPA Claims Dismissal Vacated in L.S. Action
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Appeals Order in Kirkland IPO Disclosure Suit

WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: EarthLink Merger Related Suits Ongoing
WSP2 LLC: Rorie Seeks Minimum Wage and Earned Tips for Servers
YGRENE ENERGY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Woolley Suit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 29 PI Suits at April 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HB Fuller Settled Two Suits for US$30,000


                            *********

3M COMPANY: King Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT KING v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-02294-RMG (D.S.C., May 19,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The King case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205 328 9200
          Facsimile: 205 328 9456

               - and -

          Richard Zgoda Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: 631 600 0000
          Facsimile: 631 543 5450


A&J COLLECTION: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Nieves Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARITZA NIEVES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A&J COLLECTION
AGENCY, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-17284-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Douglas E. Arpert entered an order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all consumers who were sent an initial collection letter
      from Defendant, with an address in New Jersey,
      Pennsylvania, Delaware and/or Virgin Islands, during the
      period of December 17, 2017 to present, attempting to
      collect a consumer debt, containing the following
      language, or language substantially similar: “If you have
      any qualms about the validity of the debt or any portion
      thereof, you may notify us verbally or in writing during
      the term of thirty days from receipt of this letter."";

   2. approving a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
      Class; and

   3. directing A&J to make the following payments:

      a. a class settlement fund of $3,301.83, which the Class
         Administrator shall distribute pro rata among those
         Settlement Class Members who did not exclude
         themselves.

      b. payment to $2,500.00 to Plaintiff .

      c. payment to Class Counsel of $15,000.00 for their
         attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action under
         the terms listed in the Settlement Agreement. Class
         Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from
         A&J or the Settlement Class members.[CC]

ABIOMED INC: Continues to Defend NY Shareholders Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, 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 continues to defend several class
action suits in New York.

On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class
action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through
July 31, 2019.

On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was
filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons
or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019.  

Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel for the class.

Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two
cases.

Since October 7, 2019, two of the shareholders have withdrawn their
applications to be lead plaintiff.

After SDNY selects one of the two remaining shareholders as lead
plaintiff, that plaintiff is expected to file an amended
complaint.

The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with
allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial condition and results of operations.

Abiomed said, "The Company has reviewed and not yet responded to
the complaints. The Company believes that the allegations are
without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously."

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

Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest,
heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the
pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in
the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or
emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Masachussetts.

AINOS CORP: Mojica Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as VIDAL MOJICA, NELSON E.
SANTOS, CARLOS BANOS, JORGE ORTEGA, JOSE FLORES, MARIO CAMPOS,
MATILDE GARCIA, NAPOLEON CAMPOS, JUAN LINARS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. LEO CONSTANTATOS,
NICHOLAS KONSTANTATOS, AINOS CORP. d/b/a CANDLELIGHT DINER, Case
No. 19-cv-00442-RRM-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement;

   2. conditionally certifying the settlement class under Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3);

   3. appointing Monteiro & Fishman LLP as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing Cheryl Karp, Diana Dolce, and Nelson Santos as
      Class Representatives;

   5. approving the Notice of Proposed Class Action Lawsuit
      Settlement;

   6. setting a deadline of 60 days from the mailing of Notice
      for Class Members to object to the settlement or opt-out
      of the Class; and

   7. scheduling a hearing at which the Court will consider the
      Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
      attorneys' fees and costs, and enhancement awards.

The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: 516 280 4600


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Hicks TCPA Class Suit in Initial Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Incorporated is facing a class action initiated by Craig
Hicks over unsolicited telephone sales.

In a May 26 Order, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff granted
its Motion for Extension of Time to Answer.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company's response to
the putative class action suit was due June 2020.

On May 8, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Alarm.com Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of Alarm.com
Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA"), and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act
(the "VTPPA").  

The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA and VTPPA,
injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorneys' fees.  

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.


ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, 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 appeal from a ruling in the Flight
Attendants class action suit remains pending.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company
believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal
merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.

On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska
Airlines.

The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.

Alaska Air said, "The Company remains confident that a higher court
will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to
shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and
local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case
and agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these
reasons, no loss has been accrued."

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

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


ALJ REGIONAL: Continues to Defend Marshall Suit
-----------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, 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 together with Faneuil, Inc.,
continue to defend a class action suit entitled, Marshall v.
Faneuil, Inc.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall ("Marshall") filed a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ.
Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.

In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by
certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act (the "PAGA Claim").
Faneuil demurred to the PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed
by the trial court.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.


AMERICAN HONDA: Partovich Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Roby Partovich, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. American Honda
Motor Company, Inc., a California corporation; Honda Motor Company
Ltd, a Japanese corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00676 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 25, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-05670-GW-PVC to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., develops and manufactures
automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden
equipment, parts, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (303) 556-4811
          Fax: (303) 943-0396
          Email: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                 steven.weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                 tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Darlene M. Cho, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (424) 285-8330
          Fax: (424) 204-9093
          Email: dcho@shb.com


ANNETT HOLDINGS: Class Certification in Roland Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY ROLAND, Appellee, v. ANNETT HOLDINGS, INC.,
Appellant, No. 18-1092 (Iowa), the Supreme Court of Iowa vacated
the decision of the court of appeals certifying the case as a class
action, and reversed the district court's order certifying the
class action.  

Annett Holdings is a flatbed trucking company that transports
freight across the United States.  It is based in Des Moines, Iowa,
and has satellite offices in North Carolina and Missouri.  On Oct.
24, 2013, Anthony Roland, a resident of Oxford, Alabama, started
working for Annett Holdings as an over-the-road truck driver.  Many
of Annett Holdings employees, like Roland, reside outside of Iowa.
As a condition of employment with Annett Holdings, all of its
drivers, including Roland, were required to sign their employer's
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU").  The MOU outlined work
requirements following a work-related injury.

Under the MOU, drivers who sustain a work-related injury must
temporarily relocate from their home state to Des Moines for
modified work duty.  The MOU further states that Annett Holdings
will pay for all travel expenses and lodging associated with the
modified work duty.  Drivers could return home every two weeks at
the employer's expense.  Should the worker refuse the modified work
duty, the MOU provides that Annett Holdings will suspend workers'
compensation benefits as permitted under Iowa Code section
85.33(3).  Roland signed the MOU two days before he began his
employment.

Roland, injured in Indiana successfully challenged the MOU, winning
a ruling from the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commission, affirmed
by the district court and court of appeals, that determined the MOU
as applied to him violated Iowa Code sections 85.18 and 85.27(4)
(2017).  The ruling allowed him to continue treatment in Alabama.

Roland then filed the civil action on behalf of himself and over 40
other "similarly situated" employees who signed the MOU.  The
representative Plaintiff driver alleges bad-faith claims and seeks
actual damages including emotional distress as well as punitive
damages.  The employer, arguing the drivers' claims had to be
resolved by the agency, filed a motion to dismiss the civil action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The district court denied
the motion to dismiss and certified the case as a class action.
The employer appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court transferred the
case to the court of appeals, which affirmed the
class-certification ruling.  The Iowa Supreme Court granted the
employer's application for further review.

The Iowa Supreme Court finds that the validity of the MOU must be
determined driver-by-driver based on their individual factual
circumstances.  For example, drivers living in Omaha, Nebraska, or
Rock Island, Illinois, on the Iowa border present different
circumstances than those living in Alabama or Mississippi.  The
district court erred in finding Roland satisfied the commonality
requirement.  The Iowa Supreme Court also disagrees with the
district court's determination that common questions of both law
and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual
members.  The question of the MOU's legality cannot be resolved for
all drivers in a single adjudication.  These inquiries would create
mini trials within the larger class action, which is unsuitable.
The Iowa Supreme Court holds that the individualized issues
predominate over common questions and reverses the
class-certification ruling on that ground as well.

The Iowa Supreme Court further finds that nothing in Iowa Code
chapter 85 or chapter 17A authorizes class actions for workers'
compensation claims that require exhaustion of administrative
remedies.  The district court does have subject matter jurisdiction
over Roland's common law bad-faith tort claim.  Class certification
is inappropriate for the drivers' common law bad-faith claims
because individual issues predominate over common questions.

For these reasons, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated the decision of
the court of appeals and reversed the district court's order
certifying the class action.  The Supreme Court remanded the case
for an order decertifying the class and further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

A full-text copy of the Iowa Supreme Court's March 20, 2020 Order
is available at https://is.gd/l5CbqG from Leagle.com.

Sasha L. Monthei -- smonthei@smithmillslaw.com -- of Smith Mills
Schrock Blades Monthei, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Matthew R. Denning, Christopher D. Spaulding, and Nicholas L.
Shaull of Spaulding, Berg & Schmidt, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellee.


ARCONIC INC: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the
purported class action suit entitled, Howard v. Arconic Inc. et
al., is still pending.

A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld.

A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9,
2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.

The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.

On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.

On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.

Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, ParentCo cannot reasonably estimate at
this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible
loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome."

Arconic Corporation is a company specializing in lightweight metals
engineering and manufacturing. Arconic's products, are used
worldwide in aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
packaging, building and construction, oil and gas, defense,
consumer electronics, and industrial applications. The company is
based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

In February 2019, Arconic Inc. -- to be renamed Howmet Aerospace
Inc. ("ParentCo" or "Howmet Aerospace") -- announced its plan to
separate into two independent, publicly traded companies. The
separation would occur through a pro rata distribution to the
ParentCo stockholders of 100% of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Arconic Corporation, which was formed to hold the rolled
aluminum products, aluminum extrusions, and architectural products
operations of ParentCo, as well as the Latin America extrusions
operations sold in April 2018. On February 5, 2020, ParentCo's
Board of Directors approved the completion of the separation, which
was scheduled to become effective on April 1, 2020.  Arconic Rolled
Products Corporation changed its name to Arconic Corporation.


AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Delaware Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aytu Bioscience, 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 class action suits entitled, Pliscott v.
Joshua R. Disbrow, et al., Case No. 2019-0933, filed on November
20, 2019; Adam Kirschenbaum v. Aytu Bioscience, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2019-0984, filed on December 10, 2019; and Michael Sebree v.
Josh Disbrow, et al., Case No. 2019-1011, filed on December 17,
2019, respectively, have been voluntarily dismissed.

Between November 20, 2019 and December 17, 2019, four putative
class action lawsuits were filed in Delaware state and federal
courts in connection with: (i) Aytu's proposal to approve, in
accordance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 5635(d), the convertibility
of the Company's Series F convertible preferred stock and the
exercisability of certain warrants, in each case, issued in a
private placement offering that closed on October 16, 2019 (the
"Nasdaq Rule 5635(d) Proposal"); (ii) Aytu's proposal to approve an
amendment to its Certificate of Incorporation to increase the
number of its authorized shares of common stock from 100,000,000 to
120,000,000 shares of common stock (the "Authorized Share Increase
Proposal"); and (iii) Aytu's proposal to approve the adjournment of
the special meeting, if necessary, to continue to solicit votes for
the Nasdaq Rule 5635(d) Proposal and/or the Authorized Share
Increase Proposal ("Adjournment Proposal" and, together with the
Nasdaq Rule 5635(d) Proposal and the Authorized Share Increase
Proposal, the "Proposal").

Three lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware: Carl Pliscott v. Joshua R. Disbrow, et al., Case No.
2019-0933, filed on November 20, 2019 (the "Pliscott Action"); Adam
Kirschenbaum v. Aytu Bioscience, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0984,
filed on December 10, 2019 (the "Kirschenbaum lawsuit"); and
Michael Sebree v. Josh Disbrow, et al., Case No. 2019-1011, filed
on December 17, 2019 (the "Sebree Action").

The Kirschenbaum Action and Sebree Action were both assigned to
Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard. The Pliscott Action was removed to
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
December 5, 2019, captioned as Carl Pliscott v. Joshua R. Disbrow,
et al., Case No. 19-cv-02228-UNA, but was remanded to the Court of
Chancery and assigned to Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard on January
14, 2020.

One lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware and assigned to Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark:
Adam Franchi v. Aytu Bioscience, Inc., et al., Case No.
19-cv-02204-LPS, filed on November 26, 2019 (the "Franchi Action").


The Pliscott Action, Kirschenbaum Action, and Sebree Action allege
that the members of the Aytu board breached their fiduciary duties
to Aytu stockholders by failing to disclose all information
material to the Proposals.

The Franchi Action alleges that Aytu and the individual members of
the Aytu board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 14a-9, promulgated thereunder) by
virtue of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in
the proxy statement filed by Aytu on November 21, 2019.

All four lawsuits seek, among other things, declaratory relief
allowing the action to be maintained as a class action, injunctive
relief prohibiting any stockholder vote on the Proposals or other
consummation of the Proposals, damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other and further relief. The Sebree Action further seeks
injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, dated October 10, 2019. Aytu and the board believe that
all claims asserted are meritless and have vigorously defended
against the four lawsuits.

On January 30, 2020, the parties in the Pliscott Action,
Kirschenbaum Action, and Sebree Action filed a stipulation
voluntarily dismissing the cases as moot, with plaintiffs reserving
the right to seek mootness fees.

On February 5, 2020, the Chancery Court dismissed the cases while
retaining jurisdiction to adjudicate anticipated mootness fee
motions. No mootness fee motion has been filed to date.

At this stage, it is not otherwise possible to predict the effect
of lawsuits on Aytu.

Aytu Bioscience, Inc. is a commercial-stage specialty
pharmaceutical company focused on commercializing novel products
that address significant healthcare needs in both prescription and
consumer health categories. Through its heritage prescription
business, the company currently markets a portfolio of prescription
products addressing large primary care and pediatric markets. The
company is based from Englewood, Colorado.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Facing Parker Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, 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 been named as a
defendant in a class action suit entitled, Parker v. Avril, et al.,
C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF.  

On April 14, 2020, a putative B&W stockholder ("Plaintiff") filed a
derivative and class action complaint against certain of the
Company's directors (current and former), executives and
significant stockholders ("Defendants") and the Company (as a
nominal defendant).

The action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and is
captioned Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, among other things, did not
properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with the
2019 rights offering and related transactions.

The Company is evaluating Plaintiff's claims and intends to
vigorously defend against the action.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BIG FISH: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Order in Thimmegowda Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish
Games, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00199-RBL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other
claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish
Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies
lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and
punitive damages.

On February 20, 2020, while the case was stayed, and before
completing discovery and before resolution of motions to compel
arbitration, the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court
to certify a class for injunctive relief only and for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the sale of virtual casino chips or coins or
other virtual tokens or credits from within Washington or to
individuals located in Washington. The District Court denied that
motion without prejudice orally on March 4, 2020.

On April 10, 2020, the Defendants filed renewed motions to compel
arbitration and the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish
Games, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35043, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MANASA THIMMEGOWDA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          Roger J. Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6374
          E-mail: randrews@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com                
                  tlogan@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

               - and -

          Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com

Defendants-Appellants BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington
corporation; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada corporation;
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE LIMITED, an Australian corporation; and
CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, are represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4715
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Gary Rubman, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5465
          E-mail: grubman@cov.com

               - and -

          Mark Parris, Esq.
          Paul Rugani, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
          Seattle, WA 98104-7097
          Telephone: (206) 839-4320
          E-mail: mparris@orrick.com
                  prugani@orrick.com

               - and -

          Matthew Verdin, Esq.
          David Samuel Watnick, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          415 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: (415) 591-7065
          E-mail: mverdin@cov.com
                  dwatnick@cov.com


BLUE BRIDGE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Daniel Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DANIEL, in a Representative capacity only and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. BLUE
BRIDGE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California Limited
Liabilities Company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00020324-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 15,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor
Code by failing to provide meal and rest period, and to pay minimum
and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff contends that he was denied the benefits and
protections of the Labor Code due to the Defendants'
institutionalized pay practices, standard as to all of the
Defendants' California-based, nonexempt, non-union employees.
Throughout their employment, he and all other aggrieved employees
were and are denied full and accurate compensation, including
overtime, he adds.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February through
June 2019.

Blue Bridge operates restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          William G. Anderson, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: wsullivanlawgroupape.com
                  w@sullivanlawproupape.com
                  ganderson@sullivanlawgroupape.com


BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Bankshares, 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 assumed liability of
Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. (VCB) in relation to the class
action suit filed against the latter.

On December 15, 2019, the Company completed its acquisition of
Virginia Community Bankshares.

On August 12, 2019, a former employee of Virginia Community
Bankshares, Inc. (VCB) and participant in its Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") filed a class action complaint against
VCB, Virginia Community Bank, and certain individuals associated
with the ESOP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (Case No. 3:19-cv-00045-GEC).


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to ESOP participants in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.


The complaint alleges that the ESOP incurred damages "that approach
or exceed $12 million."

The Company automatically assumed any liability of VCB in
connection with this litigation as a result of the Company's
acquisition of VCB.  

The Company believes the claims are without merit.

Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Charlottesville, Virginia. It provides commercial and consumer
banking and financial services through its wholly-owned bank
subsidiary, Blue Ridge Bank, National Association (the "Bank"), and
its non-bank financial services affiliates. The Company was
incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia in July
1988 in connection with the holding company reorganization of the
Bank, which was completed in July 1988.


BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Langley Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the
case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., has dismissed
the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."

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

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not-for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


BOWMAN CONSULTING: Turnbull Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID TURNBULL, on his own
behalf and others similarly situated v. BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP,
LTD., INC., a Virginia corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-60864-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      Collective of:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt Customer
      Outreach Specialists, including Customer Outreach
      Specialists I, II, III, and hourly-paid Customer Outreach
      Specialist Supervisors (COSs), who worked for Defendant at
      any of its Florida locations from May 22, 2017"’

   b. requiring the Defendant to produce in an electronic or
      computer-readable format the full name, address(es), and
      e-mail address(es) for all COSs in the putative FLSA
      Collective; and

   c. authorizing Notice together with a Consent to Join to the
      class members.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant subjected him and the
other COSs to a common, widespread and corporately-derived policy
of requiring them to work off-the-clock, resulting in unpaid
overtime compensation.

Bowman Consulting provides professional engineering services. The
company offers civil engineering, planning, landscape architecture,
and surveying, environmental, pipeline and structural design,
construction management, water and wastewater, and inspections
services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Logan Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com


BUILTUSA LLC: Faces Botterill Suit Over Misleading Spam E-mails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Alan Botterill, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BUILTUSA LLC, Case No. 20-003047CI (Fla. Cir
Ct., Pinellas Cty., June 25, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant under Florida's Electronic Mail Communications Act, and
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

To solicit customers for its face masks business, the Defendant
send misleading spam e-mails with no regard for the rights of
privacy of the recipients of those e-mails, according to the
complaint. Spam e-mails like the Defendant's undermine the
integrity of electronic commerce in Florida. The Defendant caused
thousands of misleading e-mails to be sent to the Plaintiff,
causing them injuries, including lost productivity and resources,
annoyance, consumption of valuable digital storage space, and/or
financial costs.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of and
domiciled in Frederick County, Maryland.

The Defendant is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business located in Palm Harbor, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.533.4092
          Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 786.351.8709
          Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com


C.O. BIGELOW: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.O. Bigelow
Chemists, Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. C.O. Bigelow
Chemists, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04899-GHW (S.D.N.Y., June 25,
2020).

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

C.O. Bigelow Chemists, Inc., provides personal care products. The
Company offers moisturizers, anti-aging, eye care, lip treatment,
body oil, scrub, soap, and wash, as well as foot treatment,
shampoo, conditioner, and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


CALIFIA FARMS: Settlement in Cicciarella Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has granted preliminary approval of the
proposed class settlement in the case captioned MICHELLE ANN
CICCIARELLA and TANASHA RIETDYK, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFIA FARMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-08785-CS (S.D. N.Y.).

All the non-settlement-related proceedings in the Action are stayed
and suspended until further order of the Court.

The Court preliminarily certified a plaintiff class for settlement
purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a),
23(b)(2) and (b)(3), in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.  The Settlement Class is defined as all persons and
entities who, from Aug. 7, 2014 to March 5, 2020, both resided in
the United States and purchased in the United States any of the
Products listed in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement.

Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates, P.C. are appointed as the Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.  

Michelle Ann Cicciarella, Tanasha Rietdyk, Daniel Mitchell, Adriana
Pena, Kayla Villanueva, and Kristen Landeros are appointed as Class
Representatives.

Judge Seibel preliminarily approved the Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement as being within the range of possible approval
as fair, reasonable, and adequate, within the meaning of Rule 23
and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, subject to final
consideration at the Final Approval Hearing.  Accordingly, the
Settlement Agreement is sufficient to warrant sending notice to the
Settlement Class.

KCC, LLC is appointed as Settlement Administrator to help implement
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The proposed Class Notice, Summary Settlement Notice, and notice
methodology described in the Settlement Agreement and in the
Declaration of Carla A. Peak and Supplement Declaration of Carla A.
Peak are approved.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on July 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.


A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4uNEz0 from Leagle.com.

Michelle Ann Cicciarella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Reese
-- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese Richman, LLP & Spencer Sheehan --
spencer@spencersheehan.com -- Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

Tanasha Rietdyk, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Reese,
Reese Richman, LLP.

Califia Farms, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis Cecil Hopkins
-- DHopkins@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP & David Biderman --
DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- David Biderman.


CALIFORNIA GRAND: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Grand
Casino. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. California Grand Casino, Case No.
4:20-cv-04250-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020).

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

The California Grand Casino is a cardroom located in Pacheco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


CAPITOL CASINO: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Casino. The
case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Capitol Casino, Case No. 4:20-cv-04249-DMR
(N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020).

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

Capitol Casino operates as a casino. The Company offers gaming,
tournaments, and dining services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Says Faria Suit to Conclude This Year
--------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, 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 anticipates the putative class
action suit entitled, Faria, et al. v. Carriage Funeral Holdings,
Inc., Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, Case No.
MSC18-00606, be formally closed in 2020.

On March 26, 2018, six Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the company's subsidiary,
their alleged employer, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and claim that Carriage Funeral
Holdings, Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest
breaks, provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse
employees for required expenses, and provide wages when due.

Plaintiffs also claim that Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. violated
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

On June 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint to add
a claim under the California Private Attorney General Act.

On October 23, 2018, the parties mediated this matter and executed
a Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement.

In February 2019, a Class Action Settlement Agreement was fully
executed and was approved by the Court in October 2019.

Carriage said, "We paid $0.7 million under the settlement agreement
in November 2019. We anticipate the case to formally close in
2020."

Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and
merchandise in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


CELSION CORP: O'Connor Shareholder Derivative & Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation 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 continues to defend a derivative
and putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, captioned, O'Connor v. Braun et al.,
Docket No. MER-C-000068-19.

On September 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, against the Company (as
both a class action defendant and nominal defendant), certain
officers and directors), with the caption O'Connor v. Braun et al.,
Docket No. MER-C-000068-19 (the "Shareholder Action").

The Shareholder Action alleges breaches of the defendants'
fiduciary based on allegations that the Defendants made or approved
improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of the 2018
Stock Incentive Plan.

The Shareholder Action seeks, among other things, any damages
sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all defendants
invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring any awards
made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to
disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the
individual defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.


CEMIG: Class Suits Against Cemig GT Underway
--------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suits against CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A. (Cemig GT), is
ongoing.

The Public Attorneys of Minas Gerais State, together with an
association and individuals, have brought class actions requiring
CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A. (Cemig GT) to invest, since 1997,
at least 0.5% of the annual gross operating revenue of the
Emborcacao, Pissarrao, Funil, Volta Grande, Poquim, Parauna,
Miranda, Nova Ponte, Rio de Pedras and Peti plants in environmental
protection and preservation of the water tables of the counties
where these power plants are located, and proportional indemnity
for allegedly irrecoverable environmental damage caused, arising
from omission to comply with Minas Gerais State Law 12,503/1997.
Cemig GT has filed appeals to the Higher Appeal Court (STJ) and the
Federal Supreme Court (STF).  

Based on the opinions of its legal advisers, Cemig GT believes that
this is a matter involving legislation at infra-constitutional
level (there is a Federal Law with an analogous object) and thus a
constitutional matter, on the issue of whether the state law is
constitutional or not, so that the final decision is one for the
national Higher Appeal Court (STJ) and the Federal Supreme Court
(STF).

No provision has been made, since based on the opinion of its legal
advisers management has classified the chance of loss as
'possible'. The amount of the contingency is R$165 (R$148 at
December 31, 2018).

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CEMIG: Class Suits Over Electricity Supply Contracts Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and Cemig
D continue to defend several class action suits related to the
nullity of the clause in the Electricity Supply Contracts.

Cemig and CEMIG Distribuicao S.A. (Cemig D) are defendants in
several public civil claims (class actions) requesting nullity of
the clause in the Electricity Supply Contracts for public
illumination signed between the Company and the various
municipalities of its concession area, and restitution by the
Company of the difference representing the amounts charged in the
last 20 years, in the event that the courts recognize that these
amounts were unduly charged. The actions are grounded on a supposed
error by Cemig in the estimation of the period of time that was
used in calculation of the consumption of energy for public
illumination, funded by the Public Lighting Contribution
(Contribuicao para Iluminacao Publica, or CIP).

The Company believes it has arguments of merit for defense in these
claims, since the charge at present made is grounded on Aneel
Normative Resolution 456/2000.

As a result, it has not constituted a provision for this action,
the amount of which is estimated at R$959 (R$975 at December 31,
2018).

The Company has assessed the chances of loss in this action as
'possible', due to the Customer Defense Code (Codigo de Defesa do
Consumidor, or CDC) not being applicable, because the matter is
governed by the specific regulation of the electricity sector, and
because Cemig complied with Aneel Resolutions 414 and 456, which
deal with the subject.

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

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CEMIG: Suit Over Capim Branco Hydroelectric Plant Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
against CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A. (Cemig GT) related to the
formation of a Permanent Preservation Area (APP) around the
reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant remains pending.

The Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais State has filed class
actions requiring the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area
(APP) around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant,
suspension of the effects of the environmental licenses, and
recovery of alleged environmental damage.

Based on the opinion of its legal advisers in relation to the
changes that have been made in the new Forest Code and in the case
law on this subject, CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A. (Cemig GT)
has classified the chance of loss in this dispute as 'possible'.

The estimated value of the contingency is R$95 (R$87 at December
31, 2018).

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

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CEMIG: Unit's Appeal in Suit Over Tariff Increases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit filed against CEMIG Distribuicao S.A. (CEMIG D)
and Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (ANEEL), is still
pending.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
CEMIG Distribuicao S.A. (CEMIG D) and Agencia Nacional de Energia
Eletrica (ANEEL), to avoid exclusion of customers from
classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-category,
and also requesting an order for CEMIG D to pay 200% of the amount
allegedly paid in excess by customers in that sub-category.

Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the Federal Public
Attorneys, and CEMIG D and ANEEL have filed an appeal with Tribunal
Regional Federal (TRF). A decision by the Court in this case has
been pending since March 2008.

As of December 31, 2019 the amount involved in this case was
approximately R$327 million The chance of loss has been classified
as 'possible' due to the existence of other judgments, both in the
judiciary and in the administrative sphere, that are in favor of
the argument put forward by CEMIG D.

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Marcu Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Cheetah Mobile Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the putative class
action suit entitled, Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-11184, is pending.

The company and certain of its current and former officers have
been named as defendants in a putative securities class action
filed on November 30, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-11184.

The action was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the
company's American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between April 21,
2015 and November 27, 2018.

The action alleges that the company made false or misleading
statements regarding our business and operations in violation of
the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On February 8, 2019, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs in this action. On February 13, 2019, the court approved
a scheduling stipulation for the filing of the plaintiffs' amended
complaint and defendants' responsive pleadings.

On March 28, 2019, an amended complaint was filed. On May 16, 2019,
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed. On October 2,
2019, a second amended complaint was filed.

On November 6, 2019, a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint was filed, which is currently pending before the Court.

On December 13, 2019, the Defendants filed a Reply Memorandum of
Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss.

Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates as a mobile Internet company
worldwide. The company was formerly known as Kingsoft Internet
Software Holdings Limited and changed its name to Cheetah Mobile
Inc. in March 2014. Cheetah Mobile Inc. was incorporated in 2009
and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Court Certifies Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CEOG, LLC v. CHESAPEAKE
OPERATING, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00776-HE (W.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge Joe Heaton entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of class action
      settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes:

      "all non-excluded persons or entities who are or were
      royalty and/or overriding royalty interest owners in oil
      and gas wells located in Oklahoma and operated by
      Chesapeake, who, during any part of the Claim Period
      (i.e., from November 7, 2009, through March 31, 2018),
      were paid production proceeds by Chesapeake Operating as
      Operator and in which Chesapeake Marketing was first
      purchaser, except for (1) those production proceeds paid
      by Chesapeake on behalf of take-in-kind Owners who market
      their own oil and gas, and (2) those production proceeds
      due an Owner that total less than one hundred dollars in a
      twelve month period, as more specifically described at 52
      Okla. Stat. section 570.10(B)(3)(a)-(c)";

   3. approving form and manner of notice; and

   4. appointing Cynthia B. Heymans of Sea Dog Accounting, LLC,
      as Settlement Administrator to receive and process any
      Requests for Exclusion or inquiries submitted by
      Settlement Class Members and such other matters as the
      Defendants may call upon the Settlement Administrator
      rather than other personnel to perform in connection with
      the proposed settlement;

   5. appointing Debbie Chastain, AAP, SVP, Treasury Services
      Manager, Vast Bank, N.A., as the Escrow Agent. The Escrow
      Agent is authorized and directed to act in accordance with
      the Settlement Agreement, Escrow Agreement and orders of
      this Court; and

   6. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to be held on August
      25, 2020 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 501 of the United
      States District Court for the Western District of
      Oklahoma, the Honorable Joe Heaton presiding.

The Court finds all prerequisites and requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a)-(b) are satisfied for purposes of
certifying a class for settlement purposes.

This lawsuit is brought by CEOG, LLC against the Defendants for the
alleged non-payment of certain sums of interest to the putative
class members and for other related relief. The Plaintiff and
Defendants have reached an agreement to settle this Litigation
through the creation of a Settlement Fund in the amount of
$6,105,000.00.[CC]

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Kater Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Churchill Downs, Inc., and Big Fish Games, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Cheryl Kater,
et al. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00612-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Churchill
Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has joined
Big Fish Games in renewing a motion to compel arbitration in the
Washington District Court as to all claims asserted by plaintiff
Suzie Kelly.  Big Fish Games also renewed its motion to compel
arbitration against plaintiff Cheryl Kater in the Washington
District Court.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other
claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the
Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish
Games, Inc. ("Big Fish Games") violated Washington law, including
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful
gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots,
blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish
Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost,
reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Cheryl Kater, et al. v.
Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-35042, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHERYL KATER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and SUZIE KELLY, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Roger J. Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6374
          E-mail: randrews@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

               - and -

          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 638-9660
          E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com

Defendants-Appellants CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., a Kentucky
corporation, and BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington corporation,
are represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4715
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Gary Rubman, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5465
          E-mail: grubman@cov.com

               - and -

          Matthew Verdin, Esq.
          David Samuel Watnick, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          415 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: (415) 591-7065
          E-mail: mverdin@cov.com
                  dwatnick@cov.com

               - and -

          Mark Parris, Esq.
          Paul Rugani, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
          Seattle, WA 98104-7097
          Telephone: (206) 839-4320
          E-mail: mparris@orrick.com
                  prugani@orrick.com


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Saucy Brew Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saucy Brew Works, LLC, On behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated businesses and entities v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. CV 20 933932 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty.,
June 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for unlawfully
denying the Plaintiff's claims for loss due to the COVID-19
pandemic.

CIC insured the Plaintiff under a commercial/business owner policy,
bearing policy, number ETD0448045 ("Policy"). The certified Policy
is in the possession of CIC. Under the Policy, the Plaintiff agreed
to make premium payments to CIC in exchange for CIC's promise to
indemnify the Plaintiff for losses, including business income loss
at its commercial property location(s) (collectively referred to as
"Property" or "Properties").

The Policy is currently in full effect, providing property,
business personal property, business income and extra expense, and
additional coverages for the effective period, which includes
January 1, 2020, to the present. The Plaintiff says it faithfully
paid policy premiums to CIC, specifically to provide additional
coverage for "Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage" in the
event of business closures by order of Civil Authority.

The Plaintiff explains that the Policy is an "all-risk" policy, in
so far as it provides that a covered cause of loss under the policy
means a fortuitous cause or event, not otherwise excludes, which
actually occurs during this policy period. Here, the Plaintiff
contends, its operations have been suspended, and access to
properties prohibited, due to a covered cause of loss, and no
specific exclusion(s) applies to reasonably justify the denial of
the Plaintiff claims.

CIC has accepted the policy premiums with no intention of providing
any coverage under the Policy's Business Income, Extra-Expense or
Civil Authority Coverage Sections due to a loss and/or shutdown
from a pandemic, i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendant has, in fact, denied the Plaintiff claim by way of
denial letter issued to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2020, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Saucy operates a bar/restaurant in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.

CIC is a large property and casualty insurer, with its principal
place of business in Fairfield, Ohio, and sells insurance in
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
          CONNICK LAW, LLC
          25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
          Beachwood OH 44122
          Phone: 216-364-0512
          Fax: 216-609-3446
          Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Objector Henderson Appeals Ruling in Briseno Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector M. Todd Henderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Robert Briseno, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 31,
2020, District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney has dismissed with
prejudice the case IN RE CONAGRA FOODS, INC. ROBERT BRISENO, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Case No. CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx), MDL No. 2291
(C.D. Cal.).

The matter came before the Court to determine whether to finally
approve the Settlement with Defendant Conagra Brands, Inc.
(formerly Conagra Foods, Inc.) as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement dated March 12, 2019, relating to the Action.

The Court has granted final approval and confirmed that the
Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Classes pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  After careful
consideration of all papers filed in the proceeding, including
evidence from the counsel regarding attorneys' fees, $978,671 in
unreimbursed expenses, and over 20,320 hours of time and effort by
the Class Counsel benefitting the Classes and resulting in the
Settlement Agreement, the Court is fully informed and determined
that the Settlement Agreement should be and was approved in the
Order Granting Final Approval.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Briseno, et al. v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. 20-55068, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT BRISENO, et al., are represented by:

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3149
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON
          10807 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 10119
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
       
               - and -

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com

               - and -

          Christian J. Keeney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: 714-800-7900
          E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com
                  alevitt@dlcfirm.com

Objector-Appellant M. TODD HENDERSON is represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
          1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 703-203-3848
          E-mail: ted.frank@hlli.org

Defendant-Appellee CONAGRA FOODS, INC., is represented by:

          Angela M. Spivey, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: angela.spivey@alston.com


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Wins Summary Judgment in Heisler FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned CHAD H. HEISLER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT
HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1
THROUGH 25. Defendants. Case No. 16-CV-1344. (E.D. Wis.)

Chad H. Heisler brought this class action complaint against
Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. (Convergent), alleging that
Convergent sent a debt collection letter that violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Convergent argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because
Heisler lacks standing to sue.  Alternatively, Convergent argues
that it should prevail on the merits because its letter identified
the creditor under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2) and was not false,
deceptive, or misleading under 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and
1692e(10).   Convergent further maintains that any violation was
the result of a bona fide error under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(c).

Before the Court are three motions: Convergent's motion for summary
judgment, Heisler's renewed motion for class certification, and
Convergent's motion to dismiss Heisler's putative class allegations
as time-barred .

For the reasons below, Convergent's motion for summary judgment
will be granted and the other motions denied as moot, ruled the
District Court in a Decision and Order, a full-text copy of which
is available at https://tinyurl.com/rcnnvax from Leagle.com.

Standing

Convergent argues that Heisler lacks standing under the recent
Seventh Circuit case of Casillas v. Madison Avenue Assoc., Inc.,
926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019).

In Casillas, the debt collector sent a letter that failed to
include the statutorily required notice that a debtor wishing to
dispute the debt had to communicate in writing. However, Casillas
did not allege that she tried or even planned to try to dispute the
debt. The court found that Casillas did not have standing,
explaining that Casillas had no more use for the notice than she
would have had for directions accompanying a product that she had
no plans to assemble.

The court concluded that this allegation of a bare procedural
violation could not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for
standing.  

Convergent argues that this case is analogous to Casillas because
Heisler has not produced any evidence that he suffered any harm, or
risk of harm, as a result of the alleged deficiency in the letter.
Convergent points out that Heisler took no action on the letter
himself but gave the letter to his attorney, and there is no
evidence that anything about the letter caused him to take any
action inconsistent with his rights under the FDCPA or that he
would have taken some alternative course of action if the letter
had identified the creditor in a different format.

Heisler responds that this case is distinguishable from Casillas in
that Heisler is not alleging deprivation of notice of statutory
rights, but deprivation of substantive information. Heisler argues
that Casillas stands only for the proposition that lack of notice
of statutory rights, without more, cannot give rise to a concrete
injury.  

Here, Heisler is not alleging lack of notice of statutory rights,
but lack of substantive information: the name of the creditor.
Heisler argues that mere deprivation of this information itself
gives rise to concrete injury.

Both parties are correct, to a point. Heisler is correct that
Casillas is not analogous to this case. The court in Casillas
clearly contrasted the failure to provide information about a
debtor's statutory rights, which worked no harm unless the debtor
might actually have exercised those rights, with failure to provide
substantive information.   

Convergent is also correct, however, that even where the alleged
injury is a deprivation of substantive information, the plaintiff
must affirmatively allege an actual injury. If the Court were
evaluating standing on the basis of the complaint alone,
Convergent's arguments might be persuasive. But at this stage,
Heisler has not only alleged but provided evidence of a concrete
injury-in-fact. Heisler testified that he opened the letter and
read parts of it before he set it aside for his attorney.  

Section 1692g(a)(2)

In his complaint, Heisler alleges that Convergent's letter failed
to identify the creditor, in violation of Section 1692g(a)(2).
Heisler argues that the letter neither clarified which entity was
the creditor nor used the actual name of the creditor.  

Extrinsic Evidence

To understand when extrinsic evidence is required to survive
summary judgment on a Section 1692g(a)(2) claim, take an extreme
example: imagine that this letter had no Re: line at all, or left
it blank, or listed the name of an entirely different creditor.
Certainly a fact-finder would not need surveys proving consumer
confusion to conclude that the letter had not named the creditor.
Not only would the claim survive summary judgment, but the
plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment in her favor,
without any extrinsic evidence.

Heisler's assertion that the letter failed to provide the name of
the creditor needs no extrinsic evidence. All Heisler needs to
succeed on that claim is to show that the name of the creditor was
not on the letter; Heisler need not show that anyone would be
confused by what was there in its place. Thus, Heisler's failure to
produce extrinsic evidence does not justify summary judgment in
Convergent's favor on Heisler's § 1692g(a)(2) claim.

Identifying the Creditor

Convergent's argument that its letter identified the creditor
relies on the letter's similarity to others that have been found to
accurately identify the creditor.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that identifying itself
as a debt collector, explaining that the account had been placed
with it for collections, and including an account number were
sufficient to identify the creditor.  

Because it is not clear on the face of this letter that an
unsophisticated consumer could readily identify that the entity
following Re: was the creditor, Convergent is not entitled to
summary judgment on its Section 1692g(a)(2) claim.

Naming the Creditor

Convergent is untroubled by the fact that it used an invented name
no consumer would have encountered before, because it believes
consumers would have understood it anyway. There are two problems
with this: (1) that is not the standard for a Section 1692g(a)(2)
claim and (2) Convergent lacks evidence that consumers would have
understood this abbreviation.

First, Convergent misunderstands the requirements of Section
1692g(a)(2). Convergent asserts that, under Smith, it need not use
the legal name of the creditor, a common name of the creditor, or
even an existing name at all; it must only identify the creditor in
a manner clear enough that the recipient is likely to understand
it. Convergent argues that because a consumer could figure out the
creditor's identity from the abbreviation, Convergent satisfied its
obligation under Section1692g(a)(2).

Second, there is little evidence that consumers were, in fact,
likely to understand from this abbreviation who the creditor was.
Convergent offers one page of results from a Google search for wf
inc  elmbrook mem and an image of a webpage for Wheaton Franciscan
Elmbrook, both from July 14, 2019.

Convergent is left with its argument that consumers would be able
to identify the creditor using "basic logical deductions and
inferences, such as that Mem is short for Memorial and Memorial is
commonly used in hospital names. But judges and lawyers familiar
with medical debt collections and with the name of this particular
creditor are not well-equipped to say that these are basic
inferences for the unsophisticated consumer.

In sum, Convergent has not shown that its letter stated the name of
the creditor as required by Section 1692g(a)(2). Convergent would
not be entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Section 1692e and Section 1692e(10)

Convergent argues that Heisler has failed to produce facts
supporting his claim that Convergent made a false, deceptive, or
misleading representation in its correspondence in violation of
Section 1692e.  Heisler asserts that extrinsic evidence is not
required because the letter is plainly deceptive or misleading on
its face.  

Under Section 1692e of the FDCPA, a debt collector may not use any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt. Section 1692e(10)
prohibits any false representation or deceptive means to collect
attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer.

Extrinsic evidence of consumer confusion is required to succeed on
a Section 1692e claim when the language does not plainly violate
the statute on its face. Even if WF, Inc., Elmbrook Mem is not the
actual name of the creditor and therefore technically false, it
does not violate Section 1692e unless it would also confuse or
mislead the unsophisticated consumer, and this abbreviation could
in fact be entirely clear to the relevant consumer population. And
while the manner in which the letter identifies which entity is the
creditor is not plainly clear, it is also not plainly false,
misleading, or deceptive; the unsophisticated consumer reading this
letter might accurately identify the creditor despite the
ambiguity.

Because Heisler has not presented extrinsic evidence, Convergent is
entitled to summary judgment on Heisler's claims under Section
1692e and 1692e(10).

Bona Fide Error

Convergent argues that any FDCPA violation was the result of a bona
fide error. Convergent points to procedures including reliance on
client input for identifying the client in letters, use of
computerized processes that pull account-specific information for
mailings from the FACS software, and use of annually reviewed and
attorney-approved template letters. Heisler does not dispute that
the alleged error was unintentional and resulted from a bona fide
error. He only disputes whether Convergent's procedures were
reasonably adapted to avoid such errors.

At the time this letter was sent, Convergent's procedure was to
rely on clients to inform them how consumers would recognize their
names in correspondence. As an initial matter, Heisler argues that
Convergent's reliance on information from the client about how to
identify the client is insufficient to satisfy Section 1692k(c)
because Krueger did not testify specifically that this was
Convergent's procedure for ensuring that the name of the creditor
is understandable to the unsophisticated consumer as required by
the FDCPA. But the Court is not aware of any specific language a
Rule 30(b)(2) witness must use to indicate that procedures were
specifically adapted to avoid such errors where the evidence shows
that they were, so Heisler is not persuasive on this point.

Convergent is entitled to summary judgment on Heisler's claims
under Section 1692e and Section 1692e(10) because the letter was
not plainly confusing and Heisler has not shown extrinsic evidence
of consumer confusion. Furthermore, although Convergent violated
Section 1692g(a)(2) by failing to name the current creditor in its
dunning letter, Convergent is not liable for the error because it
was an unintentional, bona fide error, and occurred despite
procedures reasonably adapted to ensure that the letter clearly
identified the creditor.  

Convergent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Chad H Heisler, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman ,
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, 20 S. Clark Street, Suite
1500,Chicago, IL 60603, Francis R. Greene , Stern Thomasson LLP,
Andrew T. Thomasson , Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern , Stern
Thomasson LLP & Heather B. Jones , Stern Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris
Avenue, Suite 205, Springfield, NJ 07081

Convergent Healthcare Recoveries Inc, Defendant, represented by
Avanti D. Bakane -abakane@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
LLP & Chirag Haresh Patel - cpatel@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP.


CORE VALUES: Linz & Mahan FLSA Suits Moved to Spokane, Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William O. Bertelsman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, has transferred to the
Eastern District of Washington, Spokane Division, the case,
JEREMIAH LINZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CORE VALUES ROADSIDE SERVICE,
LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-529 (WOB) (S.D.
Ohio), along with the related case Mahan v. Core Values Roadside
Service, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-480.

Plaintiff Linz and two other named co-Plaintiffs have filed a class
action, which is related to a suit brought by Elizabeth Mahan.
Both suits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
violations of Ohio's and Pennsylvania's minimum wage laws, and
contain claims for unjust enrichment.  The claims in Plaintiff
Mahan's separate suit arise from when she began helping Plaintiff
Linz, who was at the time her fiance and cohabitant, provide
roadside assistance services under an agreement that he had signed
with Defendant Core Values.

The Defendants have filed motions to change venue in both cases
alleging that the forum selection clauses in Linz's and his
co-Plaintiff's independent service provider agreements are
enforceable against all parties in both suits and consequently
dictate that both cases be transferred to the Eastern District of
Washington Spokane Division.  

The Defendants' motions raise two issues.  The first issue is
whether the Defendants can enforce the transfer provisions against
the Plaintiff Linz and the co-Plaintiffs even though Defendants did
not sign the agreements and the Plaintiffs allegedly expressed an
intent to terminate them.  They argue that they can enforce the
forum selection clauses against Plaintiff Linz and the other named
Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs signed the agreements and both
parties performed under them, which makes the lack of a signature
from a Core Values' representative inconsequential.  They also note
that a valid forum selection clause controls unless enforcing the
clause would effectively deny the Plaintiffs any remedy and point
out that transfer to the Eastern District of Washington would not
deny the Plaintiffs the relief sought.

The second issue is whether the Defendants can enforce the forum
selection clause in Plaintiff Linz's agreement against Plaintiff
Mahan even though she was not a party to that agreement and did not
sign it.  The Defendants assert that the forum selection clause in
Plaintiff Linz's agreement can be enforced against Plaintiff Mahan
because she, as an employee or business partner of Plaintiff Linz,
was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement.  In response,
Plaintiff Mahan also claims that her work for Core Values
(territory expansion and driver recruitment) involved activities
beyond the scope of the responsibilities outlined in Plaintiff
Linz's agreement, meaning that she should not be bound by the
agreement's terms.

Judge Bertelsman opines that both cases should be transferred to
the Eastern District of Washington.  To start, the agreements'
forum selection clauses are enforceable against Linz and the other
named Plaintiffs.  Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), a federal court
can transfer a case to a jurisdiction to which all parties consent.
Plaintiff Linz and the named co-Plaintiffs signed agreements
stating that all disputes arising from the agreement would be
handled in Spokane, Washington.

Plaintiff Linz's arguments that the clause is unenforceable because
he and his fellow Plaintiffs terminated the agreements when they
stopped taking referrals lacks merit, the Court finds.  The forum
selection clause is also enforceable against Plaintiff Mahan.
While it is admittedly unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff
Mahan would be considered either Linz's agent or a third-party
beneficiary to his agreement, there is no doubt that Plaintiff
Mahan's connection to Core Values arose from the agreement that
Linz signed.  And while Mahan may not have been directly involved
in executing the agreement, the complaint indicates that she played
an integral part in helping Plaintiff Linz fulfill his obligations
under the agreement.

The valid and enforceable forum selection clause alters the usual
analysis of a Section 1404(a) motion to transfer.  First, the
Plaintiffs' choice of forum is given no weight because they are
assumed to have expressed their desired forum in the forum
selection clause.  Second, courts cannot entertain arguments on the
parties' private interest as those are now deemed to weigh entirely
in favor of the choice of forum contained in the forum selection
clause.  Therefore, a district court may only consider arguments
about the public interest factors.

While the dispute is closely connected to Ohio, there are no
extraordinary circumstances that would discourage transfer to
Washington due to public interest.  In fact, the public has a
strong interest in enforcing contracts as they are written, and
there is no indication that the District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington would be unable to address the legal matters
at issue.  Therefore, both cases should be transferred to the
Eastern District of Washington Spokane Division pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Court maintains.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bertelsman granted the Defendants'
motion, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the clerk is
ordered to transfer the case, along with the related case Mahan v.
Core Values Roadside Service, to the Eastern District of Washington
Spokane Division.

A full-text copy of Judge Bertelsman's March 17, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/5Tupep from
Leagle.com.

Jeremiah Linz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Cory Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Aaron Kaminsky, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
S. Okiishi -- matt@finneylawfirm.com -- Finney Law Firm, LLC &
Stephen E. Imm -- stephen@finneylawfirm.com -- Finney Law Firm.

Core Values Roadside Service, LLC & Mark Hyndman, Defendants,
represented by Marnie C. Lambert -- mlambert@mclinvestlaw.com --
Lambert Law Firm, LLC & Jeremy Scott Hyndman -- Jeremy@basalt.legal
-- Basalt Legal, pro hac vice.


DCM SERVICES: Thompson Sues in D. New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM SERVICES LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Julia Thompson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DCM SERVICES LLC, John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-07813 (D.N.J., June 25, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

DCM Services, LLC, provides financial services. The Company
collects deceased accounts through probated estates, verifications,
insurance claim processing, and disputed claim resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENKA PERFORMANCE: 5th Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Butler Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUANEA L. BUTLER, Individually and as representative
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENKA
PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC; E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY;
LOUISIANA STATE, Through the Department of Environmental Quality;
LOUISIANA STATE, Through the Department of Health; Incorrectly
named as Louisiana State Through the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-30286 (5th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In the environmental tort case, Butler alleges that neoprene
production from the Pontchartrain Works Facility exposed residents
of St. John the Baptist Parish to unsafe levels of chloroprene,
which may result in, among other concerns, an elevated risk of
cancer.  Butler sued, seeking class certification, damages, and
injunctive relief.  The district court granted Defendants' motions
to dismiss, but the Dismissal Order was, for certain reasons, not a
final judgment.  Butler filed two notices of appeal.

DuPont owned and operated Pontchartrain Works Facility from 1969 to
2015, when DuPont sold the plant to Denka Performance Elastomer
LLC.  Butler alleges that the plant, for decades, emitted unsafe
levels of chloroprene into the air of the surrounding community.
According to Butler, tens of thousands of people who comprise this
putative class live or work near the plant, where they are being
continuously exposed to dangerous emissions of chloroprene.

Butler sued DuPont, DPE, the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, and the Louisiana Department of Health in a Louisiana
state court.  DuPont removed the case to federal court based on
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Butler's motion
to remand was denied.  All the four Defendants filed 12(b) motions
to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that Butler's claims were
time-barred and inadequately pled.

Before the district court ruled on any of these motions, Butler
filed a motion to amend her petition.  It was referred, under a
local rule, to a magistrate judge.  And before the magistrate judge
resolved Butler's motion to amend, the district court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  But the district court cabined its
Dismissal Order.  Its ruling was subject to the proviso that there
is pending before Chief Magistrate Judge Roby a contested motion
for leave to file second amended class action petition, and the
Court does not purport to interfere with the magistrate judge's
proceedings on that remaining motion.

Butler filed a notice of appeal in April 2019.  She sought review
of three orders: (1) the district court's Dismissal Order; (2) the
denial of her motion to remand; and (3) the order dismissing her
motion for class certification.  Five days after Butler filed her
notice of appeal, the magistrate judge granted in part and denied
in part Butler's motion to amend her complaint to pursue new claims
against DuPont and DPE.  The magistrate judge revived Butler's
claims against DuPont only as to strict liability; and granted
Butler leave to amend on a continuing-tort theory of liability as
to DPE.

Butler filed an amended complaint, which is currently pending
before the district court.  DuPont appealed the magistrate judge's
order allowing amendment, and the district court reversed the
magistrate judge's order as to DuPont.  Butler filed a second
notice of appeal in June, this time appealing the district court's
reversal of the magistrate judge's order allowing amendment, in
addition to the orders previously appealed in April.  

Butler raises many issues on appeal, but because the Court lacks
jurisdiction to address the merits of her claims, it only discusses
her jurisdictional arguments.  Butler contends that (1) the
Dismissal Order was a final, appealable judgment; and that even if
it wasn't, (2) the Order denied an injunction, which is appealable
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1).  Both arguments lack merit, the
Fifth Circuit relates.

The Fifth Circuit finds that the district court's Dismissal Order,
rather than refer to "an unspecified future contingency," pointed
to a specific motion, still pending before the court, that kept the
case open.  The proviso in the Order rendered it non-final.  And
thus, the Fifth Circuit has no jurisdiction to entertain the April
or June appeals.

The district court did not specifically mention the injunction in
its dismissal order, so the order is not appealable as of right.
In this situation, the Fifth Circuit moves to the second step: If
the order "only had the practical effect of denying an injunction,"
the party may still have a right to immediate appeal. But the
appealing party must "meet the test established by Carson: it must
show both that the order may have serious, perhaps irreparable
consequences, and that the order can only be effectively challenged
by an immediate appeal.  Butler has shown neither.  She did not
even make an argument for why the order can't be effectively
challenged after a final judgment.  Because Butler did not do so,
the Fifth Circuit cannot entertain an appeal from the injunction's
denial until there is a final judgment.

There is no final judgment, and Butler does not satisfy the test
for interlocutory appeal of an injunction established by Carson.  

The Fifth Circuit therefore dismissed Butler's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 20, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/xAQah7 from Leagle.com.

Timothy W. Hardy -- thardy@roedelparsons.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Deborah DeRoche Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

James Conner Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Brett S. Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael Ryan Rhea -- mrhea@joneswalker.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Joshua James Doguet -- jdoguet@kuchlerpolk.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Danny Dustin Russell -- danny@dannyrusselllaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bradley Weidenhammer, for Defendant-Appellee.


DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Farley May Pursue PAGA Claim, Says Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dave Rinaldi and Defendant Dolgen California jointly
moved the court to grant approval of a Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA) Settlement in their action. Having considered the motion and
supporting documents, Judge Roger Ross issued a tentative ruling on
May 5, 2020, holding that if approved, Mr. Rinaldi would no longer
be a PAGA representative; however, Plaintiff Eric Farley would be
entitled to pursue his PAGA claim for the same alleged violations
for the same time period.

Previously, the Court of Appeal of California, Third District, San
Joaquin affirmed a District Court Order denying Defendant's Motion
to Stay and Compel Arbitration in the parties case captioned ERIC
FARLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC,
Defendant and Appellant, No. C087628. (Cal. App.).

In 2016, plaintiffs Eric Farley and Dane Rinaldi filed a putative
class action complaint against defendant Dolgen California, LLC,
alleging various employment-related claims. Defendant appealed from
an order denying its motion to stay the action and compel
arbitration as to Farley.

Defendant argued that even though there is no signed arbitration
agreement between the parties, an implied-in-fact agreement to
arbitrate arose because Farley was made aware of the Agreement, its
legal significance, and the manner in which an employee could opt
out or become bound by the terms of the Agreement. Defendant noted
that Farley did not contest the issue of assent in his opposition
to the motion to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal of California, in its order, a full-text copy
of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/uvgzy2c from
Leagle.com, agreed that the parties did not enter into a binding
arbitration agreement and therefore affirmed the order.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal held that a party alleging the
existence of a written agreement to arbitrate may petition the
trial court for an order to compel arbitration. Because such a
proceeding is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance
of a contract to arbitrate, the trial court may only grant a
petition if a valid agreement exists.

Here, in contrast, the trial court's finding that Farley never
received the Agreement is supported by substantial evidence.
Defendant's records showed that Farley had not reviewed the
document on DGme as of October 2014 and never consented to or opted
out of the Agreement on DGme. Farley also stated in his declaration
that he did not recall receiving the Agreement. Although Farley
certified that he completed the tasks required of store managers
with respect to the Agreement, including accessing DGme and
reviewing the Agreement, the trial court described this as very
thin evidence as to exactly what he did other than passing paper.

The evidence before the trial court including the absence of
evidence that Farley accessed or reviewed the Agreement supports
the trial court's conclusion that there was no mutual intent to
enter into an arbitration agreement.

The Appellate Court next examines whether the postcard that was
mailed to employees like Farley, who had not reviewed the Agreement
on DGme, gave rise to an implied agreement to arbitrate.

As noted, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a written
agreement to arbitrate, but employers may implement policies that
become unilateral implied-in-fact contracts when employees accept
them by continuing their employment.

The language of the postcard itself also suggested that it did not
create an agreement between the parties without further action by
the employee, namely, review of the Agreement on defendant's Web
portal. Gorlach, 209 Cal.App.4th 1497 is instructive on this point.


In Gorlach, a handbook provided to employees told employees that
they must sign the arbitration agreement, implying that it was not
effective until (and unless) they did so. Because Gorlach never
signed the arbitration agreement, we cannot imply the existence of
such an agreement between the parties. Similarly here, the postcard
alludes to a new dispute resolution method, but expressly provides
that employees are required to access and review the Arbitration
Agreement on DGme, implying that no binding commitments would arise
until they did so and they either opted in or 30 days passed after
their review.  

Because the postcard lacked detail and contemplated additional
action would be necessary on the part of employees before a valid,
binding contract could be formed, we agree with the trial court's
conclusion that the mailing was insufficient proof of an
agreement.

The order is affirmed.


DON BARNES: Court Grants Bid for Provisional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don
Barnes, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00835-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:

   1. granting‐in‐part and denying‐in‐part the Plaintiffs'
      application for temporary restraining order or preliminary
      injunction; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class
      certification of:

      The Pre‐Trial Class:

      "all current and future pre‐trial detainees incarcerated
      at the Orange County Jail";

      Post‐Conviction Class:

      "all current and future post‐conviction prisoners
      incarcerated at the Orange County Jail from the present
      until the COVID‐19 pandemic has abated"

      Medically‐Vulnerable Subclass:

      "all persons who, by reason of age or medical condition,
      the CDC has identified as particularly vulnerable to
      injury or death if they were to contract COVID‐19"; and

      Disability Subclass:

      "all persons within the Medically Vulnerable Subclasses
      who are vulnerable because of a disability as defined in
      federal law."

The Court said, "the Plaintiffs challenge the conditions at the
Jail and the Defendants' alleged insufficient response to the
COVID‐19 pandemic. They allege that the conditions of confinement
violate their federal constitutional and statutory rights. And they
seek uniform injunctive relief: an order compelling Defendants to
release members of the Disabled and Medically‐Vulnerable
subclasses and mitigate the dangers of COVID‐19 within the Jail."
For purposes of this inquiry, "the fact that some class members may
have suffered no injury or different injuries from the challenged
practice does not prevent the class from meeting the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(2)." Here, a single injunction would provide relief
to each class member. See Wal‐Mart, 564 U.S. at 360. Accordingly,
the Court concludes Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements are
satisfied."[CC]

EAGLE BANCORP: Defendants Seek to Dismiss Class Suit in SDNY
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the class action suit filed against Eagle Bancorp,
Inc. before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York have filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
according to Eagle Bancorp, Inc.'s Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.

On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.

On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the
same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel.

The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports
and other public statements and disclosures contained materially
false or misleading statements about, among other things, the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting
in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline
in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure
of increased legal expenses associated with certain government
investigations involving the Company.  The Company intends to
defend vigorously against the claims asserted.

On April 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States.  It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits.  Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


ELDORADO RESORTS: Caesars Merger-Related Suits Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that all eight lawsuits related to the
Company's merger with Caesars Entertainment Corporation has been
dismissed and are now concluded.

On June 24, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further
amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with  Caesars
Entertainment Corporation (Caesars) pursuant to which a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company will merge with and into
Caesars, with Caesars surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company (the "Merger").

In September and October of 2019, eight putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and/or Caesars in
connection with the Merger.  The Company was named as a party in
three of such actions: Cazer v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al,
Civil Action No. A-19-801900-C, Eighth Judicial District Court
Clark County, Nevada (9/13/2019), Gershman v. Caesars Entertainment
Corp., et al, Civil Action No 1:19-cv-01720-UNA, United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (9/12/2019), and Palkon
v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01679-UNA, United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (9/9/2019).

In general, those complaints asserted claims under sections 14(a),
20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
challenging the adequacy of certain disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger.  In
addition, one of the complaints alleges state law breach of
fiduciary duty claims against the Caesars directors.

In March 2020, the Company and Caesars reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs in those actions to settle those claims in exchange
for payment of certain fees to attorneys for the plaintiffs.  As a
result of that settlement, in March 2020, all eight suits were
dismissed.  These matters are now concluded.

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming
operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars,
entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract
customers to its properties.


ELECTROCORE INC: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Named in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, 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 Court in Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore,
Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400, has appointed Carole Tibbs and
the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C., as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On September 26, 2019 and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders
of the Company served putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400,
and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653,
respectively.

In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the
underwriters for the Initial Public OFfering (IPO).

The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who
(i) purchased the Company's common stock in the IPO or whose
purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common
stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019.

The complaints each allege that the defendants violated Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and
related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO
disclosures filed with the SEC.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

In the Turnofsky case, on November 25, 2019 several plaintiffs and
their counsel moved to be selected as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted the
motion of Carole Tibbs and the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C.

The Priewe case was voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020.

electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, 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 plaintiffs in the putative class action
suit against HomeAway.com, Inc., have filed a petition for
permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit the district court's order denying their motion for class
certification.

On April 21, 2020, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. On May 1, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration from that decision. On May 5, 2020, plaintiffs
filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Trial in Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, 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 June 2020 trial date in Buckeye Tree Lodge
lawsuit has been vacated.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on January 21, 2020.
Expedia filed a cross motion for summary judgment on February 19,
2020. The court has scheduled a hearing on those motions for June
25, 2020.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

EXXON MOBIL: Goldstein Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation,
et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining and the manager of our
Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in
a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf
of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others
similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court") and
alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a
continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a
continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and
trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was
then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.

The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to  the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility
for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to
the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.


On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification.

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion.

The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.

PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


FIRST AID BEAUTY: Williams Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Aid Beauty
Limited. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. First Aid Beauty
Limited, Case No. 1:20-cv-04559-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Valerie E. Caproni.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

First Aid Beauty manufactures and retails beauty and skincare
products. The Company offers sun protection cream, cleansers and
exfoliators, masks, serums and treatments, eye and lip makeup, and
body care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOUR STAR GREENHOUSE: Reyes-Trujillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Reyes-Trujillo, Gerardo Santiago-Hernandez, Miguel Angel
Martinez-Barragan, Santos Bruno-Cruz, Pablo Mateo-Velasquez, and
Andres Ponciano-Serna, individually and on behalf of all workers
similarly situated v. FOUR STAR GREENHOUSE, INC., a corporation,
and THOMAS SMITH, an individual, Case No. 5:20-cv-11692-JEL-RSW
(E.D. Mich., June 25, 2020), is brought under the collective action
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wages
and liquidated damages.

The lawsuit is also brought under the forced labor and trafficking
provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act for compensatory and punitive damages; under the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act for actual and
statutory damages; and under Michigan law for violation of state
wage law, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Instead of providing the good pay promised to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants' recruiting agent repeatedly lied to and deceived the
Plaintiffs, falsely promising visa extensions while compelling the
Plaintiffs to work jobs at Four Star's growing operation in Monroe
County that were not authorized under their visas, according to the
complaint. While the Plaintiffs were employed by and at Four Star,
they were forced to work hundreds of hours of work without pay.
They were not paid for many weeks of work, leaving them without
money for food and other necessities.

In response to their complaints that they were not being paid and
their concerns that their employers were requiring them to violate
the terms of their visas, the Defendants' recruiting agent
continued to make false promises to the Plaintiffs regarding their
pay and visas, while threatening the workers if they refused to
continue working, the Plaintiffs allege. When the Plaintiffs stood
up to their traffickers, complaining to Four Star and its
recruiting agent about their exploitation, the agent delivered them
to immigration authorities to have them deported and to avoid
paying the Plaintiffs for their labor, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are indigent migrant workers from Mexico, who were
recruited from their home communities in Mexico by the Defendants'
recruiting agent, ostensibly to work on H-2A temporary agricultural
visas.

Four Star Greenhouse, Inc., is a Michigan domestic corporation, who
sells young plants and finished crops throughout the United States
to wholesale growers, retail growers, garden retailers and
professional landscapers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna M. Hill, Esq.
          Diana E. Marin, Esq.
          MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
          15 S Washington Street, Suite 201
          Ypsilanti, MI 48197
          Phone: (734) 239-6863
          Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
          Email: ahill@michiganimmigrant.org
                 dmarin@michiganimmigrant.org

               - and -

          M. Olivia Villegas, Esq.
          Kara Moberg, Esq.
          FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES
          350 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 310
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Phone: (269) 492-7190
          Facsimile: (269) 492-7198
          Email: ovillegas@farmworkerlaw.org
                 kmoberg@farmworkerlaw.org

               - and -

          Benjamin Richard Botts, Esq.
          Julie Pittman, Esq.
          CENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE, INC.
          10 E. North Avenue, #9
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (855) 234-9699
          Facsimile: (443) 817-0806
          Email: ben@cdmigrante.org
                 julie@cdmigrante.org


FRED MEYER: 9th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Walker FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRED MEYER,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos.
18-35592, 17-1791 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district
court's order granting Fred Meyer's motion to dismiss, and
dismissing Walker's complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim.

In March 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Walker applied for a job
at one of Defendant-Appellee Fred Meyer supermarkets.  Shortly
after submitting his application, Walker was hired -- contingent
upon satisfactory results on a background check -- as an associate
at a Fred Meyer store in Portland, Oregon.

As part of the hiring process, Walker was presented with several
disclosure and acknowledgment forms, including two documents
concerning an investigation of his background.  One of these
documents was a Disclosure Regarding Consumer Reports and
Investigative Consumer Reports, which informs new hires that Fred
Meyer will investigate their background using an employment
background reporting company, General Information Services, Inc.
("GIS").

Second, Walker was also presented with an Authorization Regarding
Consumer Reports and Investigative Consumer Reports, which seeks a
new hire's authorization for GIS to conduct such an investigation
through a variety of means.  Walker signed both these documents in
order to proceed with this employment opportunity, but he allegedly
found the documents confusing and was therefore unable meaningfully
to evaluate and understand the nature of the report that Fred Meyer
intended to obtain about him.

Several weeks later, GIS sent Walker a letter ("pre-adverse action
notice"), dated April 3, 2017.  The letter provided Walker with a
copy of the consumer report that GIS had procured about him,
explained that Fred Meyer uses such reports in evaluating
individuals for employment as Fred Meyer team members, and notified
Walker that Fred Meyer has or will be completing their review of
his application within the next few days, and may take action based
on the enclosed report.  The letter then informed Walker that he
could dispute the accuracy or completeness of the consumer report
with GIS directly by filling out a request form within five
business days.  However, the letter provided no option for or
information about discussing the report with Fred Meyer itself.

Five business days later, GIS sent Walker a second letter, dated
April 10, 2017, informing him that Fred Meyer had decided, based on
the consumer report, not to continue his employment.  In the
letter, GIS stated that it did not make the decision to terminate
Walker's employment, and that it was unable to provide him with an
explanation of the decision.  Looking for answers, Walker contacted
his Human Resources Manager at Fred Meyer, who told him that she
was neither aware of the consumer report nor of the fact that
Walker's employment was being terminated.

On Nov. 8, 2017, Walker filed a putative class action complaint
against Fred Meyer, alleging that Fred Meyer had willfully violated
the FCRA by: (1) providing an unclear disclosure form encumbered by
extraneous information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(2)(A); and (2) failing to notify Walker in the pre-adverse
action notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3), that
he could discuss the consumer report obtained about him directly
with Fred Meyer.

On Dec. 28, 2017, Fred Meyer filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Walker had
failed to state a claim because the conduct described in the
complaint did not violate the FCRA.  Specifically, Fred Meyer
argued that its disclosure form satisfied the FCRA's consumer
report disclosure requirements, and that the FCRA did not require
that Walker explicitly be provided with the opportunity to discuss
his consumer report with Fred Meyer prior to his termination.

Adopting in part a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations
regarding Fred Meyer's motion to dismiss, the district court
granted the motion and dismissed Walker's complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a claim.  In particular, the district court
ruled that Fred Meyer's Disclosure met the FCRA's disclosure
requirements because it was not overshadowed by extraneous
information.  As to Walker's second claim, the district court
concluded that the FCRA does not require that pre-adverse action
notices inform an employee how to contact and discuss his consumer
report directly with his employer.  Walker timely appealed the
district court's order of dismissal.

Walker argues that the district court erred by granting Fred
Meyer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because, under the correct
interpretation of the FCRA's requirements, both the Disclosure and
the pre-adverse action notice violated the FCRA.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") protects consumers' privacy
rights by requiring employers who obtain a consumer report on a job
applicant to first provide the applicant with a "clear and
conspicuous disclosure" that the employer may obtain such a report.
That disclosure must be provided in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure.  The Court recently held that because of
the clear statutory language that the disclosure document must
consist 'solely' of the disclosure, the FCRA's disclosure
requirements do not allow for the inclusion of any extraneous
information in the consumer report disclosure, even if such
information is related to the disclosure.  Given that the
disclosure document may contain only the Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)
disclosure, the Ninth Circuit addresses as a matter of first
impression what qualifies as part of that disclosure that a
consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes.

The Ninth Circuit holds that beyond a plain statement disclosing
"that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes,"
some concise explanation of what that phrase means may be included
as part of the "disclosure" required by Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).
For example, a company could briefly describe what a "consumer
report" entails, how it will be "obtained," and for which type of
"employment purposes" it may be used.

The Ninth Circuit also holds that the right provided by the FCRA to
dispute inaccurate information in a consumer report does not
require employers to provide job applicants or employees with an
opportunity to discuss their consumer reports directly with the
employer.  Instead, the FCRA requires that an employer provide, in
a pre-adverse action notice to the consumer, a description of the
consumer's right to dispute with a consumer reporting agency the
completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in
the consumer's file at the consumer reporting agency.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the
Disclosure violate the FCRA's standalone disclosure requirement,
and thus reverses the district court's dismissal of Walker's claim
under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A).

The Ninth Circuit leaves for the district court to decide in the
first instance whether the remaining language of the Disclosure
satisfies the separate "clear and conspicuous" requirement provided
in that same section.

The Ninth Circuit however affirms the district court's dismissal of
Walker's pre-adverse action notice claim under 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(3)(A), because no authority provides the alleged right on
which that claim rests.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 20, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ApNZvw from Leagle.com.

Daniel Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick H. Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice,
Steven L. Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow &
Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice, Taylor T. Smith --
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice &
Neal Weingart, Neal Weingart Attorney at Law, LLC.

Fred Meyer Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Faith C. Whittaker -- faith.whittaker@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, J. Michael Porter , Miller Nash Graham &
Dunn LLP, Michael Baringhaus Mattingly , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro
hac vice & Taylor D. Richman , Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP.


GARDEN CITY: Begg Sues in N.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garden City, Inc. The
case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Garden City, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04248
(N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020).

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

Garden City, Inc., was founded in 1993. The Company's line of
business includes operating sports, amusement, and recreation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


GENFIT S.A. Facing Elafibranor Related Class Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
GENFIT S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant
in a purported shareholder class action suit related to
elafibranor.

On May 14, 2020, following the company's announcement that
elafibranor had not achieved the primary or key secondary endpoints
of the RESOLVE-IT trial, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed in state court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, naming the company, its board of directors and
certain members of its senior management as defendants, and
alleging that the company made materially misleading statements
about the development of elafibranor in connection with its U.S.
initial public offering in violation of U.S. federal securities
laws.

The company intends to vigorously defend this action.

GENFIT said, "However, this and future actions could give rise to
substantial damages, and thereby have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. Even
if this action is not resolved against us, the uncertainty and
expense associated with shareholder actions could harm our
business, financial condition and reputation. Litigation can be
costly, time-consuming and disruptive to business operations. The
defense of lawsuits could also result in diversion of our
management's time and attention away from business operations,
which could harm our business."

GENFIT S.A. is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
the discovery and development of innovative therapeutic and
diagnostic solutions in metabolic and liver related diseases where
there are considerable unmet medical needs.


GEORGIA: Todd Can't Intervene in Gumm Prison Condition Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied Cody Todd's motion to
intervene in the case, TIMOTHY GUMM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK
JACOBS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-41 (MTT) (M.D.
Ga.).

Cody Todd states that on March 6, 2018, he was transferred from
Hays State Prison to the Tier III Program in the Special Management
Unit ("SMU") at the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison
("GDCP").  But Todd states that he is "out-to-court" and in the
custody of the United States Marshal Service.  He notes that
although he "is a class member in that he is currently assigned to
GDCP/SMU/Tier III" and claims he will be returning there, he has
not been provided notice of the Settlement Agreement.  Todd
therefore objects to any proposed settlement agreement unless and
until he is both served with proper notice" and a copy of the
Settlement Agreement "and has an opportunity to be heard in
response to said Settlement Agreement.

The Court also notes that it certified a class of all persons who
are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently
known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic &
Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned
to the Tier III Program.  Todd, who has been in federal custody for
over a year and a half but could conceivably return to the SMU, is
a potential future class member.  Depending on the outcome of his
federal trial, he may or may not return to the Georgia Diagnostic &
Classification Prison; if he does return, he may or may not be
assigned to Tier III.  Despite that attenuated and uncertain
connection to the Tier III program, class counsel treated Todd's
codefendant in the federal criminal case, Jeffrey Bourassa, as a
class member for purposes of his nearly identical motion.

Todd's motion makes the same arguments as Bourassa's; his brief is
nearly identical, with only slight adjustments and redactions.  The
Court denied Bourassa's motion to intervene, and Bourassa's appeal
of that denial is pending.  Because Todd raises the same arguments,
the Court's analysis is essentially the same for him as for
Bourassa.

On May 7, 2019, the Court entered the parties' Settlement Agreement
as a final injunction and entered judgment.  That injunction will
expire on May 7, 2022.  It is unclear now what purpose Todd's
intervention would serve or how it would impact the existing
Settlement Agreement.  In any event, Todd may not intervene as a
matter of right because his interests are adequately represented by
the existing representative Plaintiffs, and permissive intervention
is inappropriate because, to the extent Todd's intervention could
affect the Settlement Agreement, it would weaken the quality of the
class members' representation and would risk undermining a
settlement that is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Judge Treadwell finds no unusual circumstances concerning the
timing of Todd's motion.  Todd's motion is timely.

Judge Treadwell also finds that the representative Plaintiffs have
the "same ultimate objective" as Todd regarding conditions of
confinement in Tier III, and they have at least as strong an
interest as he in limiting long-term confinement in Tier III.
Accordingly, a presumption arises that Todd's interests are
adequately represented.  The Settlement Agreement, which provides
favorable relief for the class, including limitations on long-term
confinement in the SMU, supports that presumption. Todd has not
"demonstrated" that there is "adversity of interest, collusion, or
nonfeasance."  Inasmuch as Todd has any interest at all in
conditions in the SMU, that interest is identical to the interest
of the representative Plaintiffs and the class as a whole, and
there is no indication whatsoever that the representation rendered
by the current parties would be inadequate.  Accordingly, he is not
entitled to intervene under Rule 24(a).

Finally, Todd likewise would not add to the case and would
prejudice the other parties and the class members.  A treatise
observed that permissive intervention tends to be granted somewhere
between the Scylla of the intervenor adding nothing to the case,
meaning she is likely adequately represented and her presence will
just slow things down, and the Charybdis of the intervenor adding
too much to the case, meaning the applicant is not necessarily
adequately represented but may unduly delay or prejudice the
proceedings.  Todd's motion is in the first category.  He is not
entitled to permissive intervention.

For the reasons noted, Judge Treadwell denied Todd's motion to
intervene.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/30HJXA from Leagle.com.

TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, Plaintiff, represented by CHRIS WILLIAM HAAF
-- chaaf@kilpatricktownsend.com -- RYAN PRIMERANO, SARAH ELISABETH
GERAGHTY, AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN, C. ALLEN GARRETT, Jr. , JAMES F.
BOGAN, III -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- & TAMARA SERWER
CALDAS -- tcaldas@kilpatricktownsend.com.

ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, Plaintiff, represented by AARON MICHAEL
LITTMAN & RYAN PRIMERANO.

RICK JACOBS, Field Operations Manager, GDCP, Warden BRUCE CHAPMAN,
GDCP, RODNEY MCCLOUD, Superintendent, GDCP, WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy
Warden of Security, GDCP, JUNE BISHOP, RUFUS LOGAN, MARGARET
WASHINGTON, TIMOTHY WARD, RICKY MYRICK, STEVE UPTON, RANDY TILLMAN,
ERIC SELLERS & MICHAEL CANNON, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH
MCRARY CROWDER , LAURA LOUISE LONES, SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER, JOHN
Clay DEMOULPIED -- jdemoulpied@cskl.law -- Carlock Copeland &
Stair, LLP & ROBERT B. SHAPIRO -- rshapiro@carltonfields.com.

DWAIN WILLIAMS, GEORGE BALL & THOMAS SUMPTER, Defendants,
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER, SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER &
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO.

HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR, Movant, pro se.

PABLO F MALDONADO, Movant, pro se.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Falsely Labels Benefiber, White Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC,
Case No. 20-cv-04048 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2020), seeks to enjoin
the Defendant's unlawful practices in falsely labeling its
Benefiber Original 100% Natural Fiber Supplement and Benefiber
Healthy Shape 100% Natural Fiber Supplement.

According to the complaint, the Defendant claims its dietary fiber
products "support good digestive health" by "strenghtening your
existing healthy gut bacteria to help optimize gut health." Through
falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the Products, the
Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers' desire for natural
food products. Yet the Defendant has done so at the expense of
unwitting consumers, as well as the Defendant's lawfully acting
competitors, over whom the Defendant maintains an unfair
competitive advantage, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and disgorgement of
all benefits the Defendant has enjoyed from its conduct.

The Plaintiff purchased the Benefiber Prebiotic Fiber Supplement at
a Target store in or near Santa Clara, California, for
approximately $12 in January 2020.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, promotes, advertises, and
sells a variety of dietary fiber products under the "Benefiber"
brand name.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Celine Cohan, Esq.
          Lauren E. Anderson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  landerson@clarksonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          228 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (415) 730-0387
          Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
          E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
                  kevin@moonlawapc.com


GRANDVISION USA: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MESHA SMITH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRANDVISION USA, INC.; FOR EYES OPTICAL CO, INC.; FOR
EYES OPTICAL COMPANY OF COCONUT GROVE, INC.; and INSIGHT OPTICAL
MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03541 (N.D. Ill., June 17,
2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages for all of
the hours worked as overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the Defendants' policy,
pattern, and/or practice, she worked more than 40 hours in one or
more individual workweeks, but was not compensated for overtime
hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Store Manager
between November 2016 and September 2019 at For Eyes retail stores
in Arlington Heights, Illinois, and Bolinbrook, Illinois.

GrandVision is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Delaware with its corporate headquarters located at 3601 SW
160th Avenue, in Miramar, Florida. GrandVision shares this office
with Defendants For Eyes Optical Co., Inc., For Eyes
Optical Company of Coconut Grove, Inc., and Insight Optical
Manufacturing Company of Florida, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212.545.1199
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


HANOVER INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Fink Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE FINK DBA TOY BOAT DESSERT CAFE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., and
MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-03907-JSC
(N.D. Cal., June 12, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breach of
their contractual obligations under common general commercial
property insurance policies.

According to the complaint, these Policies are supposed to
compensate the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for business
losses and extra expenses, and related losses resulting from
actions taken by civil authorities to stop the human to human and
surface to human spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a
public health emergency of international concern. Six weeks later,
on March 11, 2020, the WHO assessed COVID‐19 as a global
pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the White House, the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention), and members of the US national
Coronavirus Task Force issued guidance to the American public,
titled "30 Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the spread of
COVID-19 in the United States.

Jesse Fink is a proprietor doing business as Toy Boat Dessert Cafe.
Toy Boat's principal place of business is in San Francisco,
California. Toy Boat operates as a dessert cafe which depends on
its premises being open, its staff being available, and its patrons
being able to visit its location and order desserts, beverages, and
wraps on premises.

Hanover Insurance is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in selling
property-liability insurance with its principal place of business
in Worcester, Massachusetts. It owns subsidiaries that also engage
in property-liability insurance. Massachusetts Bay Insurance
Company is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in property and
casualty insurance services. Massachusetts Bay is a subsidiary of
Hanover.

The Defendants issued a Businessowners Insurance Policy to the
Plaintiff on May 17, 2019, policy number ODF-D921993-00 and form
number 391-1003 08/16. The Plaintiff has paid all Policy premiums
charged by the Defendants under the insurance agreement to ensure
coverage for lost business income and surplus expenses caused by
involuntary business interruptions.

The Plaintiff contends that Hanover has abrogated its insurance
coverage obligations pursuant to the Policies' clear and
unambiguous terms and has wrongfully and illegally refused to
provide the coverage to which Plaintiff and Class Members are
entitled.

The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop its spread triggers coverage, has caused
physical property loss and damage to the insured property, provides
coverage for future civil authority orders that curtail
policyholders' business operations, and finds that the Defendants
are liable for the corresponding business losses suffered by
policyholders.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of
insurance policyholders, who paid insurance premiums in exchange
for commercial insurance policies that included lost business
income and extra expense coverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
          Nona Yegazarian, Esq.
          BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN, LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2080
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
          E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1 N Broadway Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com


HF FOODS GROUP: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Suit in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HF Foods Group 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 continues to defend putative
shareholder securities class suits in California entitled, Mendoza
v. HF Foods Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
2:20-CV-2929-ODW-JPR and Ponce-Sanchez v. HF Foods Group Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-3967-PA-GJS, respectively.

On March 29, 2020, plaintiff Jesus Mendoza filed a putative
shareholder securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company and certain of its present and former officers
(collectively, the "Mendoza Defendants") styled Mendoza v. HF Foods
Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-2929-ODW-JPR (C.D.
Cal.).

On April 30, 2020, plaintiff Walter Ponce-Sanchez filed a
substantially similar putative shareholder securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the same defendants named in the
Mendoza Lawsuit (collectively, the "Ponce-Sanchez  Defendants" and
with the Mendoza Defendants, the "Defendants") styled Ponce-Sanchez
v. HF Foods Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
2:20-CV-3967-PA-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

The complaints in the Mendoza Lawsuit and the Ponce-Sanchez Lawsuit
both allege that the Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements that caused losses to investors.

Additionally, Mendoza and Ponce-Sanchez both allege that the
Defendants failed to disclose in public statements that the Company
engaged in certain related party transactions, that insiders and
related parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder
funds, and that the Company masked the true number of free-floating
shares.

Neither the Mendoza Lawsuit nor the Ponce-Sanchez Lawsuit
quantifies any alleged damages, but, in addition to attorneys' fees
and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock
during the putative class period from August 23, 2018 through March
23, 2020 at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend the
Mendoza Lawsuit and the Ponce-Sanchez Lawsuit vigorously.

HF Foods said, "At this stage, the Company is unable to determine
whether a future loss will be incurred due to this litigation, or
estimate a range of loss, if any, and accordingly, no amounts have
been accrued in the Company's financial statements."

HF Foods Group Inc. markets and distributes fresh produces, frozen
and dry food, and non- food products to primarily Asian restaurants
and other foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific
and Mountain West regions region of the United States. The company
is based in City of Industry, California.


HIGHMARK INC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC.,
on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HIGHMARK, INC, Case No. 2:10-cv-01609-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Joy Flowers Conti has entered an order:

   1. approving the parties' class action settlement; and

   2. approving retention of settlement class from UPMC
      settlement;

   3. awarding fees and costs to settlement class counsel,
      and service payment to class representative:

      -- Settlement Class Counsel fee of 32% of Highmark
         settlement amount of $7.5 million; and

      -- Award of a $7,500 service payment for class
         representative Cole's Wexford Hotel.[CC]


HP INC: Calif. Judge Narrows Claims in Forsyth Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, Forsyth et al v. HP Inc. et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-04775 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Edward J Davila has entered an
order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint in this age bias suit.

In a May 18, 2020 order, Judge Davila ruled that Defendants' motion
to dismiss Plaintiffs' ADEA/FEHA claims is denied.  Defendants'
motion to dismiss claims asserted against HPI by non-HPI employees
and claims asserted against HPE by non-HPE employees is granted.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the fraudulent UCL claim is granted.
Their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
is also granted.  The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend.

A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/H7JCZu
from PacerMonitor.com.

Perspecta Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached with 142 of the 145
opt-in plaintiffs in the case, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

According to Perspecta, the former business units of Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) now owned by the Company will be
liable in this matter for any recovery by plaintiffs previously
associated with the USPS business of HPE.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
(HPE) alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2016.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

The case has remained stayed while the parties have engaged in
mediation with opt-in plaintiffs who are subject to mandatory,
individual arbitration agreements.

Two mediation sessions have taken place. In October 2018, a
settlement was reached with 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs; that
settlement has been completed. On June 26-27, 2019, a second
mediation was held, involving 145 opt-in plaintiffs.

On December 23, 2019, a settlement was reached with 142 of the 145
opt-in plaintiffs.

Perspecta Inc. provides enterprise information technology (IT)
services to government customers in the United States federal,
state, and local markets. Perspecta Inc. is headquartered in
Chantilly, Virginia.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Hearing in Chieftain Case Postponed
----------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the hearing on the claims related to the
Chieftain settlement has been postponed due to a continuance
granted by the arbitrators at the request of XTO Energy related to
the coronavirus pandemic.

XTO Energy advised the Trustee that it reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in the Chieftain class action royalty case. On July
27, 2018 the final plan of allocation was approved by the court.

Based on the final plan of allocation, XTO Energy has advised the
Trustee that it believes approximately $24.3 million in additional
production costs should be allocated to the Trust.

On May 2, 2018, the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not
a production cost and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging
the settlement as a production cost under the conveyance or
otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in the future as a
result of the Chieftain litigation.

The hearing on the claims related to the Chieftain settlement has
been postponed due to a continuance granted by the arbitrators at
the request of XTO Energy related to the coronavirus pandemic.

The arbitrators denied the Trustee's request to hold the
arbitration on April 27, 2020 setting by video conference. A new
date for the hearing will be announced once it has been determined.


Other Trustee claims related to disputed amounts on the computation
of the Trust's net proceeds for 2014 through 2016 were bifurcated
from the issues regarding XTO's right to charge the Chieftain
settlement as a production cost and will be heard at a later date,
which is still to be determined.

Hugoton said, "If the approximately $24.3 million allocated portion
of the Chieftain settlement results in an adjustment to the Trust's
share of net proceeds, it would result in additional excess costs
under the Oklahoma conveyance that would likely result in no
distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for several years, or
more depending on the results of operations of the underlying
properties, while these additional excess costs are recovered."

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee. Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Short Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gabrielle Alexander, Tavish Carduff, Anthony DiPardo,
Jennifer DiPardo, Brian Frazier, Olivia Parker, Chad Perry, William
Pressley, Seane Ronfeldt, Linda Short, Jeanett Smith, Elizabeth
Snider, James Twigger, Janell Wight have filed a response to a
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint filed in the case captioned LINDA SHORT, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C19-0318JLR (W.D. Wash.).

This is a putative class action about alleged defects in 2011-2013
Hyundai Tucsons and 2012-2016 Kia Souls that cause the Class
Vehicles' engines to stall and, in some cases, to catch fire.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew or should have known about
these defects yet failed to disclose them. One plaintiff, James
Twigger, alleges that his vehicle, a 2014 Kia Soul, in fact did
catch fire while he was driving it, totally destroying his
vehicle.

Defendants previously moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint on the following grounds:

(1) Plaintiffs fail to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s
pleading standards for Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims.
(2) All Plaintiffs, other than Mr. Twigger and Mr. Ronfeldt, lack
Article III standing because they have not alleged a concrete and
particularized injury.
(3) Mr. Ronfeldt's claims under the ODTPA and OSCPA fail because
Mr. Ronfeldt lacks standing as an individual consumer to sue under
the ODTPA and fails to allege notice as required under the OSCPA.
(4) Mr. Twigger fails to allege notice under the WVCCPA.
(5) Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty fail because
Plaintiffs do not allege privity with Defendants and, except for
Mr. Twigger and Mr. Ronfeldt, Plaintiffs do not allege facts
indicating their vehicles are unfit.
(6) Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims fail because
Plaintiffs plead no viable state law warranty claims and because
the amended complaint does not name 100 Plaintiffs .
(7) Ms. Parker's Song-Beverly Act claim fails because that law
only applies to purchases of new vehicles and Ms. Parker purchased
a used vehicle.

On March 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle in an order a full-text copy of
which is available at https://tinyurl.com/r9wafs5 from Leagle.com,
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in the case.

Plaintiffs Short, Parker, Snider, Jennifer DiPardo, and Anthony
DiPardo's Standing

According to the Court, standing has three elements: The plaintiff
must have (1) suffered an injury in fact (2) that is fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) that
is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.  

Economic injury under the benefit of the bargain theory is widely
recognized to confer standing when adequately alleged. When a
plaintiff sufficiently pleads overpayment, loss in value, or loss
of usefulness, those allegations confer standing.  

Although the remaining Plaintiffs' allegations that they believe
the market value has diminished and they are concerned about
driving their vehicles alone may be insufficient to confer
standing, these Plaintiffs nevertheless have standing under the
economic loss rule. Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles
suffer from safety defects that create the risk that the engines
will catch fire. Ms. Short, Ms. Parker, Ms. Snider, Mr. DiPardo,
and Ms. DiPardo each allege that if Defendants had disclosed these
defects, they would not have purchased their vehicles or would have
paid less for them.  

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that each
Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a concrete and particularized
economic injury in fact that satisfies Article III standing.  The
court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground.

Plaintiffs' Fraud-Based Claims (Counts I, III, IV, V, VIII, X, XII,
and XIV)

Defendants argue and Plaintiffs do not contest that Plaintiffs'
claims under Counts I, III, IV, V, VIII, X, XII, and XIV sound in
fraud and are therefore subject to the heightened pleading
standards of Rule 9(b).  

Here, Plaintiffs' claims under Counts I, III, IV, V, VIII, X, XII,
and XIV rely on the same set of facts, which include allegations of
fraudulent omissions. Thus, these claims are subject to the
heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).

The complaint must include an account of the time, place and
specific content of false representations as well as the identities
of the parties to the misrepresentations. In other words,
Plaintiffs must allege the who, what, when, where, and how of the
alleged fraud.
  
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to meet Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard because (1) Plaintiffs have not
alleged any specific misrepresentations or deceptive acts  (2)
Plaintiffs' references to fraudulent omissions are conclusory (3)
Plaintiffs fail to allege reliance and (4) Plaintiffs fail to
allege that Defendants knew of any purported defects
  
Specific Misrepresentations or Deceptive Acts

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not allege a single
affirmative statement by Defendants in connection with the
underlying transactions, nor any conduct that would constitute a
deceptive act or practice, instead asserting only unsupported
conclusions that Defendants `concealed' the truth about the
purported defects, or `made and/or disseminated untrue or
misleading statements.

In response, Plaintiffs do not address Defendants' arguments
regarding specific misrepresentations and do not identify any
alleged misrepresentations by Defendants. Instead, Plaintiffs focus
on Defendants' alleged fraud by concealment and omission.

Therefore, the court accepts Defendants' position that Plaintiffs
do not allege affirmative misrepresentations and the parties'
apparent agreement that Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims rise or fall
on Plaintiffs' allegations of concealment and omissions.

Fraudulent Omissions

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' allegations of Defendants'
omissions fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard
because Plaintiffs rely on generalized allegations that Defendants
failed to disclose a purported defect and that Defendants' recalls
are inadequate.
The court disagrees.

Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts which, if taken as true, suggest
that Defendants had a duty to disclose information about the Class
Vehicles' defects at the point at which they had knowledge of them.
Under California law, a safety defect that a reasonable customer
would find material triggers a duty to disclose, even absent a
transaction or fiduciary relationship.  

The duty to disclose, however, depends on Defendants' knowledge of
the alleged defects at the times Plaintiffs purchased their Class
Vehicles.

The court first concludes that Plaintiffs' allegations that
Defendants knew of the alleged defects because they generally
conduct rigorous testing are insufficient to allege knowledge under
Rule 9(b)'s pleading standard, as is Plaintiffs' general allegation
that Defendants are familiar with engine defects and have a history
of manufacturing and design defects that result in stalling and
fires. These allegations are too general to meet Rule 9(b)'s
requirement that Defendants' knowledge of the specific Class
Vehicle defects be pleaded with particularity.

Plaintiffs' remaining allegations regarding Defendants' knowledge
of the Class Vehicles' defects are based on NHTSA complaints,
Defendants' recalls of defective GDI engines since September 2015,
Defendants' admission that as many as 1%" of their vehicles have
caught on fire and Defendants' having implemented a change in July
2016 meant to correct the Kia Soul defect. Plaintiffs purchased
their vehicles at different times, and Plaintiffs' allegations of
Defendants' knowledge also differ in time as to the three vehicle
models at issue.

The court concludes that Ms. Parker and Mr. Ronfeldt sufficiently
allege knowledge and fulfill Rule 9(b)'s requirements; and that Ms.
Short, Ms. Snider, Mr. DiPardo, Ms. DiPardo, and Mr. Twigger fail
to allege knowledge as required by Rule 9(b).

Ms. Parker and Mr. Ronfeldt Allege with Particularity Defendants'
Knowledge of the Kia Soul Defect as of Mid-2016.

Ms. Parker purchased a used 2014 Kia Soul in 2018 from Palm Springs
Kia in California. Mr. Ronfeldt purchased a new 2016 Kia Soul in
November 2016. Plaintiffs' allegations, taken together and taken as
true, are sufficient to plausibly infer that Defendants were aware
of the Kia Soul's defect prior to Ms. Parker's and Mr. Ronfeldt's
purchases. Plaintiffs allege that Kia instituted a fix by mid-2016
prior to Ms. Parker's and Mr. Ronfeldt's purchases for the same
defects in its Kia Soul models beginning in 2017. Instituting a fix
plausibly infers that Kia was aware of the problem that needed
fixing.

The court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Parker's (Counts
I, III-V) and Mr. Ronfeldt's (Counts I, III-V, VIII) fraud-based
claims on Rule 9 grounds.

Ms. Short, Ms. Snider, Mr. and Ms. DiPardo, and Mr. Twigger Fail to
Sufficiently Allege Defendants' Knowledge as of Their Purchase
Dates

Ms. Short leased her 2013 Hyundai Tucson on March 30, 2013, then
purchased it at the end of the lease from Hyundai of Kirkland.
However, even accepting all of Plaintiffs' allegations as true,
Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants knew of the Hyundai Tucson
defect plausibly support only an inference that Defendants knew of
the alleged Tucson defect as of 2016.

First, even if NHTSA customer complaints supported a plausible
inference of Defendants' knowledge, Plaintiffs do not identify any
NHTSA complaints regarding Hyundai Tucsons prior to 2016.  

Second, Ms. Short's lease of her vehicle predates Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding recalls starting in September 2015, and also
predates Defendants' fix of the defect in the distinct Kia models
in 2016.   

Ms. Short fails to allege Defendants' knowledge of the alleged
defect with particularity under Rule 9(b), and therefore fails to
state a claim under Counts I, III, IV, V, and XII.

Ms. Snider, Mr. DiPardo, Ms. DiPardo, and Mr. Twigger all purchased
their Kia Soul vehicles prior to the 2016 fix and prior to the
September 2015 recalls of related models.  

Plaintiffs therefore must rest on the NHTSA complaints to infer
Defendants' knowledge of the Kia Soul defects at the time of Ms.
Snider's, Mr. DiPardo and Ms. DiPardo's, and Mr. Twigger's
purchases. Although Plaintiffs refer to hundreds of total NHTSA
complaints about the Kia Soul models at issue dating back to 2011,
Plaintiffs do not provide the dates of the specific examples
included in the amended complaint.  

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Short's (Counts
I, III-V, XII), Ms. Snider's (Counts I, III-V, XII), Mr. DiPardo
and Ms. DiPardo's (Counts I, III-V, X), and Mr. Twigger's (Counts
I, III-V, XIV) fraud-based claims, but with leave to amend to
include facts, if any, that cure the defects in these claims.

Mr. Ronfeldt's ODTPA and OCSPA Claims (Counts VII and VIII)

Defendants move to dismiss (1) Mr. Ronfeldt's ODTPA claim on the
ground that Mr. Ronfeldt lacks standing to bring that claim and (2)
Mr. Ronfeldt's OCSPA claim on the basis that Plaintiffs fail to
properly allege notice.  

ODTPA Claim (Count VIII)

Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Ronfeldt's ODTPA claim on the ground
that individual consumers lack standing to sue under the ODTPA.

Here, several factors persuade the court that the Ohio Supreme
Court would determine that the ODTPA does not provide a cause of
action for an individual consumer. First, the clear weight of
authority in Ohio's appellate courts agrees. Second, although the
term individual suggests consumers may bring claims, Ohio courts
look to how federal courts construe the Lanham Act when construing
the ODTPA, which also does not provide a cause of action for
individuals. Third, the statutory context suggests that the
majority interpretation does not read individual out of the
statutory text. As several Ohio appellate courts point out, a
person may be able to sue under the UDTPA in their individual
capacity but only "as a participant in commercial activity.

Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr.
Ronfeldt's ODTPA claim (Count VIII) with prejudice.

OCSPA Claim

Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Ronfeldt's OCSPA claim for the
independent reason that Mr. Ronfeldt fails to adequately allege
notice. To pursue a class action claim under the OCSPA, Mr.
Ronfeldt must allege that Defendants had prior notice that their
conduct was deceptive or unconscionable.  
The notice requirement must be read alongside the OSCPA's direction
that it is a remedial law which is designed to compensate for
traditional consumer remedies and so must be liberally construed
and that the notice requirement demands only reasonable
specificity.

Although Plaintiffs do not point to a regulation or an Ohio state
court case that directly addresses whether Defendants are on notice
that a vehicle manufacturer's failure to disclose engine defects is
an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the OSCPA, Plaintiffs
cite to Ohio state cases finding that certain misrepresentations in
motor vehicle transactions constitute unfair or deceptive acts, and
the court's research revealed others.  

Therefore, the court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr.
Ronfeldt's OSCPA claim (Count VII).
Implied Warranty Claims (Counts IX, XI, XIII, and XV)

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied
warranties should be dismissed because (1) Mr. Twigger, Ms. Short,
Ms. Snider, and Mr. Ronfeldt do not stand in vertical contractual
privity with Defendants and (2) Ms. Short, Ms. Snider, Ms. Parker,
Mr. DiPardo, and Ms. DiPardo fail to allege facts indicating their
vehicles are unfit.

Privity

Mr. Twigger's Implied Warranty Claim (Count XV)

Plaintiffs' response cites to West Virginia case authority that
states in no uncertain terms that the requirement of privity of
contract in an action for breach of express or implied warranty in
West Virginia is hereby abolished. Defendants do not address this
authority in reply and recent West Virginia cases continue to
affirm it.  

Therefore, the court will not dismiss Mr. Twigger's implied
warranty claim (Count XV) on privity grounds.

Mr. Ronfeldt's Implied Warranty Claim (Count IX)

In contrast to West Virginia state law, Ohio state law requires
that a plaintiff bringing an implied warranty claim stand in
vertical privity with the defendant. Plaintiffs contend that Mr.
Ronfeldt has established vertical privity because he purchased his
Kia Soul from an authorized dealership and because the manufacturer
issued a written warranty covering the vehicle in question. The
default rule under Ohio state law is that one who receives goods
from another for resale to a third person is not thereby the
other's agent in the transaction. To plausibly allege vertical
privity with the manufacturer, Mr. Ronfeldt must allege facts
showing that the dealership's duty to act is primarily for the
benefit of the manufacturer.  

Here, Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges no facts about Taylor
Kia, where Mr. Ronfeldt purchased his Kia Soul, that involve Taylor
Kia's relationship with Defendants.  

Therefore, the amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient
to plausibly allege that Mr. Ronfeldt stands in vertical privity
with the manufacturer, Defendant KMC. On that basis the court
GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Ronfeldt's implied
warranty claim (Count IX), with leave to amend to include facts, if
they exist, sufficient to plausibly allege vertical privity.

Ms. Short and Ms. Snider's Implied Warranty Claim (Count XIII)

Like Ohio state law, Washington state law requires individual
consumers to establish vertical privity with the manufacturer to
state a claim for breach of an implied warranty.  

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the Class Vehicles at
dealerships but fail to allege additional facts under which the
court can draw the reasonable inference that Plaintiffs are
third-party beneficiaries of an implied warranty between Defendants
and the dealerships. That is not to say that Plaintiffs could never
plausibly allege third-party beneficiary status; only that the
current amended complaint fails to do so.
  
The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Short and Ms.
Snider's implied warranty claim (Count XIII) but with leave to
amend to include facts, should they exist, of Plaintiffs'
third-party beneficiary status.

Plaintiffs' Allegations of Unfitness

Defendants contend that Ms. Short, Ms. Parker, Ms. Snider, Mr.
DiPardo, and Ms. DiPardo have not alleged any facts indicating that
their vehicles have experienced any issues or have any materialized
problem  that make them unfit to drive.

The court finds that Defendants' cited authority presents
insufficient grounds to dismiss Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims
at the pleading stage, particularly when the alleged defect that
the vehicle's engine may catch fire so directly threatens human
safety. Therefore, the court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims on unfitness grounds.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claims (Count II)

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' MMWA claims fail because the MMWA
provides that no claim shall be cognizable in a suit brought in
federal district court if the action is brought as a class action,
and the number of named plaintiffs is less than one hundred.  

It does not appear that the Ninth Circuit has addressed the
interplay between the MMWA's 100-named-plaintiff requirement and
CAFA.  However, the court agrees with the reasoning of the recent
district court opinions relied on by Defendants. To contend that a
plaintiff may bring a federal question claim under the MMWA, a
federal statute providing federal question jurisdiction, through
CAFA, a statutory basis for federal courts to exercise diversity
jurisdiction, makes little sense.   
The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
under the MMWA (Count II) and dismisses these claims with
prejudice.

Song-Beverly Act (Count VI)

Defendants argue that Ms. Parker's Song-Beverly Act claim fails
because the Act applies only to new products, and Ms. Parker
alleges she purchased a used vehicle from Palm Springs Kia.

Plaintiffs respond that the Song-Beverly Act applies to used
vehicle purchases as long as an express warranty was given with the
purchase and that Ms. Parker received such a warranty because the
manufacturer's warranty was still in effect when she purchased her
vehicle.

The court agrees with Defendants. Under Section 1795.5(c) of the
Song-Beverly Act a used car purchaser may only pursue implied
warranty claims against a distributer or retailer where an express
warranty remains in effect. However, that provision does not create
additional obligations on a manufacturer vis-à-vis used car
purchasers; rather, it simply states that the retailer or
distributor is also subject to whatever obligations already apply
to the manufacturer. Neither KMC nor KMA was the distributor or
retailer in relation to Ms. Parker's vehicle, because she purchased
it from Palm Springs Kia.  

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Parker's claim
under the Song-Beverly Act (Count VI) and dismisses this claim with
prejudice.

Against this backdrop, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss, as follows:

The court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Parker's (Counts
I, III-V) and Mr. Ronfeldt's (Counts I, III-V, VIII) fraud-based
claims on Rule 9 grounds.

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Short's (Counts
I, III-V, XII), Ms. Snider's (Counts I, III-V, XII), Mr. DiPardo
and Ms. DiPardo's (Counts I, III-V, X), and Mr. Twigger's (Counts
I, III-V, XIV) fraud-based claims, but with leave to amend to
include facts, if any, that cure the defects in these claims.

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Ronfeldt's ODTPA
claim WITH PREJUDICE (Count VIII).

The court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Ronfeldt's OSCPA
claim (Count VII).

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Ronfeldt's
implied warranty claim (Count IX), with leave to amend to include
facts, if any, that cure the defects in this claim.

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Short and Ms.
Snider's implied warranty claim (Count XIII) but with leave to
amend to include facts, should they exist, of Plaintiffs'
third-party beneficiary status.

The court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
remaining implied warranty claims (Counts XI, XV).

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
under the MMWA (Count II) and dismisses these claims WITH
PREJUDICE.

The court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms. Parker's claim
under the Song-Beverly Act (Count VI) and dismisses this claim WITH
PREJUDICE.

The court DENIES Defendants' motion in all other respects.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a second amended
complaint.

Linda Short, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Olivia Parker, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Seane Ronfeldt, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Anthony DiPardo, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated & Jennifer DiPardo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gretchen Freeman Cappio- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Maxwell H. Goins ,
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & Ryan McDevitt - rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP.

Elizabeth Snider & James Twigger, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin L. Bailey -bbailey@baileyglasser.com - BAILEY & GLASSER,
LLP, pro hac vice, Gretchen Freeman Cappio , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP,
Jonathan D. Boggs - jboggs@baileyglasser.com - BAILEY & GLASSER,
LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP,
Maxwell H. Goins , KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & Ryan McDevitt , KELLER
ROHRBACK LLP.

Hyundai Motor America Inc, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors
America Inc & Kia Motors Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Kari Wohlschlegel - kariwohlschlegel@quinnemanuel.com - QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick T. Burns -
patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com - QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, pro hac vice, Shon Morgan - shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, pro hac vice, Tina Lo-
tinalo@quinnemanuel.com - QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP,
pro hac vice, Alicia Cobb  - aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com - QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP & Gavin K. Snyder , QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 600 University Street Suite 2800 Seattle,
WA 98101.

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wylie Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a final judgment, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uucwutr from Leagle.com, granting
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
NICHOLAS WYLIE, SHAWNA WYLIE (fka BROWN), TIMOTHY RYAN, and GREGORY
PERGER individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02102-DOC-JCG (C.D.
Cal.).

For the reasons stated in the Court's Final Approval Order,
judgment is entered in accordance with the Final Approval Order and
Plaintiffs' claims asserted against Defendants in this action are
dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any party, except as
provided for in the Final Approval Order or Settlement Agreement.

Nicholas Wylie, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals & Shawna Wylie, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals formerly known as Shawna
Brown, Plaintiffs, represented by Cody R. Padgett -
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Tarek H. Zohdy
- Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Barbara M.
McDonald  - bmcdonald@mic-law.com - Maddox Isaacson and Cisneros
LLP, Mark A. Ozzello -Mark.Ozzello@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone
Law APC, Norberto J. Cisneros - ncisneros@mic-law.com - Maddox
Isaacson and Cisneros LLP, Steven R. Weinmann -
Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC & Troy L.
Isaacson - TIsaacson@mic-law.com - Maddox Isaacson & Cisneros LLP.

Timothy Ryan & Gregory Perger, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark A.
Ozzello , Capstone Law APC, Steven R. Weinmann , Capstone Law APC &
Tarek H. Zohdy , Capstone Law APC.

Hyundai Motor Amercia, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ekwan E. Rhow – erhow@birdmarella.com - Bird
Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow & David I.
Hurwitz - dih@birdmarella.com - Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim
Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow.

INTREPID INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage of COVID Losses, Monday Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONDAY RESTAURANTS LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. INTREPID INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a INTREPID
DIRECT INSURANCE, an Iowa Corporation; and W.R. BERKLEY
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-00767-SNLJ
(E.D. Mo., June 12, 2020), alleges that despite the provision of
business income coverage in their policies, the Defendants are
publicly refusing to comply with their obligation to pay for
business income losses and covered expenses incurred by
policyholders as a result of the physical loss of and damage to
their insured property arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

As a result of the pandemic and to protect against its spread, on
March 16, 2020, the White House advised all Americans to "avoid
eating or drinking in bars, restaurants, and food courts."

The Plaintiff operates two Jimmy John's franchised restaurants in
St. Charles County, Missouri, one in O'Fallon and one in Saint
Charles.

Defendant W.R. Berkley's CEO, Mr. W.R. Berkley himself, claimed in
an earnings call with financial analysts that the Company's
policies did not cover business losses due to the pandemic; he even
accused lawyers for insureds of trying to take advantage of the
catastrophe. He stated that they "seem to subscribe to the
unfortunate idea of never letting a crisis go to waste."

The Plaintiff contends that restaurant losses due to the pandemic
are not imagined. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
itself and classes and subclasses of restaurant operators that (a)
purchased standard commercial property insurance policies from
Defendants that provide for business income loss and extra expense
coverage and do not exclude coverage for pandemics and (b) have
suffered business income and extra expense losses.

Intrepid is a company that specializes in insuring franchised
restaurants. On its website, it claims that its offerings "not only
meet requirements, but best protect a franchise restaurant."
Intrepid is a member company of the W.R. Berkley group of
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 241-5799
          Facsimile: 314 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
                  dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
          THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
          555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 735-8100
          Facsimile: 314 898-3078
          E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
                  aj@bruninglegal.com
                  ryan@bruninglegal.com

               - and -

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com


INTUIT INC: Refuses to Pay Fees for PPP Loan Agents, Ratliff Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated
businesses and individuals v. Intuit Inc., Intuit Financing Inc.
d/b/a QuickBooks Capital and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 3:20-cv-02241-BHH (D.S.C., June 12, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan agent fees out
of the compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection
Program loans.

On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES
Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is 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).

The lawsuit seeks compensation from the Defendants for services the
Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of
recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans.

Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its
clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both
businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff says it
meets the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act.

Citizens is an American bank headquartered in Providence, Rhode
Island, which operates in the states of Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and
Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
          1410 Laurel Street (29201)
          Post Office Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
          MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
          1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (803) 577-5100
          Facsimile: 843-722-4688
          E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq.
          Michael D. Wright, Esq.
          SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, L.L.P.
          P.O. Drawer 10
          Camden, SC 29021
          Telephone: (803) 432-4391
          Facsimile: (803) 425-4812
          E-mail: mwright@thesavagefirm.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com


J.C. CHRISTENSEN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Greene Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EILEEN GREENE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. and LVNV FUNDING LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01700-SCM
(D.N.J., Filed March 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Steven C. Mannion
entered an order:

   1. certifying a Class for purposes of settlement:

      "all New Jersey residents to whom J.C. Christensen &
      Associates, Inc., at any time between March 11, 2016
      through the date of this settlement agreement, sent a
      letter in an attempt to collect a debt where the current
      creditor was LVNV Funding, LLC and the original creditor
      was Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. in substantially the same
      form as Exhibit A to the Complaint and which includes the
      following language:

      "Please be aware that if the amount of debt forgiven as a
      result of settlement is equal to or greater than $600.00,
      your current creditor maybe required by Internal Revenue
      Code Section 6050P to report the forgiven debt to the IRS
      and issue a form 1099c."

      "Please recognize that interest is accruing on your
      judgment. Because of interest being added, the amount due
      on the day you pay may be greater.""

   2. appointing First Class, Inc. as the Settlement
      Administrator. The Settlement Administrator shall be
      responsible for administering the settlement according to
      the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and

   3. directing the Defendants no later than seven days after
      the entry of this Order, to provide the Settlement
      Administrator with an electronic database containing the
      identifying information of Settlement Class Members
      pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

   4. directing any Settlement Class Member to elect to be
      excluded from the Settlement and from the Settlement Class
      by opting out of the Settlement Class;

   5. directing the Defendants no later than 10 days after the
      filing of the motion for Preliminary Approval, to serve
      the Notifications to appropriate officials as required by
      the Class Action Fairness Act, and simultaneously copy
      Class Counsel on that communication; and

   6. scheduling a fairness Hearing to be held before this Court
      at 11:30 a.m. Sept. 15, 2020.

The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement, the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for
resolving the disputes in this litigation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants committed violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by sending debt collection
letters to consumers indicating "that if the amount of debt
forgiven as a result of settlement is equal to or greater than
$600.00, your current creditor maybe required by Internal Revenue
Code Section 6050P to report the forgiven debt to the IRS and issue
a form 1099c."[CC]

JAGUAR HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Plant Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
entitled, Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17 cv 04102, by Tony Plant on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar
Animal Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a 9, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.14a 9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4 (File
No. 333 217364) declared effective by the Commission on July 6,
2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.

The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and the
United States based director Defendants on January 10, 2018. The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for which
oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018.

The court dismissed the amended complaint on September 20, 2018.
Plaintiff was entitled to amend that complaint within 20 days from
the date of dismissal.

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to
focus on the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia
and the related disclosure statements in the Form S-4 described
above.

On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Defendants argue in their motion that the
second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged
in the complaint are immaterial as a matter of law.

The court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28,
2019. The Company answered the second amended complaint on August
2, 2019; the answer denied the material allegations of the second
amended complaint.

The parties are now engaged in discovery.

Jaguar said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove his allegations
in this matter and to establish the damages he asserts, then an
adverse ruling could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
The Company believes that it is not probable that an asset has been
impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the
financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not
reasonably estimable."

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JERRY'S SEAMLESS: Hubbard Seeks to Certify Gutter Installers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GRANT HUBBARD, ERIC
KALISNIKOW, JAMES DIAZ, and CORY BIGHAM, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JERRY'S SEAMLESS
GUTTERING INC., and JEROME KRECZMER, Case No. 9:19-cv-81705-RAR
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective on behalf of:

      "all gutter installer employees who worked for Jerry's
      Seamless Guttering at any time after December 20, 2016";

   2. directing the Defendants to produce the contact
      information of those collective members (including name,
      address, telephone number, and email addresses) in
      electronic spreadsheet format (such as Excel) no later
      than one week after the date of the entry of the Order
      granting this Motion;

   3. approving form and content;

   4. approving notice through U.S. Mail and email;

   5. approving the sending of the follow-up Postcard via U.S.
      mail and reminder email; and

   6. granting their counsel a period of 90 days from the date
      Defendants fully and completely release the collective
      members' contact information during which to distribute
      the Notice and to file Consent to Join forms.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jerry's is a premier seamless gutter repair, installation, and
gutter maintenance company serving Palm Beach and Broward
counties.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Blake Hoyt, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com

JOBE SPORTS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jobe Sports USA, Inc.
The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Jobe Sports USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04565-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Jobe Sports operates  a shopping & retail store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KNOXVILLE HMA: Tenn. Middle District Dismisses Brown RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARRY BROWN and JOHN HAWKINGBERRY, Plaintiffs, v.
KNOXVILLE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A TENNOVA HEALTHCARE, CLARKSVILLE
HEALTH SYSTEM, G.P., and PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00861 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli
Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

Plaintiffs Brown and Hawkingberry, brought the putative class
action lawsuit against Defendants Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC,
doing business as Tennova Healthcare, Clarksville Health System,
G.P., and Professional Account Services, Inc. ("PASI"), alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
The Plaintiffs also assert several state law claims against the
Defendants including tortious interference with business
relationships, declaratory judgment under Tenn. Code Ann. Section
29-14-101, et seq., violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act under Tenn. Code Ann. Section 47-18-101, et seq., fraud, breach
of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Tennova is the owner and/or operator of the Tennova
Healthcare-Clarksville Hospital.  PASI is a collection service
agency hired by Tennova to provide accounts receivable collection
services.  When the Hospital provides treatment to a patient, it
makes an initial determination regarding the reason for the
treatment, including whether a third party may be liable for the
patient's injuries.  If the Hospital determines that a third party
may be liable, Tennova enlists PASI to collect the full, unadjusted
costs of the medical services provided to the patient by filing and
collecting, or attempting to file and collect, one or more hospital
liens that attach to any settlement or recovery the injured patient
may receive from the third-party tortfeasor.  In such cases,
Tennova does not bill the injured patient.  Likewise, it does not
bill the injured patient's health insurance provider at the
discounted rate(s) generally applicable to the billed services for
patients covered by that insurance provider; Tennova chooses not to
do so even if it is aware that the patient has valid health
insurance at the time treatment is rendered.

On Sept. 11, 2016, Plaintiff Brown was treated at the Hospital for
injuries he sustained from an automobile accident.  Brown was
insured by TriCare, a health program for military veterans and
their families.  Tennova did not submit Brown's medical bills to
TriCare for payment.  Rather, Tennova instructed PASI to file a
hospital lien against Brown for $2,013.07, the full, non-discounted
rate for the treatment Brown received at the Hospital.

Plaintiff Hawkingberry's circumstances unfolded likewise
approximately 14 months later.  On Nov. 21, 2017, Hawkingberry was
treated at the Hospital for injuries he sustained as a result of an
automobile accident that took place on Nov. 20, 2017.  Like Brown,
Hawkingberry was insured by TriCare.  The Hospital did not submit
Hawkingberry's medical bills to TriCare for payment.  Rather, the
Hospital instructed PASI to file a hospital lien against
Hawkingberry for $11,602.75, the full, non-discounted rate for the
treatment Hawkingberry received at the Hospital.

The notice sent to each Plaintiff states that "[t]he Hospital . . .
creates a lien up to the maximum allowable amount of any obtained
or recovered damages which the patient or his/her legal
representative may receive or be entitled to receive, whether by
judgment, settlement or compromise, from any and all causes of
action, suits, claims, counterclaims or demands accruing to the
patient, all in accord with the provisions of the laws of the State
of TN."

Tennova and the Plaintiffs' health insurance provider, TriCare, had
entered into a provider agreement for the administration of
benefits to TriCare enrollees who receive care at the Hospital.
The agreement was in effect at all relevant times.  Pursuant to the
agreement, Tennova has an obligation to bill TriCare for services
rendered to enrollees consistent with the provider agreement.

Both the Plaintiffs have resolved their claims with the third
parties who were liable for their injuries.  However, they cannot
receive the full payments from these settlements because of the
outstanding hospital liens.

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Richardson agrees that the Congress did not intend for RICO
to apply to garden variety disputes over statutory interpretation
(Grauberger) or disputes over the application of the law
(Schulenberg).  However, it is important to note that these types
of disputes do not fail to give rise to a civil RICO claim simply
because Congress did not intend them to.  Rather, they fail
primarily because civil RICO claims predicated on mail or wire
fraud require the Plaintiffs to sufficiently allege a scheme to
defraud and thus false representations made with knowledge or in
reckless disregard of their falsity -- and as a matter of law, no
such false representation is made by a Defendant who merely asserts
a colorable reasonable interpretation of a statute or precedent.
Unreasonable interpretations perhaps may, under certain
circumstances, fall with the reach of the mail fraud and wire fraud
statutes and thus support civil RICO claims.  But the case does not
involve the Defendants' assertion of an unreasonable
interpretation.

Even drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the Amended
Complaint fails to allege that the Defendants made false or
fraudulent representations regarding the legality of the hospital
liens because neither state law nor existing Tennessee state court
precedent make clear that the liens are unlawful.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count VII of the Amended Complaint
will be granted.

Similarly, the Plaintiffs here have not alleged facts demonstrating
that PASI qualifies as a "debt collector" within the meaning of the
FDCPA, the Court notes.  Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges the following sequence of events: first, the Plaintiffs
Brown and Hawkingberry received treatment at Tennova on Sept. 11,
2016 and Nov. 21, 2017, respectively; second, instead of submitting
the Plaintiffs' medical bills to their insurers for payment,
Tennova sought collection of a purported debt by instructing PASI
to file a hospital lien; and, third, PASI did in fact file the
hospital liens on Tennova's behalf.

Conspicuously absent is any allegation of the Plaintiffs being in
default at any time, let alone in default at the time PASI
"obtained" the debt, which (as Geiger tends to suggest) was the
time PASI allegedly became authorized to undertake collection
activity on the debt; it is unclear what when this occurred, but at
the latest it would have been at the time Tennova allegedly
instructed PASI to file the hospital lien.  And in fact, the
Amended Complaint affirmatively suggests that each Plaintiff was
not, and not even viewed by the Defendants, as in default at that
time.  Rather, as to each Plaintiff, the Amended Complaint clearly
alleges that the Defendants had not even billed such the Plaintiff
-- let alone asserted that he was in default -- at that time.

Accordingly, the Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege that
PASI is a "debt collector" for purposes of, and as required for
liability under, the FDCPA.  On this basis, the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint will be granted as to Count VIII.

Finally, the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction in the
Amended Complaint is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331.17.  The Plaintiff does not assert any factual
allegations giving rise to diversity jurisdiction, and indeed the
Amended Complaint is explicit as to the lack of diversity of
citizenship of the parties.  Having granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' RICO and FDCPA claims (over which the Court
has original jurisdiction) and because the parties are non-diverse,
and the aforementioned factors weigh in favor of declining
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Judge
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs may seek to refile them in a Tennessee state court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Richardson granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' federal claims, a civil RICO
claim (Count VII) and a claim under the FDCPA (Count VIII), are
dismissed with prejudice.  The Judge, in his discretion declined to
exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims (Counts
I-VI), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), and the
Plaintiffs' state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, so
that the Plaintiffs may seek to file them in a Tennessee state
court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/PCcey6 from Leagle.com.

Garry Brown & John Hawkingberry, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin A. Gastel -- beng@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC & James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC.

Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC, doing business as Tennova Health Care,
Clarksville Health System, G.P. & Professional Account Services,
Inc., Defendants, represented by John R. Jacobson --
JJacobson@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Stuart A.
Burkhalter -- sburkhalter@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock & Jacobson &
William M. Outhier -- WOuthier@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson.


LABORATORY CORP: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in "Mitchell" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court in Mitchell
v. Covance, Inc. et al., denied without prejudice the plaintiff's
motion to conditionally certify a class action.

On July 30, 2019, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit, Mitchell v. Covance, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff alleges that certain individuals employed by Covance Inc.
and Chiltern International Inc. were misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and were thereby not properly paid overtime
compensation.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, and
recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 3, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a putative class
action.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces Bermejo Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America.

On April 20, 2020, a former employee filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central
District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based
employees were not properly compensated for driving time or
properly paid wages upon termination of employment.

The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California
Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and
Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Davis &Vargas Class Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Luke Davis and
Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings.

On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to
use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service
centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
similar California statutes.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Esmeralda Figueroa, Asia Bean, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 30-02019-01050773-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June
25, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01112-DOC-JDE to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

LogistiCare Solutions LLC provides non-emergency medical
transportation management services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 265-1020
          Fax: (818) 265-1021
          Email: edwin@lfjpc.com

               - and -

          Heather M. Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 290-3095
          Fax: (866) 264-7880
          Email: heather@protectionlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel Chammas, Esq.
          David L. Cheng, Esq.
          Hilda Aguilar, Esq.
          FORD AND HARRISON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 237-2400
          Fax: (213) 237-2401
          Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                 dcheng@fordharrison.com
                 haguilar@fordharrison.com


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. 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 continues to defend a putative
class action suit pending before the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.

On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for
control person liability) arising in large part from allegations
that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection
with reinsurance provided to AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.
(AmTrust).

Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings'
representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial
statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss
reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company’s stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. It is possible that additional lawsuits
will be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and its
respective officers due to the diminution in value of our
securities as a result of our operating results and financial
condition.

Maiden said, "It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such
litigation on our business, operating results and financial
condition."

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States ("U.S."), Europe and select other
global markets. The company operates internationally providing
branded auto and credit life insurance products through insurer
partners to retail clients in the EU and other global markets
through Maiden Global Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden Global") and its
subsidiaries. The company is based in Pembroke, Bermuda.


MDL 2915: Capital One Compelled to Produce Mandiant Report
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel production
of Mandiant Report and related materials in IN RE: CAPITAL ONE
CONSUMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This Document Relates to
the Consumer Cases, MDL No. 1:19md2915 (AJT/JFA) (E.D. Va.).

Capital One entered into a Master Services Agreement ("MSA") with
FireEye, Inc., doing business as Mandiant, on Nov. 30, 2015, and
thereafter entered into periodic Statements of Work ("SOW") and
purchase orders with Mandiant pursuant to the MSA.  As stated by
Jeffrey Blevins II, a senior manager of Capital One's Cyber
Security Operations Center, one purpose of the MSA and associated
SOWs was to ensure that Capital One could quickly respond to a
cybersecurity incident should one occur.  As a financial
institution that stores financial and other sensitive information,
it is critical that Capital One be positioned to immediately
respond to any potential compromise of the security of its
systems.

The SOWs with Mandiant provided for incident response services in
the event such services were necessary.  Capital One paid Mandiant
a retainer for the SOW that was executed with Mandiant on Jan. 7,
2019, and it entitled Capital One to 285 hours of services from
Mandiant.  In February 2019, Capital One designated the retainer
paid to Mandiant as a "Business Critical" expense and not a "Legal"
expense.  The SOW between Capital One and Mandiant in 2019 provided
that Mandiant would provide incident response services during the
covered period in the following areas: computer security incident
response support; digital forensics, log, and malware analysis
support; and incident remediation assistance and that Mandiant
would provide a detailed final report covering the engagement
activities, results and recommendations for remediation in a
written detailed technical document.

As described in detail in the Corrected Representative Consumer
Class Action Complaint, in March 2019, a data breach occurred
whereby an unauthorized person gained access to certain types of
personal information relating to Capital One customers.  In its
opposition, Capital One states that on July 19, 2019, it confirmed
that a data breach had occurred.  On July 20, 2019, Capital One
retained Debevoise & Plimpton to provide legal advice in connection
with the data breach incident.

On July 24, 2019, Debevoise and Capital One signed a Letter
Agreement with Mandiant whereby Mandiant agreed to provide services
and advice concerning computer security incident response; digital
forensics, log, and malware analysis; and incident remediation.
The Letter Agreement provides that the payment terms were to be the
same as those set out in the SOW dated Jan. 7, 2019, between
Capital One and Mandiant and the parties would abide by the
applicable terms in the SOW and MSA between Capital One and
Mandiant dated Nov. 30, 2015.  While the Letter Agreement provides
for the same services to be performed by Mandiant under the same
terms as the SOW and MSA, the Letter Agreement provides that the
work would be done at the direction of counsel and the deliverables
would be provided to counsel instead of Capital One.  On July 26,
2019, an addendum to the Letter Agreement was prepared whereby the
engagement of services would also include penetration testing of
systems and endpoints.

On July 29, 2019, Capital One issued a public announcement
concerning the data breach.  The following day, the first of many
lawsuits was filed against Capital One asserting claims based on
the data breach.  Mandiant preformed the services that had been
outlined in the Letter Agreement and prepared a report detailing
the technical factors that allowed the criminal hacker to penetrate
Capital One's security.  The Mandiant Report was issued on Sept. 4,
2019.  

Mandiant was paid for its initial work under the Letter Agreement
out of the retainer already provided to Mandiant under the Jan. 7,
2019 SOW between Mandiant and Capital One.  After the retainer
amount was exhausted, Mandiant's additional fees were paid directly
by Capital One through the budget for the Cyber organization.  In
December 2019, the expenses associated with the work Mandiant
performed relating to the data breach were re-designated as legal
expenses and deducted against Capital One's legal department's
budget.

In addition to Mandiant, an internal investigation into the data
breach was instituted involving a manager from Capital One's cyber
incident management team and the Chief Information Security Officer
that was separate from, and proceeded parallel to, Mandiant's
investigation.  Capital One has identified certain internal and
external investigations that were undertaken in response to the
data breach incident in its answer to the Plaintiffs' interrogatory
number 11 indicating that it does not categorically claim work
product protection or privilege over all of these company-led
investigations and will produce documents relating to certain of
them.  The brief summary of the work conducted and description of
the results of the internal investigations set forth in the
response to interrogatory number 11 is not sufficient for the court
to determine the full nature and extent of those investigations and
how the results were used within Capital One.  Furthermore, Capital
One has provided no detail concerning which of these internal
investigations it will be producing documents for and the extent of
its document production concerning those internal investigations.

The Mandiant Report was initially sent to Debovoise, which in turn
provided the report to "Capital One's legal department."  Debovoise
also provided the Mandiant Report to Capital One's Board of
Directors.  Exhibit 2 to Capital One's opposition states that it
contains "a list of those to whom the Mandiant report was
disclosed."  The list includes approximately 50 Capital One
employees, four regulators (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Federal Reserve Board, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), and an accounting firm
(Ernest & Young).  There is no explanation provided as to why each
recipient was provided with a copy of the Mandiant Report and
whether the disclosure was related to a business purpose or for the
purposes of litigation.  Even for those within the legal
department, it is unclear if they were provided with the Mandiant
Report in relation to duties involving the litigation or for
regulatory or other business reasons.

While the Cantwell declaration states the Mandiant Report was
distributed to Capital One's Board of Directors, the list provided
by Capital One's counsel does not appear to include those
individuals.  While there is an item named "corporate governance
office general email box" on the list, there is no indication who
has access to that "general email box."  Capital One's opposition
also fails to address what, if any, restrictions were placed on
those persons and entities who received a copy of the Mandiant
Report on discussing, copying, or providing the Mandiant Report, or
any portion of it, to others.

As described in the Cantwell declaration, during Mandiant's
investigation, it had communications with Ernst & Young, Capital
One's outside auditor, related to Mandiant's confirmation of
certain facts so that Ernst & Young was able to conclude that the
data breach had no impact on Capital One's internal controls over
financial accounting.  It also appears that individuals within
Capital One anticipated using the Mandiant Report in making certain
disclosures required under the Sarbanes Oxley Act and that the
Mandiant Report was provided to an employee for second line
business need.

There is no question that at the time Mandiant began its "incident
response services" in July 2019, there was a very real potential
that Capital One would be facing substantial claims following its
announcement of the data breach.  Therefore, the determinative
issue is whether the Mandiant Report would have been prepared in
substantially similar form but for the prospect of that
litigation.

The Court heard argument on the motion on May 15, 2020.

Having reviewed the pleadings filed by the parties and considered
the arguments raised by the counsel, and for the reasons he stated
Magistrate Judge Anderson finds that Capital One has not carried
its burden of establishing that the Mandiant Report is entitled to
protection under the work product doctrine.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the only significant evidence that
Capital One has presented concerning the work Mandiant performed is
that the work was at the direction of outside counsel and that the
final report was initially delivered to outside counsel.  Capital
One's outside counsel states that Mandiant issued a written report
detailing the technical factors that allowed the criminal hacker to
penetrate Capital One's security.  There is no statement by Capital
One, or evidence upon which one could find, that Capital One would
not have called upon Mandiant to perform the services described in
the SOW that existed prior to the data breach and prepare a written
report as provided in the SOW that would have detailed the results
of its investigation, including detailing the technical factors
that allowed the criminal hacker to penetrate Capital One's
security.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge finds that the fact that the
post-data breach statement of work indicated that the work was to
be "under the direction of Counsel" did not alter the business
purposes of the work to be performed and appeared to be designed to
help shield the report from disclosure.  Even in the face of a
statement in an affidavit from Dominion Dental -- In re Dominion
Dental Servs. USA, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 2019 WL 7592343 (E.D.
Va. Dec. 19, 2019).  -- that the Mandiant report would not have
been prepared in a substantially similar form and may not have been
necessary at all without the threat of litigation, the court found
Dominion Dental had not carried its burden, relying heavily upon
the fact that the description of services in the statement of work
in existence prior to the data breach was "almost identical" to the
services in the post-data breach statement of work.

Finally, Capital One's attempts to distinguish the Dominion Dental
decision are unpersuasive.  First, Capital One has not shown that
the nature of the work Mandiant had agreed to perform changed when
outside counsel was retained.  And as was the case in Dominion
Dental, the statement of works and master services agreements
provided for virtually identical services to be performed before
and after the data breaches were discovered.  The fact that
Dominion Dental waited two months to make a public announcement
after it learned of the intrusion, at which time Mandiant had
concluded its report, does not alter the legal analysis.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Anderson granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel.  Capital One is directed to provide
the Plaintiffs with a copy of the Mandiant Report pursuant to the
terms of the Protective Order entered in the action.  

However, the Plaintiffs' motion to compel related materials is
denied without prejudice, the Court ruled.  As discussed in Capital
One's opposition, the issues concerning all related materials is
not ripe for decision.  The parties have not had an opportunity to
discuss the claim of privilege over related materials and to
consider any arguments that certain related materials may be
entitled to be withheld from production even if the Mandiant Report
was found not to be entitled to work product protection.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 26, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/38CR0w from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2938: Hampton v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER HAMPTON, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00610 (Filed April 14,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (Boston) on June 17, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11145-DJC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff contends that contrary to Evenflo's marketing and
safety representations, it has recently been revealed that the
Defendant has known for a significant period of time that the
Booster Seat is not safe for children lighter than 40 pounds, and
that the Defendant's own testing confirmed that a child seated in
the Booster Seat could be in grave danger in the event of a
side-impact collision.

The Hampton case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re:
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020.
These actions share common factual questions, 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 June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and
marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to
represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J.
Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.

On October 29, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased two Evenflo Big Kid
Booster Seats to use for her four and five year-old children.

The Defendant develops, designs, manufactures, labels, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells baby products, such as car seats,
strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: 917-471-1894
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Martha Geer, Esq.
          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: 919 600-5000
          Facsimile: 919 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  martha@wbmllp.com
                  harper@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Linda C. Hsu, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          120 Broadway, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 576-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
          E-mail: linda.hsu@bclplaw.com


MDL 2939: Bid to Centralize Proceedings in Family Dollar Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., ACCESS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2939 (JPML), the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied common
defendant Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s motion under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the litigation
in the Northern District of Illinois.

The litigation consists of three actions pending in the District of
Colorado, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Western
District of Pennsylvania, as listed on Schedule A.  The Plaintiffs
did not file a response to the motion.

After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court concludes
that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the
parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.  The three actions are brought on behalf of
various classes of persons with qualified mobility disabilities
asserting that certain conditions inside Family Dollar stores
violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The actions share allegations that (1) the aisles of Family Dollar
stores are blocked or narrowed with a host of obstructions (e.g.,
merchandise, merchandise displays, and stocking carts); (2) the
practice is intentional, and done for the purpose of increasing
sales and profits; and (3) the access barriers are systemic,
recurring, and reflective of the Defendant's marketing and store
policies and practices.  Centralization thus likely would avoid a
certain amount of duplicative discovery, eliminate the possibility
of conflicting rulings on the scope of discovery and other pretrial
matters, and create some efficiencies for the parties and the
judiciary.

There are, however, only three involved actions and no potential
tag-along actions.  The putative classes do not appear to overlap.
A significant amount of discovery appears almost certain to be
case-specific -- i.e., directed to conditions in the Family Dollar
stores in the state or operational area" unique to each action.
All the Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel, and one law
firm is defending Family Dollar in all actions.  Given these
circumstances -- only three actions, non-overlapping classes, the
likelihood of substantial case-specific discovery, and the presence
of the common counsel, the Court is not persuaded that formal
centralization under Section 1407 is warranted.

For these reasons, the motion for centralization of these actions
is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/266B1M from Leagle.com.


MEREDITH CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Iowa Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension
Fund has been appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa.

On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019 (the New York Action).

On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019 (the Iowa
Action).

Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Both complaints assert claims under the federal
securities laws and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On November 12, 2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew the New
York Action, and the action has been dismissed. On November 25,
2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund was
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa Action.

On March 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Iowa Action, now seeking to represent a class of shareholders
who acquired securities of the Company between January 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2019.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the Iowa
Action but intend to vigorously oppose it.

The Company expresses no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter.

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

Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.


MILESTONE MANAGEMENT: Faces Cota Employment Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milestone Management
(CA) Meadows LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Rashelle Cota, on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Milestone
Management (CA) Meadows LLC and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00280648-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 12,
2020).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


MINNESOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Jensen METO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled James Jensen, et
al. v. Minnesota Department of Human, et al., Case No.
0:09-cv-01775-DWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 13,
2020, Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending
Appeal.

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Defendants on July 10,
2009, asserting multiple violations of federal and state law
arising out of allegations of abusive, inhumane, cruel, and
improper use of seclusion and mechanical restraints routinely
imposed upon [residents] of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options program (METO).

The parties entered into a Stipulated Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which was approved by the Court on December 5, 2011.

On Dec. 18, 2019, the District Court issued an order in response to
the parties' positions regarding the scope of their Stipulated
Class Action Settlement Agreement with respect to prohibited
restraints and compliance with the Positive Supports Rule.  The
Court found that because the Agreement's definition of Facilities
does not include the Forensic Mental Health Program ("FMHP")
(formerly the Minnesota Security Hospital), or Anoka Metro Regional
Treatment Center ("AMRTC"), those locations are not subject to the
Agreement's strict prohibition on the use of restraint in all but
extreme emergency situations.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's December 2019 Order. On the same day, they filed a Motion
to Stay pending appeal. Specifically, they seek an order staying
their obligations related to the Court's Order Filed Dec. 18, 2019
during the pendency of the appeal they filed with the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants'
motion arguing that the Defendants have not met their burden to
justify a stay and ask the Court to deny the Defendants' motion.

The appellate case is captioned as James Jensen, et al. v.
Minnesota Department of Human, et al., Case No. 20-1126, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees James Jensen; Lorie Jensen, as parents,
guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others
similarly situated; James Brinker; Darren Allen, as parents,
guardians and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink and others
similarly situated; and Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian and
next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Mark R. Azman, Esq.
          Shamus P. O'Meara, Esq.
          O'MEARA LEER WAGNER & KOHL, PA
          7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55439-3034
          Telephone: (952) 831-6544
          E-mail: mrazman@olwklaw.com
                  spomeara@olwklaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Minnesota Department of Human Services, an
agency of the State of Minnesota, and State of Minnesota, are
represented by:

          Scott Hiromi Ikeda, Esq.
          Aaron Edward Winter, Esq.
          Anthony R. Noss, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Suite 1400, 445 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127
          Telephone: (651) 296-9412
          E-mail: scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us
                  aaron.winter@ag.state.mn.us
                  anthony.noss@ag.state.mn.us


MONEYLION INC: Dicarlo Appeals Ruling in Lending Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marggieh Dicarlo filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Marggieh Dicarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-01374-PSG-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
filed pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.

MoneyLion is a next-generation online financial services company,
built on a proprietary data-driven platform. MoneyLion provides
access to personal loans and financial products across the credit
spectrum, personalized for each customer's unique financial needs.

The appellate case is captioned as Marggieh Dicarlo v. MoneyLion,
Inc., Case No. 20-55058, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MARGGIEH DICARLO, individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1401 Dove Street, Suite 540
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (323) 510-4060
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
            
               - and -

          John Fisher Edgar, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 440
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MONEYLION, INC., MONEYLION OF CALIFORNIA, LLC,
ML PLUS, LLC, and ML WEALTH, LLC are represented by:

          Fred R. Puglisi, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (310) 228-2259
          E-mail: fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com


NCL CORP: Faces 3 Class Suits Related to COVID-19 Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. 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 been named as a defendant in
three class action suits related to its alleged false and
misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19
and the impact on its business.  

On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.  

Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.  

These complaints assert claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and allege that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market and customers about COVID-19 and the
impact on its business.  

Each of the complaints seek unspecified damages and an award of
costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares
between February 20, 2020 and either March 11, 2020 or March 12,
2020.  

NCL said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend the complaints
vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that
these actions will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may
arise therefrom."

NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The
company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL
Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings Ltd.


NEPTUNE MANAGEMENT: Lowe Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRINE LOWE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. NEPTUNE MANAGEMENT CORP., a California
corporation; NEPTUNE SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22679
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2020), seeks to recover
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff asserts claim against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime; meal period
and rest-break liabilities; and failure to reimburse necessary
business expenditures under the Labor Code.

The aggrieved employees, including the Plaintiff, are non-exempt
employees of the Defendants.

Neptune provides cremation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com


NET 1 UEPS: Lead Plaintiff Agrees to Drop SDNY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Baldwin has agreed to drop a class suit against Net 1 UEPS
Technologies, Inc. et al. and its officers and directors.

A Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal approved by Judge P.
Kevin Castel dated June 4, provided that:

     1. The action is dismissed with prejudice as against all
Defendants on behalf of lead plaintiff Jonathan Baldwin pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

     2. The action is dismissed without prejudice as against
Defendants with respect to any unnamed class members or other
plaintiffs.

     3. The parties acknowledge the following: (a) respectively,
each party filed the operative complaint and defended against its
claims in good faith; (b) each party has bourn and will continue to
bear its own costs and attorneys' fees; and (c) the parties to this
Joint Stipulation have not exchanged monetary consideration in
connection with this voluntary dismissal.

Baldwin has been appointed lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
was approved as his lead counsel.

Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that on December 5, 2019, a putative
securities class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court,
against the company and Herman G. Kotze, the company's chief
executive officer and Alex M.R. Smith, the company's chief
financial officer.

The complaint seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's internal
control over financial reporting, classification of an investment
in Cell C Proprietary Limited, and its consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2018.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The proposed class period is September 12, 2018, through
November 8, 2018, inclusive.

On March 25, 2020, the Court appointed the lead plaintiff and
approved his selection of lead counsel. Their motions had been
unopposed.

Thereafter, the company negotiated a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint and Net1's response thereto with the plaintiff.

Net 1 UEPS said, "We believe this lawsuit has no merit and intend
to defend it vigorously."

Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. holds a non-exclusive worldwide
license to the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS). The
Company commercializes the smart card based service through
alliances with banks, card services, and retail organizations. The
company is based in Johannesburg, South Africa.


NEW YORK: BOD Files 7 Appeals in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed seven appeals from the District Court's
judgment entered in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1917;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      20-1921;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      20-1923;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      20-1924;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      20-1926;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      20-1930; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      20-1932.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Maria Alonso, Rosa Rodriguez, Tawana Dimanche,
Prisca Joseph, Milagros Bueno, Monique Edghill and Elsie Madera are
represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Coleman Filed in Gulino Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from a District Court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case
No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-179, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Abameitta Coleman is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Rodriguez Filed in Gulino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from a District Court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case
No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-176, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Ana Rodriguez is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NOVA LIFESTYLE: July 20 Final Pretrial Conference Set in "Barney"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 1, 2020, that the court overseeing the "Barney Action" has
entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for
July 20, 2020.

On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the
"Barney Action").

Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint.
In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal
securities laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through
December 20, 2018.  

Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported
strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead
designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer's
planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company
inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two
major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  

In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon a blog
appearing in Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018 in which it was
claimed that an investigation of the Company failed to confirm the
existence of several entities identified as significant customers,
Plaintiffs purported to verify some of the information alleged in
the Seeking Alpha blog.   

By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants have
accordingly filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint denying its
material allegations.

The Court also entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial
conference for July 20, 2020.

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.


NVIDIA CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Suits Ongoing in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported
securities class action suit entitled, In Re NVIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation.

On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v.
Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as
defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers.

On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities
class action was commenced in the Northern District of California,
captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783),
naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar
relief.

On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel.

On March 12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case
number 4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint.

The consolidated complaint asserts that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false
or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the
impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017
and November 14, 2018.

The plaintiffs also allege that the NVIDIA executives who they
named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

On August 2, 2019, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any
claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named
defendants.

On March 16, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the
consolidated class action complaint with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


OAKLAND, MI: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Cameron Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMAAL CAMERON, RICHARD
BRIGGS, RAJ LEE, MICHAEL CAMERON, and MATTHEW SAUNDERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MICHAEL BOUCHARD, CURTIS D. CHILDS, and OAKLAND COUNTY, Case No.
2:20-cv-10949-LVP-MJH (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Honorable Linda
V. Parker entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendants' motion for leave to file a
      sur-reply;

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to strike;

   3. conditionally certifying these class and subclasses:

      Jail Class:

      "all current and future Jail detainees during the course
       of the COVID-19 pandemic";

      Pre-trial Subclass

      "all current and future persons detained at the Oakland
      County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who
      have not yet been convicted of the offense for which they
      are currently held in the Jail";

      Post-Conviction Subclass:

      "all current and future persons detained at the Oakland
       County Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic
       who have been sentenced to serve time in the Jail or who
       are otherwise in the Jail as the result of an offense for
       which they have already been convicted"; and

      Medically-Vulnerable Subclass:

      "all members of the Jail class who also are over the age
      of 60 or who, regardless of age, experience any of the
      following underlying medical conditions: (i) chronic lung
      disease including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
      (e.g., bronchitis or emphysema); (ii) moderate to severe
      asthma; (iii) serious heart conditions; (iv)
      immunocompromising conditions including cancer treatment,
      bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies,
      poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of
      corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications;
      (v) severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or
      higher); (vi) diabetes; (vii) chronic kidney or liver
      disease; (viii) metabolic disorders; or (ix) current or
      recent (last two weeks) pregnancy"; and

   4. granting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
      injunction.

The Court said, "In extraordinary cases like this, federal judges
have the authority to release detainees on bail while their habeas
petitions are pending. The Defendants have not sought a bond and
the Court finds and holds that no security need be posted. The
injunctive provisions set forth in this Order shall expire 45
business days from the date of this Order. At that time, the Court
will review the record to determine whether it is necessary to
extend the Order."

Oakland County is a county in the U.S. state of Michigan. It is
part of the metropolitan Detroit area, located northwest of the
city.[CC]

OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that Oasis Petroleum LLC, a company subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Andrew Solomon,
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated vs. Oasis
Petroleum, LLC.

On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company ("OP LLC"), was named as a defendant in
the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United
States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (the "FLSA") and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code
("Title 29") as the result of OP LLC's alleged practice of paying
the plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees
overtime at rates less than required by applicable law, or failing
to pay for certain overtime hours worked.

The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a
collective action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and
all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by
OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three
year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40
or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours
on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a
class action, with a class of all Operators, Technicians, and all
other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP
LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the
commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at
least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at
least one workday.

No motion has been filed for class certification, and the Company
cannot predict whether such a motion will be filed or a class
certified.

The Company believes that Mr. Solomon's claims are without merit
and that OP LLC has complied with its obligations under the FLSA
and Title 29. OP LLC has filed an answer denying all of Mr.
Solomon's claims and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims.

The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate outcome or
resolutions of such matter.

Oasis said, "If such matter were to be determined adversely to the
Company's interests, or if the Company were forced to settle such
matter for a significant amount, such resolution or settlement
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

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

Oasis Petroleum Inc. is an independent exploration and production
(E&P) company focused on the acquisition and development of
onshore, unconventional crude oil and natural gas resources in the
United States. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC (OPNA) and Oasis
Petroleum Permian LLC (OP Permian) conduct the company's
exploration and production activities and own its crude oil and
natural gas properties located in the North Dakota and Montana
regions of the Williston Basin and the Texas region of the Delaware
Basin, respectively. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


OHIO CIVIL SERVICE: Court Denies State's Bid to Dismiss Allen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jared Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ohio Civil Service
Employees Association AFSCME, Local 11, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-3709 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
(i) denied Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Gov. Mike DeWine
and Director Matthew Damschroder ("State Defendants"); and (ii)
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiffs Allen, Christina Cole, Eric Hendrickson, and Jeremy
Dunaway work for the State of Ohio.  Each was given the option to
join or not join the union representing State of Ohio employees,
Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association ("OCSEA").  Each
Plaintiff opted to join OCSEA at some point during his/her tenure.


To join OCSEA, a State of Ohio employee must sign a dues deduction
form ("Checkoff Agreement").  The top part of the version of the
Checkoff Agreements signed by the Plaintiffs ("OCSEA Checkoff
Agreement") contains the following language: "I hereby authorize
the State of Ohio to make this change to the voluntary deductions
from my earnings" followed by a checked box authorizing the dues
deduction.  The bottom part of the OCSEA Checkoff Agreements, which
the Plaintiffs also signed, says: "I request and accept membership
in OCSEA.  I agree that my membership will be in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution of OCSEA and AFSCME and its
subordinate bodies, as well as the collective bargaining agreement
["CBA"] negotiated between OCSEA and my employer.  The Plaintiffs
each signed an OCSEA Checkoff Agreement on Feb. 17, 2016.

Over 30,000 State employees have become union members by signing a
Checkoff Agreement and joining OCSEA.  Once in the union, members
have the right to participate in union meetings, vote in union
officer elections, and vote on the ratification of the CBA.
Members also receive commercial discounts through the AFSCME
Advantage program and can participate in the AFSCME Free College
program, which entitles union members and their families to obtain
an associate's degree at no cost.

The CBA is a contract between the State and OCSEA, and all members
are subject to its terms.  The relevant CBA went into effect on May
12, 2018, and continues through Feb. 28, 2021.  The CBA is signed
by representatives of OCSEA and of the State, including the
Governor and the Director of the Department of Administrative
Services ("DAS").  DAS is responsible for payroll processing and
making payroll deductions from State employees' wages, and it is
also responsible for overseeing administration of the CBA.

Beginning around July 2018 and at various times thereafter, the
Plaintiffs made requests to the State and to OCSEA to withdraw from
the union and cease withdrawal of their dues money.  Their
withdrawal attempts were unsuccessful.

On Aug. 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs sued OCSEA, Gov. Mike DeWine, and
DAS Director Matthew Damschroder.  In their Complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that Janus established a right to not have union
dues and fees deducted from government employees' wages without
their affirmative consent.  They further allege that they have not
affirmatively consented to have union dues deducted from their
wages and that they did not "voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently waive their First Amendment rights not to subsidize
OCSEA's speech" when they joined OCSEA.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that the OCSEA Checkoff Agreements that they
signed do not constitute valid waivers of these rights.

The Plaintiffs have proposed a class action seeking the following
relief: declaratory judgments that it violates the First Amendment
to maintain and enforce aspects of the CBA or to enforce Section
4.01 or ORC Section 4117.09(B)(2) against a member without clear
and compelling evidence of a waiver of First Amendment rights; an
injunction that Defendants cannot engage in conduct declared
unconstitutional; compensatory damages; nominal damages; costs and
fees; and equitable relief requiring Defendants to give the
Plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes written notice
about particular aspects of the CBA.

On Dec. 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, seeking an order preventing the Defendants from
enforcing Sections 4.01 or 4.03 against the Plaintiffs or the
members of the putative classes.

Effective Jan. 10, 2020, the State ceased the Plaintiffs' dues
deductions.  In addition, in January 2020, OCSEA refunded the
Plaintiffs all of their dues payments with interest, retroactive to
the date they communicated their intent to withdraw from the union
and cease the dues deductions.  However, as of this time, the
Plaintiffs have not cashed these refund checks.

The matter before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the
State Defendant, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.  The State Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of sovereign immunity
and mootness.  The Plaintiffs contest dismissal on both grounds.

Judge Morrison holds that while the State may not have discretion
or control over an employee's decision to join OCSEA or authorize
dues deductions, its role in the deduction of the union dues is
more than that of a purely administrative intermediary between
OCSEA and its members.  First, the State specifically undertook the
contractual obligation to deduct these dues by agreeing to Section
4.01.  Second, state law mandated that the contract include a
provision like Section 4.01.  Accordingly, the State has a
responsibility independent of OCSEA to ensure that the CBA complies
with the law.

Next, Judge Morrison holds that the State Defendants cannot invoke
sovereign immunity in the matter, and the case is not moot.  The
Judge finds that the Defendants have the capability to decide
whether and when to provide relief to any of the putative class
members, a capability that they have already employed with respect
to the Plaintiffs.  Two weeks after the Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification, the Defendants provided the
Plaintiffs with their requested relief.  This is evidence that the
Defendants can moot any of the putative class members' claims at
will, resulting in uncertainty about how long the asserted harm
will persist and raising the possibility that the asserted harm
could evade review by becoming moot before the Court could rule on
class certification.

The Defendants were on notice that the Plaintiffs wished to proceed
as a class, and two weeks later, they gave the Plaintiffs their
requested relief.  The Defendants could continue to do so in
perpetuity with respect to other members of the putative classes.
They could continue to pick off any named Plaintiffs one by one
until none remained.

In support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the
Plaintiffs argue that they and the putative class members did not
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their First
Amendment rights and that the post-Janus union dues deductions thus
violate the First Amendment.  The Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims
on the grounds of mootness.

Judge Morrison holds that the case is not moot.  The Judge cannot
grant preliminary injunctive relief to putative classes containing
individuals who she concludes have waived their First Amendment
rights (i.e., those who have signed the OCSEA Checkoff Agreement)
as well as individuals for whom the Court has insufficient
information to conduct a waiver analysis.  And because the
Plaintiffs do not have a strong likelihood of success on the merits
and because there is no risk of irreparable harm, the Plaintiffs'
motion cannot succeed.  It is not necessary to consider the
remaining factors in the preliminary injunction analysis.  

For the reasons set forth, Judge Morrison denied the State
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/U7tkpz from Leagle.com.

Jared Allen, Christina Cole, Jeremy Dunaway & Eric Hendrickson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Donald Carl Brey -- dbrey@isaacwiles.com
-- Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC & William L. Messenger,
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, pro hac vice.

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME, Local 11,
Defendant, represented by Brian J. Eastman, Ohio Civil Service
Employees Assoc, Georgina Yeomans, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, pro hac
vice & Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, pro hac
vice.

Governor Mike DeWine, in his capacity as Governor of the State of
Ohio & Director Matthew Damschroder, in his capacity as Director of
the Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Defendants,
represented by Anna M. Rouhana Seidensticker, Ohio Attorney
General's Office & Keith L. O'Korn, Attorney General of Ohio.


OHIO TEACHERS: First Motion to Dismiss Denied as Moot in Dennis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEAN DENNIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OHIO
STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-386. (S.D. Ohio), the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio has denied the Defendant's first motion to dismiss
as moot.

Plaintiffs initiated the class action in May 2019 against the Ohio
State Teachers Retirement Board ("the Board") to challenge
defendant's alleged unlawful elimination of vested retirement
benefits, namely the annual allowance increases or annual cost of
living adjustments beginning on July 1, 2017.  Plaintiffs brought
claims under the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution,
and Ohio state law.  

In July 2019, the Board filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).  The Board
sought dismissal of plaintiff's claims based on its Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an unopposed amended class action
complaint on August 26, 2019.  In the amended class action
complaint, in addition to the Board, plaintiffs name several Board
members as defendants in their individual capacity.  On October 23,
2019, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' first
amended class action complaint.

Plaintiff's amended class action complaint "supersedes the original
complaint and is the 'legally operative complaint' in this matter,
the Court notes.

Copies of the District Court's rulings on the matters are available
at https://tinyurl.com/sxy844y and https://tinyurl.com/ycw7gt2u
from Leagle.com.

Dean Dennis, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons & Robert Buerkle, Individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christian A. Jenkins , Minnillo & Jenkins Co., LPA, 2712
Observatory Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45208, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg
- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Todd B.
Naylor - tnaylor@gs-legal.com - Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Matthew
S. Okiishi , Finney Law Firm, LLC & Stephen E. Imm , Finney Law
Firm,1077 Celestial, Suite 10, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board, Defendant, represented by
Benjamin C. Sasse -benjamin.sasse@tuckerellis.com - Tucker Ellis
LLP, Karl A. Bekeny - karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com - Tucker Ellis
LLP & Michael J. Ruttinger - michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com -
Robert Stein, Carol Correthers, Taiya L. Hayden, Dale Price, Paolo
Demaria, Yoel Mayerfeld, Wade Steen, Mark Hill, Craig Brooks & Tim
Myers, Defendants, represented by Gregory Alan Harrison -
greg.harrison@dinsmore.com - Dinsmore & Shohl & Kelly E. Pitcher -
kelly.pitcher@dinsmore.com - Dinsmore & Shohl.


PAIGE LLC: Faces Quinn Suit Over Misclassification of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA QUINN, an individual, and other aggrieved employees v.
PAIGE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20SMCV00815
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2020), seeks civil
penalties under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff asserts claim against the Defendants for
misclassifying her and other employees as independent contractors;
failing to timely pay them earned wages upon discharge; and failing
to provide them with itemized statements of earnings in violation
of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
out of the Defendants' principal place of business in Culver City,
California.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacture and retail sales
of clothing apparel. The Defendants conduct their own marketing and
regularly hire models of its Apparel Products for photography
shoots of its apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Low IV, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV
          100 Oceangate, 12th Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 901-0840
          Facsimile: (562) 901-0841

               - and -

          Roger Y. Muse, Esq.
          John R. Matheny, Esq.
          EXCELSIOR LAW
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 205-3981
          Facsimile: (310) 205-0594


PBF ENERGY: Aug. 17 Final Approval Hearing on Kendig Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Michelle Kendig et al v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09224 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald has
granted preliminary approval to the settlement reached by the
parties.  Judge Fitzgerald provisionally certified the class for
purposes of settlement only.  The notices and plan of dissemination
are approved.  The appointment of Class Counsel is also approved.

The Court set the Final Approval Hearing for August 17, 2020 at 10
a.m.

PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that on September 18, 2018, PBF Energy Limited and
Torrance Refining along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District. A mediation hearing between the
parties was held on August 23, 2019.

From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a tentative
agreement in principle to settle.

On March 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed with the court a Notice of
Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement
for the Court's approval of the proposed settlement pursuant to
which Torrance Refining would pay $2.9 million to resolve the
matter and receive a full release and discharge from any and all
claims and make no admission of any wrongdoing or liability.

The Court scheduled a hearing on May 1, 2020 to consider the
settlement.

PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PET FOOD EXPRESS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pet Food Express,
Ltd. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Pet Food Express, Ltd., Case No.
3:20-cv-04247 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020).

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

Pet Food Express is a California chain of retail stores that offers
pet food, with a focus on premium brands, holistic, and organic pet
food, as well as other pet supplies, and self-service dog washing
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Court Approves Joint Proposed Consent Decree
------------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2020, that a court has approved a joint proposed consent
decree among the parties in a class action lawsuit.

In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the company's website, www.1800petmeds.com, did not
comply with the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New
York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human
Rights Law (NYCHRL), and discriminates against visually impaired
individuals.

The Company denied any wrongdoing, and on July 24, 2019, the
Company and the Plaintiff reached a confidential settlement.

The Plaintiff and the Company entered into a consent decree and the
matter was dismissed on March 23, 2020, when an order was issued by
the court approving the parties joint proposed consent decree.

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as
1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications,
and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the
consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida.



PG&E CORP: Appeals Bankruptcy Court Judgment vs. Tort Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debtors-Plaintiffs PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric
Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the bankruptcy
lawsuit styled In re: PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, Debtors, Case No. 3:19-bk-30088, in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.
v. Official Committee of Tort Claimants, et al., Case No. 20-80017,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, PG&E
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the class action suit
entitled, In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, have taken
an appeal regarding the denial of their motion seeking approval
from the Bankruptcy Court to treat its proof of claim as a class
proof of claim.  

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.  

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015, to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court
consolidated both cases and the litigation is now denominated In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. The court also appointed
the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead
plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9,
2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to
add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility) filed a notice
on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings are
automatically stayed pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY are represented by:

          Peter J. Benvenutti, Esq.
          KELLER BENVENUTTI, LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 364-6798
          E-mail: pbenvenutti@kbkllp.com

               - and -

          Fred Anthony Rowley, Jr., Esq.
          Mark Remy Yohalem, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213)-683-9100
          E-mail: Fred.Rowley@mto.com
                  Mark.Yohalem@mto.com

Defendants-Respondents OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS; BECKY
CHRISTENSEN, and all other similarly situated individuals; MEMBER
OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS AND OTHER INDIVIDUAL FIRE
VICTIMS; ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST AND FEATHER RIVER HOSPITAL,
DBA Adventist Health Feather River; EIGHTY-ONE INDIVIDUAL,
BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, FAMILY TRUST AND PERSONAL INJURY VICTIMS OF
THE CAMP FIRE; AD HOC GROUP OF SUBROGATION CLAIM HOLDERS; CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; BARBARA THOMPSON, Individual Wildfire
Victims; JOHN THOMPSON, Individual Wildfire Victims; MATTHEW
THOMPSON, Individual Wildfire Victims; PETER THOMPSON, Individual
Wildfire Victims; RAYMOND BREITENSTEIN, Individual Wildfire
Victims; and STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, Individual Wildfire Victims, are
represented by:

          Cecily A. Dumas, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN DUMAS & SPRINGWATER LLP
          33 New Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 834-3800
          E-mail: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          David Boris Rivkin, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1731
          E-mail: drivkin@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Julian, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          600 Montgomery Street
          Transamerica Pyramid Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 659-2600
          E-mail: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric E. Sagerman, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 442-8875
          E-mail: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Campora, Esq.
          DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA & CALLAHAM, LLP
          20 Bicentennial Circle
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 379-3500
          E-mail: scampora@dbbwc.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rebecca J. Winthrop, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9346
          E-mail: rebecca.winthrop@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          John T. Richards, Esq.
          JOHN T. RICHARDS, APLC
          101 West Broadway, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-9800
          E-mail: John@jtrlaw1.com

               - and -

          Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq.
          DIEMER WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP
          75 East Santa Clara Street
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 971-6270
          E-mail: kdiemer@diemerwei.com

               - and -

          Edward Tredinnick, Esq.
          GREENE RADOVSKY MALONEY & SHARE
          Four Embarcadero Ctr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 981-1400
          E-mail: etredinnick@greeneradovsky.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Danko, Esq.
          Kristine Keala Meredith, Esq.
          DANKO MEREDITH
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive
          Redwood City, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 453-3600
          E-mail: mdanko@dankolaw.com
                  kmeredith@dankolaw.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (510) 350-9710
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq.
          COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI & RIDDLE LLP
          700 El Camino Real
          P.O. Box 669
          Millbrae, CA 94030-0669
          Telephone: (650) 871-5666
          E-mail: deg@coreylaw.com


PHILLIPS 66: Troy Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TROY HINKLE, Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Case No.
4:20-cv-00022-DC-DF (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order granting conditional certification of a Fair Labor
Standards Act class consisting of "all inspectors of Phillips 66
who were paid a day-rate with no overtime in the past 3 years."

The Plaintiff avers that the Court should conditionally certify
this class because he has more than satisfied his minimal burden of
demonstrating that he and Phillips 66's other inspectors are
similarly situated, as they were all subjected to Phillip 66's
uniform day rate policy that deprived them of overtime compensation
in violation of the FLSA.

Phillips 66 is a global energy company.[CC]

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
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

PROCTOR FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Martin UCL Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part
and denied in part Proctor Financial's motion to dismiss the case,
DELORES MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-10380 (E.D. Mich.).

On Feb. 7, 2019, Delores Martin filed a class action complaint
against Defendants Pacific Union Financial, LLC and Proctor.  She
alleged various common law claims and a violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  Pacific Union is a mortgage
servicer, and Proctor is Pacific Union's agent that handles the
administration of insurance proceeds.  Pacific Union and Proctor
allegedly engaged in a practice of withholding insurance proceeds
from homeowners after damage to their properties until various
inspections were completed -- for which they allegedly imposed
additional fees.

The Plaintiff, a homeowner in Sacramento, California, specifically
claimed that she refinanced her home with a mortgage from CashCall,
Inc. and maintained home insurance from MetLife.  After closing on
the loan, CashCall provided the Plaintiff notice that Pacific Union
would service her mortgage loan.  In 2015, after the mortgage
transfer to Pacific Union, pipes in the Plaintiff's home burst and
caused flooding and other related damage.  The Plaintiff claimed
that she promptly provided notice to MetLife and Pacific Union as
required by her insurance policy and deed.

Based on the claimed damage, MetLife agreed to pay $21,613.09 under
the insurance policy.  MetLife made the insurance payment to
Pacific Union, which, in turn, was to use the amount to either (1)
reduce the balance of the mortgage or (2) repair the property.  The
Plaintiff claimed that Pacific Union did neither, but rather,
"outsourced its administration of the funds" to Defendant Proctor,
which disbursed the funds in three installments that each required
"arbitrary and onerous paperwork, inspections, and fees" -- none of
which was permitted under the deed or other mortgage documents.
The Defendants also allegedly deducted the cost for each required
inspection before they released each installment from the insurance
amount ultimately given to the Plaintiff.

Once the Plaintiff knew the amount she would receive from her
insurance, she hired a contractor to begin work on her home.  When
the contractor informed the Plaintiff that he had completed one
third of the work, she scheduled the first inspection.  But the
inspector believed that less than one fourth of the work was
complete and therefore refused to permit the Plaintiff to receive
the first installment payment.  The Plaintiff was then forced to
pay the contractor out of pocket to ensure that the repairs would
continue.  She charged the amount on her credit card, thereby
allegedly incurring additional fees and interest on the work.  When
the work was completed, the Plaintiff could only receive the final
installment of the insurance payments once the contractor released
the lien on the home and a final inspection was completed.  Because
the contractor refused to sign a release before he was paid in
full, the Plaintiff was required to pay the full amount out of
pocket before she received the full insurance amount.

The Plaintiff also brought the complaint on behalf of a nationwide
and California-wide class.  She claimed that mortgagors throughout
California and nationwide experienced similar breaches; i.e., they
suffered a covered loss to their homes and were unable to receive
full insurance proceeds until inspections were performed by the
Defendants at the expense of the homeowners.

The Plaintiff raised four causes of action in her complaint: breach
of contract/breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the UCL.
Her claims sound in California state law.

On April 18, 2019, Proctor filed a motion to dismiss.

Proctor argued that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim must
fail because there was no contract or contractual privity between
it and the Plaintiff.  Judge Murphy finds that the Plaintiff failed
to allege sufficient facts to establish the existence of either an
express or implied contract between herself and Proctor.  He will
therefore dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims.

Next, instead of disputing the sufficiency of the allegations as to
any of the elements, Proctor claimed that the Plaintiff's
conversion claim must fail because it cannot be liable for the
torts of its principal, Pacific Union.  The Plaintiff alleged that
Proctor was Pacific Union's agent.  Pacific Union is the mortgage
servicer, who in turn hired Proctor as its agent to assist in the
administration of the insurance funds.  The insurance company paid
the insurance proceeds to Pacific Union pursuant to the terms of
Plaintiff's insurance policy.  And although a letter was sent to
Plaintiff that outlined the prerequisites to receive each
installment of funds, the Plaintiff claimed that the letter was in
fact sent by Proctor.  Those allegations, taken as true and under
the assumption that the imposition of the inspections and related
fees was unlawful, stated a cognizable claim of conversion against
Proctor.  The Judge will therefore deny Proctor's motion to dismiss
as to the conversion claim.

Proctor contended that because each of the Plaintiff's other claims
fail, her unjust enrichment claim must also fail.  But the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim related to Proctor's retention
of profits from the allegedly non-contractual inspection fees
survives.  Although unclear, the Plaintiff's allegations may fairly
indicate that Proctor retained, along with Pacific Union, some
portion of the profits from the inspection fees taken out of her
insurance proceeds and that the profits benefit Proctor at the
expense of the Plaintiff.  Taking the allegations in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, she stated a claim on which relief may
be granted.  The Judge will therefore deny Proctor's motion to
dismiss as to the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim relating to
Proctor's retention of profits from the inspection fees only.

Finally, Proctor argued that the Plaintiff's UCL claim fails
because she did not allege that she lacks an adequate remedy under
the law.  The Judge need not address whether the Plaintiff has an
adequate remedy, however, because her UCL claim fails on other
grounds.  The Plaintiff's UCL claim is based entirely on Proctor's
alleged breach of contract -- imposing fees not contemplated or
authorized by the governing contract.  Because she fails to state a
claim for breach of contract against Proctor, the Plaintiff also
fails to state a claim under the UCL.  The Judge will therefore
grant Proctor's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's UCL claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Murphy granted in part and denied
in part Proctor's motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff may proceed
against Proctor on only her conversion claim and unjust enrichment
claim relating to the retention of profits from the inspection
fees, the Court specified.

The Plaintiff's breach of contract and UCL claims are dismissed.  

Furthermore, because the Judge is skeptical that the amount in
controversy may not exceed $5 million as required under the Class
Action Fairness Act with only the two, smaller claims remaining, he
required the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether the
Court has jurisdiction over the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/UZ6NpT from Leagle.com.

Delores Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Darryl Bressack, Fink
Bressack, Eleanor Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, P.C., Joseph C. Hashmall -- jhashmall@bm.net -- Berger
and Montague, P.C., Nathan J. Fink, Fink Associates Law & David H.
Fink, Fink Associates Law.

Proctor Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel D. Quick
-- dquick@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, James E. Lozier,
Dickinson Wright & Myles J. Baker -- MBaker@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright.


QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners' Lawsuit Stayed
---------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the purported class action suit
entitled, Zwick Partners LP and Aparna Rao, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quorum Health
Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W.
Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael J. Culotta, has been
stayed as to the company due to the Company's bankruptcy filing.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its former officers.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS),
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the Company between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016.


The Complaint sought damages related to the claims.

On June 23, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
Plaintiff opposed. On April 19, 2018, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its answer to
the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, which Defendants opposed. On March 29, 2019, the
Court granted the motion and certified the class. Defendants filed
a petition for permission to appeal the class certification
decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which petition
was denied on July 31, 2019.

On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
alleging additional misstatements. On October 12, 2018, Defendants
moved to dismiss, and, on March 29, 2019, the Court granted the
motion and dismissed the new allegations.

On January 31, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
on all claims, which motion remains pending. Trial in the case is
currently set to begin on July 7, 2020, and a court ordered
mediation was held on April 30, 2020.

The mediation failed to produce a resolution to the case.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Quorum Health said, "However, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss. The Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the amount or range of such possible loss. Under some
circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes
in this matter could be material. The case is stayed as to Quorum
Health Corporation due to the Company's bankruptcy filing, but may
proceed as to all other defendants with a current trial date of
July 7, 2020."

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and
acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical
care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Class Certified in Grant TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MONIFA GRANT v. REGAL
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-00363-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
      The plaintiff's proposed class is certified-in-part. The
      class comprises the:

      "5,9972 persons within the United States who, on October
      4, 2017, October 5, 2017, or both, were delivered the
      following prerecorded voicemail to their cellular
      telephone:

      "Hi my name is Ken Halworth, General Manager with Regal
      Honda. I'm sorry I missed you and didn't get a chance to
      speak to you personally. I'm calling with some great news.
      Your approved for a loan up to $40,000 and an interest
      rate as low as 1.9%. Because of your preferred credit
      status, were going to give you a free smartwatch or a free
      three-day two-night cruise for two with five-star dining
      included aboard a Carnival or Royal Caribbean cruise line
      absolutely free. Just for coming in this Friday or
      Saturday October 6th and 7th. Please feel free to call me
      back, my names Ken and make an appointment to see me. You
      can reach me at area code 863-588-4020. That number again
      is 863-588-4020. Thanks so much, I look forward to
      speaking to you, my names Ken and I look forward to seeing
      you on the showroom floor. Have a great day"";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms Shamis & Gentile, P.A.; IJH Law;
      Hiraldo P.A.; Edelsberg Law, P.A.; and Eisenband Law P.A.
      as class counsel. No later than JUNE 17, 2020, the
      plaintiff must move for approval of the certification
      notice.

The Plaintiff alleges that on two occasions -- October 4, 2017, and
October 5, 2017 -- the Defendant employed a marketing vendor, BDC
Promotions, Inc., to send to cellular telephone numbers 14,032
unsolicited "ringless voicemails" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Regal is an automotive company based out of 715 Atlanta Rd No. D,
Cumming, Georgia.[CC]

REGEIS CARE: Faces Atuogu Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regeis Care Center,
LLC. The case is captioned as INNOCENT ATUOGU, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. REGEIS CARE CENTER, LLC, Case
No. 30899/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Bronx Cty., June 15, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donald A. Miles.

Regeis Care operates a nursing and rehabilitation center. The
Company provides inpatient nursing, neurological, vascular,
physical therapy, and pain management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          The Woolworth Building
          233 Broadway, Suite 2220
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 406-3630

The Defendant is represented by:

          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          290 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 247-4736


RHODE ISLAND: Hanson Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEVEN HANSON and RANDALL
PELLETIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SCOTT R. JENSEN, in his official capacity as Director
of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Case No.
1:20-cv-00232-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "individuals who are or at any time on or after March 1,
      2020 have been eligible for Rhode Island Unemployment
      Insurance Benefits (UIB) and have been determined eligible
      for UIB by the Rhode Island Department of Labor and
      Training, and who, subsequent to receiving approval for
      the UIB and receiving at least one payment of UIB, stopped
      receiving UIB when due without any written advance notice,
      or any written notice concurrent with the stoppage of UIB
      or any individualized notice of any kind, and those who in
      the future will have their UIB stopped without any written
      advance notice, or any written notice concurrent with the
      stoppage of UIB or any individualized notice of any kind";

   2. designating themselves as class representative; and

   3. designated their counsel as class counsel for the proposed
      class.

Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training offers employment
services, educational services and economic opportunity to
individuals and employers.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Saideman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN SAIDEMAN
          7 Henry Drive
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: 401 258 7276
          Facsimile: 401 709 0213
          E-mail: esaideman@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Lynette Labinger, Esq.
          128 Dorrance Street, Box 710
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 401 465 9565
          E-mail: LL@labingerlaw.com

ROCKER LLC: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JRocker LLC. The case
is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rocker LLC, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04563-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Rocker, LLC, is a company located in Hamilton, Ohio, that
manufactures handcrafted hardwood residential furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUSHMORE LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in Sharma FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OM SHARMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RUSHMORE LOAN
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. GJH-18-656
(D. Md.), Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Southern Division, (i) granted the motions to
dismiss by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as
Christiana Trust, and U.S. Bank, National Association; and (ii)
granted in part and denied in part Rushmore's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Sharma, Vaughn and Diane Riffe, Virginia Brown, and
Susan Geiselman filed the putative class action on March 5, 2018
against mortgage servicer Rushmore and the trustees of two New York
common law trusts that own the Plaintiffs' mortgages: Wilmington,
sued solely in its capacity as trustee for the trust BCAT 2014-4TT,
and U.S. Bank, sued solely in its capacity as trustee for the trust
RMAC 2016-CTT.  The Plaintiffs assert a variety of federal and
Maryland statutory claims premised on alleged violations of
mortgage lending and servicing laws by Rushmore, Wilmington, and
U.S. Bank.

Each of the Plaintiffs alleges that they initiated a residential
mortgage with a non-party lender, that they fell behind on their
payments, and that the mortgages were eventually purchased by BCAT
or RMAC and serviced by Rushmore, which took steps toward
foreclosure in each case.  

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 9, 2018.  The
Amended Complaint includes an extensive history of public and
private responses to the late 2000s housing and financial crisis.
It proposes three classes and a subclass: an "FDCPA Class" of
Maryland persons with whom Rushmore has communicated to collect a
consumer debt on behalf of BCAT or RMAC; an "FDCPA Subclass" of
members of the FDCPA Class who paid any amount to BCAT that
Rushmore applied to charges other than the principal portion of
their loan; a "RESPA Dual-Tracking Class" of borrowers who
submitted to Rushmore on Jan. 10, 2014 an application for loss
mitigation of a federally related mortgage, after receipt of which
Rushmore or its agents initiated a foreclosure before the
borrower's appeal rights under RESPA and applicable regulations had
expired; and a "RESPA QWR Class" of borrowers who submitted to
Rushmore on Jan. 10, 2014 a QWR concerning a "federally related"
mortgage that Rushmore did not acknowledge or respond to in writing
in the time period required by RESPA and applicable regulations.

The Amended Complaint alleges five counts against some or all of
the Defendants:

* Count I alleges that all the Defendants violated provisions of
the FDCPA, 1692f when Rushmore, on behalf of BCAT and RMAC,
communicated with the Plaintiffs and the FDCPA Class and FDCPA
Subclass members to threaten or pursue litigation and to demand
sums that the Plaintiffs and the class members did not owe to the
Defendant trusts because they were not licensed mortgage lenders.


* Count II alleges that all Defendants violated provisions of the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA").

* Count III is a common law unjust enrichment claim by Sharma, the
Riffes, and the proposed FDCPA Subclass against Rushmore and BCAT,
alleging that BCAT lacked the license needed to receive profits
from collecting on mortgages but that it nonetheless sought and
obtained them with Rushmore's knowing assistance.

* Count IV alleges that Rushmore violated provisions of RESPA and
its implementing regulations by failing to acknowledge receipt and
evaluate the loss mitigation applications that Brown, the Riffes,
and the proposed RESPA Dual-Tracking Class submitted before
initiating foreclosure proceedings.  Count IV also alleges that
Rushmore violated other provisions of RESPA and applicable
regulations by untimely acknowledging or not responding to Brown's
alleged QWR and those of the RESPA QWR Class's members.

* Finally, in Count V, Brown, Sharma, and the Riffes seek a
declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202 that HUD
"had no right to strip the FHA protections" from their loans when
it sold them through DASP without providing them notice and
complying with the Administrative Procedure Act, and that BCAT as
purchaser of the loans is entitled to no greater rights than what
HUD had as its predecessor in interest, with the result that BCAT's
servicer must service the loans consistent with FHA servicing
guidelines.

The Defendants have each individually moved to dismiss.  They move
to dismiss Counts I, II, and III on the ground that the MMLL, the
Maryland mortgage lender statute, does not require BCAT and RMAC to
hold mortgage lender licenses.  Rushmore next moves to dismiss
Brown's claim against it under RESPA for failing to respond to her
alleged QWRs, as well as Brown's and the Riffes' claims challenging
Rushmore's alleged dual tracking of their loans.  Finally, the
Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for a
declaratory judgment that Brown, Sharma, and the Riffes remain
entitled to the FHA borrower protections they enjoyed before HUD
sold their loans through DASP.

Judge Hazel notes that the core contention of Counts I, II, and III
of the Amended Complaint ("Licensing Claims") is that BCAT and RMAC
acted as unlicensed mortgage lenders in retaining Rushmore to
enforce and foreclose on the Plaintiffs' mortgages, thereby
violating Maryland and federal law.  Because that assertion is
simply incorrect as a matter of law, the Judge will dismiss the
claims that flow from it.  The Judge will also dismiss the claim
for a declaratory judgment in Count V because it fails to present
an actual controversy between the parties.  Count IV, however, will
be dismissed in part and allowed to proceed in part because the
Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that Rushmore violated RESPA in
servicing Brown's loan.

The Judge says that because none of the Plaintiffs' arguments for
departing from the plain text of Section 11-501(n) are persuasive,
he agrees with Judge Bennett's determination in Suazo and concludes
that BCAT and RMAC are not mortgage servicers required to obtain
licenses by the MMLL.  Accordingly, Counts I, II, and III, which
each rely on the faulty premise that the trusts have unlawfully
operated without licenses, will be dismissed.

Next, the Judge finds that Section 1024.39 establishes affirmative
obligations of servicers to contact borrowers when they become
delinquent, which was not the scenario that Brown alleges.  And
Section 1024.35(b)(11) echoes the QWR statutes in limiting its
reach to errors that relate to "servicing" of the loan, which as
previously explained Brown's correspondence did not.  These
regulations therefore do not reach Brown's correspondence with
Rushmore.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim asserting that
Rushmore unlawfully failed to respond to Brown's alleged QWRs will
be dismissed.

The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim with respect to the
Riffes, however, because it alleges that Rushmore referred the
Riffes' loan to foreclosure counsel before they had submitted any
application for loss mitigation, let alone a complete one.  While
the Amended Complaint asserts that the Riffes were improperly
charged for the law firm's services and were assessed other
improper fees, it does not claim that the Riffes began any loan
modification procedures until October 2015.  And the pleading is
clear that no foreclosure action ever took place.  Thus, because no
completed loss mitigation action was pending, and no foreclosure
action was initiated, the borrower protections at Section 1024.41
are not implicated.  The Riffes' RESPA claim will therefore be
dismissed.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment cannot
proceed because there is no actual controversy between the parties
to this action, the Court notes.  What the Plaintiffs ultimately
seek, according to their Opposition brief, is a retrospective
declaration that HUD's past conduct was unlawful.  It is evident
from this allegation that the Plaintiffs' grievance is not with the
Defendants it named in the action but with HUD.  Further, even if
the issue could be raised in a suit against these Defendants, the
only factual allegation supporting it is that a report by HUD's
Inspector General concluded that DASP should have been implemented
using APA rulemaking procedures.  With no other support for their
claim, the Plaintiffs have made no more than a bare allegation of
an APA violation, and accordingly have failed to state a claim.

Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for the Plaintiffs'
Licensing Claims because they rely entirely on the mistaken
proposition that the Defendant trusts are unlawfully operating as
unlicensed mortgage servicers, the Court holds.  Any amendment of
those claims to add further factual allegations would therefore be
futile.  The Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment will
also be dismissed with prejudice because of the lack of an actual
controversy between the parties.  The issue could not be remedied
even if the Plaintiffs added further allegations about the
allegedly unlawful procedure HUD followed in implementing DASP.  

As for the RESPA claims, given the timeline of the Riffes'
interactions with Rushmore and the lack of any foreclosure action
in their case, their dual tracking claim could not be made viable
through amendment, the Court finds.  But it is conceivable that
Brown could state a claim with respect to her purported QWRs by
adding further allegations to demonstrate the alleged violations.
That claim will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hazel (i) granted Wilmington's
Motion for Extension of Time; (ii) granted in part and denied in
part Rushmore's Motion to Dismiss; (iii) granted U.S. Bank's Motion
to Dismiss; (iv) granted Wilmington's Motion to Dismiss; and (v)
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file excess pages, and
Motion to Substitute Party.  

The only claim that may proceed is Plaintiff Brown's claim against
Rushmore for allegedly dual tracking her loan in violation of
RESPA, the Court ruled.  All other claims are dismissed with
prejudice except for Brown's RESPA QWR claim, which is dismissed
without prejudice.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8WSnk3 from Leagle.com.

Om Sharma, On Behalf of Three Classes and One Subclass of Similarly
Situated Persons, Vaughn Riffe, On Behalf of Three Classes and One
Subclass of Similarly Situated Persons, Diane Riffe, On Behalf of
Three Classes and One Subclass of Similarly Situated Persons, Susan
Geiselman, On Behalf of Three Classes and One Subclass of Similarly
Situated Persons & Virginia Brown, On Behalf of Three Classes and
One Subclass of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, represented
by Phillip R. Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC & Scott C. Borison,
Legg Law Firm LLP.

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC & U.S. Bank, National
Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee
for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT, Defendants, represented by
John Curtis Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders
LLP.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as Christiana
Trust, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee for
BCAT 2014-4TT, Defendant, represented by Andrew Karl Stutzman --
astutzman@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP &
Thomas Francis Lucchesi, III -- tlucchesi@stradley.com -- Stradley
Ronon.


RUSHMORE LOAN: Wortman Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC. The case is styled as Nicole T. Wortman,
Shane W. Wortman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03742 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2020).

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

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC provides financial services.
The Company offers performing and non-performing residential
mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SACRAMENTO, CA: Mary Woo Law Sues in California Over Tort Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, et al. The case is captioned as Mary Woo Law, on
behalf of all others  similarly situated v. Sacramento Municipal
Utility District; City Council of the City of Sacramento; City of
Sacramento; City of Sacramento Police Department; and Daniel Hahn
in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of
Sacramento, Case No. 34-2020-00280651-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., June 12, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the business tort-related laws.

The City of Sacramento is a Charter City with legislative powers
held by a publicly elected nine-member body referred to as the City
Council. SMUD provides complete energy solutions and rebates for
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Joseph Donato, Esq.
          DONATO LEGAL GROUP, INC.
          1383 Garden Hwy., Ste. 100
          Sacramento, CA 95833-9644
          Telephone: (916) 716-7177
          Facsimile: (916) 303-1561
          E-mail: alan@donato.legal


SAM'S WEST: Taylor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE TAYLOR, individually
and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. SAM'S
WEST, INC., dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV10352 (Filed March 16,
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 June 17, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-05380 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the California Labor Code for
failure to provide adequate seating, failure to pay all wages,
failure to pay wages at time of termination, and failure to furnish
an accurate itemized wage statement.

Sam's West provides merchandise and services for business owners
and consumers. The Company offers refrigeration equipment, drink
and beverage machines, small appliances, laundry appliances,
kitchen appliances, floor care products, commercial equipment, and
laundry care products.[BN]

Defendant Sam's West is represented by:

          Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
          Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
                  mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com


SANCHEZ OIL: Hutchins Seeks to Certify Class of Oilfield Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES HUTCHINS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS
CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00195-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of a putative class
      consisting of:

      "all oilfield workers who worked for, or on behalf of,
      Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation in the past three years who
      were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-
      rate with no overtime"; and

   2. authorizing notice to the potential class members.

Hutchins claims Sanchez Oil subjected him and numerous other
oilfield workers like him to a common and illegal practice of
classifying them as independent contractors and paying them a
day-rate for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours
worked in a single day or workweek.

SOG is a private company engaged in the management of oil and
natural gas properties on behalf of its related companies.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION: Sarmiento Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jhon Sarmiento, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-61249-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020),
Case No. 3:20-cv-00288-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Virgin Islands
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the legally-mandated one
and one-half times their regular hourly rate for every hour that
was worked over 8 in a day and/or 40 in a given workweek and/or for
their six or more consecutive days. Specifically, the Defendant has
enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it does not pay
overtime premiums as required by law. Rather, all laborers in the
defined classes are paid hourly, with straight time overtime rather
than time and one half for overtime hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer in the
Virgin Islands, from May 2019 until December 2019.

The Defendant provides construction services throughout the United
States and its territories, including following natural disasters
such as hurricanes and tornados.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) WORKERS
          Fax: (954) 327-3013
          Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


SEALY INC: Court Denies Certification of Final Wages Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JESUS SARMIENTO, et al. v.
SEALY, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01990-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar has denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

As Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy commonality or predominance,
the Court need not reach the questions of typicality or adequacy.
The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Final Wages class is denied,
the Court says.

The Plaintiffs allege that Sealy did not "pay Sarmiento and other
putative class members the higher hourly rates when required." The
Plaintiffs further allege that they regularly worked shifts
exceeding 12 hours a day without receiving the proper overtime
rate, and that Sealy furnished wage statements that omitted
required information.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of a Sealy mattress
manufacturing facility in Richmond, California. Sarmiento worked
concurrently as a loader, taper or sewer during his employment.
Chavez worked as a line feeder.

Sealy manufactures and markets bedding products. The company offers
mattresses, adjustable beds, bed frames, and accessories.[CC]


SKY SOLAR: Bid for Leave to Amend Barili Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for leave to amend the
putative securities class action entitled, Barilli et al. v. Sky
Solar Holdings, Ltd., et al., is still pending.

On July 16, 2017, a putative securities class action captioned
Barilli et al. v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


Plaintiffs allege that the company's prospectus filed in the
initial public offering ("IPO") in 2014 on the Nasdaq Stock Market
misrepresented a number of subjects, including (i) the background
of its former chief executive officer, Mr. Su Weili (Mr. Su); (ii)
Sky Solar's internal controls regarding related party transactions;
(iii) a fraud committed against a Spanish subsidiary of a
predecessor company in 2010; (iv) the state of the Chilean and
Japanese solar markets; (v) Sky Solar’s access to financing; and
(vi) Sky Solar's business history, geographic reach, and prospects
for future growth.

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that since the IPO, the company had
made misrepresentations concerning Mr. Su's credentials and the
company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of investors who claim to have suffered losses as a result of their
trading of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) acquired
from November 13, 2014 to June 12, 2017.

Plaintiffs assert federal securities law claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seek unspecified money damages.

On February 16, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on April 20, 2018. On
May 23, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's motion to dismiss decision, as well as a motion for leave
to file a third amended complaint, both of which the company
opposed. On December 2, 2019, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration. The motion for leave to amend is currently
pending before the court.

Sky Solar said, "The action remains at its preliminary stages. We
have engaged a U.S. firm as legal counsel and intend to defend this
action vigorously."

Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., an independent power producer, develops,
owns, and operates solar parks worldwide. It develops projects; and
generates and sells electricity in the downstream solar market. The
company also sells solar energy systems, including pipeline and
related engineering, construction, and procurement services, as
well as is involved in building and transferring solar parks.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bid to Strike & Dismiss Ciccio Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, 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's motion to strike and motion to
dismiss the providers claims in the putative class action suit
entitled, Ciccio, et al. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00845, remains pending.

In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer
and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al.
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn.).

The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false
advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various
state consumer protection statutes relating to the company's
advertising.

The Company filed its motion to strike and motion to dismiss the
providers claims in December 2019 with briefing on the motions
concluded in February 2020. No ruling has been made on these
motions as of yet.

In January 2020, one of the putative consumers who withdrew from
the above action filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to
compel the Company to arbitrate.

The consumer plaintiff simultaneously filed a putative class
arbitration in the American Arbitration Association, pursuing
substantially similar claims. This consumer and the original
consumer plaintiff in the Middle District of Tennessee litigation
have since sought to rejoin the Middle District of Tennessee
litigation or, in the alternative, to intervene.

The Company has filed its motion in response to oppose the consumer
plaintiff's motion to rejoin or intervene. Litigation is in the
pleading stage and discovery has not yet commenced.

The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to defend
against these actions vigorously.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which include marketing, aligner manufacturing,
fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring through
completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: IPO-Related Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, 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 continues to defend purported
class action suits related to its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

From September to December 2019, a number of purported stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee and in state courts in Tennessee,
Michigan and New York against the Company, members of the Company's
board of directors, certain of its current officers, and the
underwriters of its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

The following nine complaints have been filed to date: Mancour v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed
9/27/19), Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit Court
filed 9/30/19), Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371 (TN
Circuit Court filed 10/4/19), Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.,
19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19), Andre v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19),
Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed
10/23/19), Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19- cv-962 (M.D. Tenn.
filed 10/29/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB
(Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19), Sasso v.
Katzman, et al., No. 657557/2019 (NY Supreme Court filed 12/18/19).
In December 2019, the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour and Wei Wei actions
were consolidated as In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed December 20, 2019).


The complaints all allege, among other things, that the
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments,
and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in
connection with the Company's initial public offering were
inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts
required to be stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

All of the actions are in the preliminary stages.

On February 26, 2020, Defendants prevailed on their motion to
dismiss the Michigan state court action. On January 22, 2020, the
New York state court action was stayed.

On February 10, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss or stay the
Tennessee state court action. On March 23, 2020, the Company moved
to dismiss the Tennessee federal action.

The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend against these actions.

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

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which include marketing, aligner manufacturing,
fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring through
completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Wurth Suit Moved From Kentucky to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dwayne Wurth, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, et al. v. Smitty's
Supply and Rural King, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00092 (Filed June
27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on June 16, 2020.

The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00432-SRB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough.

The lawsuit asserts products liability and property damage claims.

The Plaintiffs include Kirk Egner, Nicholas A. Kennady, Thomas V.
Bender, Tracy Sullivan, and Tim Sullivan.

The Defendants include Tractor Supply Company, and CAM2
International L.L.C.

Smitty's manufactures and distributes lubricants and related
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          5009 West 114 Street
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 338-3891

               - and -

          Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: dhubbard@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR, LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Telephone: (816) 373-9080
          Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
          E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Kennady, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42003
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
          E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com
                  austin@bryant.law

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com

               - and -

          William L. Carr, Esq.
          WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR
          19049 E Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Telephone: (816) 373-9080
          Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
          E-mail: bcarr@wagblaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacqueline Annette Cook, Esq.
          Nikki E. Cannezzarro, Esq.
          FRANKE, SCHULTZ & MULLEN
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 421-7915
          E-mail: jcook@fsmlawfirm.com
                  ncannezzaro@fsmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ryan T. Polczynski, Esq.
          WHITLOW, ROBERTS, HOUSTON & STRAUB, PLLC
          300 Broadway Street
          P.O. Box 995
          Paducah, KY 42002-0995
          Telephone: (270) 443-4516
          Facsimile: (270) 442-1712
          E-mail: rpolczynski@whitlow-law.com


SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS: Wenckaitis Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wenckaitis, Andrew Johnson, and Anthony Marshall, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS
INC., and JOHN O'HARA, owner of Specialty Contractors, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-03743 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid wages, interest, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Employee
Classification Act, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.

The complaint arises out of the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and a group of other electricians one-and-a-half times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek, as well as the Defendants' practice of taking deductions
from the Plaintiffs' and other electricians' pay without their
written consent.

The Plaintiffs worked as electricians for the Defendants.

Specialty Contractors, Inc., is an electrical construction company
based in McHenry County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Emily R. Brown, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK DYM, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-580-0100
          Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
                 ebrown@hsplegal.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: Defendant Judges Seek to Decertify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID DIXON, et al. v. CITY
OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00112-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Defendant Judges ask the Court for an order decertifying the
class.

The Defendant Judges say that decertification is appropriate
because "less than two months after this class was certified, the
Eighth Circuit, in a matter of first impression, held that class
certification cannot be based on a 'fail-safe' class definition,
which is one 'in which the class is defined to preclude membership
unless a putative member would prevail on the merits." The
Defendant Judges also contend that the Plaintiffs allege at least
six different policies and practices which they claim violate the
Missouri Supreme Court Rules, but in light of these six different
injuries, there can be no "commonality" for purposes of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). As such, decertification is appropriate, as
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden on the adequacy and
typicality.

On January 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs, a group of pretrial arrestees
who were detained in St. Louis jails, filed this suit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  They challenge the constitutionality of the
procedures by which defendants, state and city officials, set money
bail. By allegedly failing to consider non-monetary conditions of
release, and Plaintiffs' respective abilities to afford bond, these
officials oversee, it is claimed, an illegal wealth-based detention
regime.

On June 11, 2019, the district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and entered a preliminary injunction
enjoining the enforcement of any monetary condition of release
resulting in detention, unless there are findings that detention is
necessary because there are no less restrictive alternatives to
ensure the arrestee's appearance or public safety. The Defendants
brought an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction.

In a February 2020 decision, the Eighth Circuit reversed.

St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi
River.[CC]

The Defendant Judges are represented by:

          D. John Sauer, Esq.
          Christopher R. Wray, Esq.
          Robert Isaacson, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERALS
          Post Office Box 861
          St. Louis, MO, 63188
          Telephone: (314) 340-7960
          Facsimile: (314) 340-7029

SYMMETRY MANAGEMENT: Certification of FDCPA & FCCPA Classes Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELLA DUNBAR, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SYMMETRY MANAGEMENT
CORP. d/b/a BCC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC, Case No.
8:19-cv-00715-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying these proposed Classes for settlement purposes:

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class:

      "(i) all persons with addresses in the state of Florida
      (ii) to whom initial communication letters were sent
      containing the phrase, "If you dispute the debt or any
      portion thereof by writing or calling this office within
      30 days after receiving this notice this office will
      obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment
      and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If
      you request this office by writing or calling within 30
      days after receiving this notice, this office will provide
      you with the name and address of the original creditor, if
      different from the current creditor." (iii) in an attempt
      to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or
      household purposes (iv) which were not returned
      undelivered by the U.S. Post Office (v) during the one-
      year period prior to the filing of the original complaint
      in this action through the date of certification"; and

      Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Class:

      "(i) all persons with addresses in the state of Florida
      (ii) to whom initial communication letters were sent
      containing the phrase, "If you dispute the debt or any
      portion thereof by writing or calling this office within
      30 days after receiving this notice, this office will
      obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment
      and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification.
      If you request this office by writing or calling
      within 30 days after receiving this notice, this
      office will provide you with the name and address of the
      original creditor, if different from the current
      creditor." (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred
      for personal, family, or household purposes (iv) which
      were not returned undelivered by the U.S. Post Office (v)
      during the two-year period prior to the filing of the
      original complaint in this action through the date of
      certification";

   2. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;

   3. certifying the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   4. appointing the Plaintiff's attorney Class Counsel;

   5. appointing KCC Class Actions Services, LLC as Settlement
      Administrator;

   6. directing notice to the class by publication of the Class
      Notice; and

   7. setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and a hearing
      under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant sent form dunning letters that
misstated consumers' verification rights under the FDCPA, by
falsely representing that the consumer could invoke their statutory
verification rights orally when the FDCPA requires that statutory
verification rights be invoked in writing and requires debt
collectors to give consumers written notice of that requirement,
and thus created a substantial risk that the consumers would not be
able to exercise their rights under the FDCPA, which in turn also
violated the FCCPA. The Defendant denies the form dunning letters
violate the FDCPA or FCCPA, and, in the alternative, asserts the
conduct giving rise to the violation was unintentional and resulted
from a bona fide error, notwithstanding the maintenance of
procedures reasonably formulated to avoid the violation.

Symmetry Management was founded in 1993. The company's line of
business includes the practice of general or specialized medicine
and surgery for various licensed practitioners.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Giardina, Esq.
          Kimberly H. Wochholz, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3104 W. Waters Avenue, Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33614-2877
          Telephone: (813) 435-5055
          Facsimile: (866) 535-7199
          E-mail: James@ConsumerRightsLawGroup.com
                  Kim@ConsumerRightsLawGroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bennett C. Lofaro, Esq.
          Jessica R. Welsh, Esq.
          BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L.
          400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1150
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-6021
          Facsimile: (813) 223-6024
          E-mail: blofaro@boydlawgroup.com
                  jwelsh@boydlawgroup.com
                  servicetpa@boydlawgrou.com

SYNACOR INC: Appeal in SDNY Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------
Synacor, 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 appeal from a trial court's decision to
enter judgment in favor of the Company is pending.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018. The plaintiff alleged that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its contract with AT&T and the timing of revenue to be
derived therefrom, and that as a result, class members suffered
losses because Synacor shares traded at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2018, a
second amended complaint on November 2, 2018, and the Company filed
a motion to dismiss on December 17, 2018. The plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 19, 2019 and the
Company filed its reply to plaintiff's opposition on February 15,
2019.

On August 28, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but permitted the plaintiff to seek leave to replead.

On October 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a letter application
seeking the court's leave to file a third amended complaint. The
Company filed a letter in opposition to the plaintiff's motion on
October 21, 2019. The court denied plaintiffs' application to file
an amended complaint and ordered the case closed on November 15,
2019.

The Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and
the individual defendants and closed the case on November 19, 2019.


Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal on December 16, 2019.
Plaintiff-Appellant filed its brief in support of its appeal on
March 20, 2020.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.

Synacor said, "The Company cannot yet determine whether it is
probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this
complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential
loss, if any. Legal fees and liabilities related to this lawsuit
are covered by our D&O insurance policy now that the Company has
reached its deductible.

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York."


SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, 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 motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in the consolidated class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is
still pending.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Before that
motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between October 28, 2014 and June 13,
2017.

On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff to leave to amend its complaint.


On August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements of material information
concerning the Company’s financial results, business operations,
and prospects.

On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Defendants'
motion to dismiss is pending before the Court.

The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and
intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.


Synchronoss said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."

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

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


TAK COMMUNICATIONS: Diaz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC.; TAK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. RG20064706 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
June 12, 2020), seeks to recover penalties pursuant to the
California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate
employees for all hours worked; failed to pay employees minimum
wage for all hours worked; failed to pay employees overtime and
double time wages; and failed to authorize and permit employees to
take meal and rest breaks to which they are entitled by California
law and failing to pay premium compensation for missed breaks.

The Plaintiff worked for TAK from May 2019 until March 2020 in and
around Sacramento, Stockton, and Fresno, California. He worked in
the non-exempt position of technician.

TAK is a cable installation, construction and infrastructure
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Stacy Savett, Esq.
          Shoshana Savett, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604


TARGET CORP: Ornelas et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSEPH D. ORNELAS and RODNEY
ALAN ROBINSON, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-01814-JVS-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Sept. 14, 2020,
for an order:

   1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a
      class action under Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. certifying Class and Subclasses; and

   3. appointing Joseph D. Ornelas and Rodney Alan Robinson, Jr.
      as representatives and designating Becerra Law Firm and
      Gleason & Favarote, LLP as counsel for the certified
      Plaintiff Class and Subclasses.

The case alleges labor related violations.  It was originally filed
in San Bernardino County Superior Court, CIVDS1924533, and removed
to the federal district court.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. It is the
8th-largest retailer in the United States, and is a component of
the S&P 500 Index.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Becerra, Esq.
          BECERRA LAW FIRM
          4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (213) 542-8501
          Facsimile: (213) 542-5556
          E-mail: jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com

               - and -

          Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
          Jing Tong, Esq.
          GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
          4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (562) 548-6700
          Facsimile: (562) 216-8495
          E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
                  jtong@gleasonfavarote.com

The Defendant Target is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Ryan D. Derry, Esq.
          Anna M. Skaggs, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Briggs, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  ryanderry@paulhastings.com
                  annaskaggs@paulhastings.com
                  jeffreybriggs@paulhastings.com

TERMINAL ISLAND: Provisional Class Certification Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LANCE AARON WILSON; MAURICE
SMITH; EDGAR VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FELICIA L. PONCE, in her capacity as Warden
of Terminal Island; and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his capacity as
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-04451-MWF-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff-Petitioners ask the Court for an order:

   1. provisionally certifying the Petitioners' claims as a
      class action on behalf of:

      "all current and future prisoners incarcerated at Terminal
      Island because they are in desperate need of that
      preliminary relief before they 10 suffer substantial --
      and potentially fatal -- harm";

   2. appointing Petitioners as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Class Counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and any other applicable
      rule of civil procedure or law.[CC]

The Petitioners have moved for preliminary relief to prevent
catastrophic harm to Terminal Island prisoners, many of whom are
medically vulnerable, as a result of Respondents' failure to take
adequate measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

Terminal Island is a largely artificial island located in Los
Angeles County, California, between the neighborhood of San Pedro
in the city of Los Angeles, and the city of Long Beach. Terminal
Island is roughly split between the Port of Los Angeles and Port of
Long Beach.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Terry W. Bird, Esq.
          Dorothy Wolpert, Esq.
          Naeun Rim, Esq.
          Christopher J. Lee, Esq.
          Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq.
          Jimmy Threatt, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER,
            WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS,
            LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23 rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: tbird@birdmarella.com
                  dwolpert@birdmarella.com
                  nrim@birdmarella.com
                  sbannett@birdmarella.com
                  clee@birdmarella.com
                  jthreatt@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          Peter Bibring, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF
            SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977-5297
          E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org
                  pbibring@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Sara Norman, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, California 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com

TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Plumley Suit Balks at Sale to Melinta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., L. PATRICK GAGE,
LARRY EDWARDS, GAREN BOHLIN, STEVEN BOYD, JEFFREY A. CHODAKEWITZ,
JOHN G. FREUND, GERRI HENWOOD, GUY MACDONALD, KEITH MAHER, NANCY J.
WYSENSKI, MELINTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., and TORONTO TRANSACTION
CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-00826-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2020), stems
from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Tetraphase will be
acquired by Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., and Toronto Transaction
Corp. in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 4, 2020, Tetraphase's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Melinta.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Toronto commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of Tetraphase's outstanding common
stock for $1.79 per share in cash and one contingent value right
(CVR). The Tender Offer is set to expire on July 11, 2020.

On June 12, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the Solicitation Statement
fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items
used to calculate (a) EBIT and (b) Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and
(ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The
Plaintiff notes that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion.

The Plaintiff is and has been the owner of Tetraphase common
stock.

Tetraphase is a biopharmaceutical company that uses its proprietary
chemistry technology to create novel tetracyclines for serious and
life-threatening conditions, including infections caused by many of
the multidrug-resistant bacteria highlighted as urgent public
health threats by the World Health Organization and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The Company has created more than
3,000 novel tetracycline compounds using its proprietary technology
platform. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


TEXAS: Faces Hotze Sues Over Unlawful COVID-19 Contact Tracing
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN F. HOTZE, M.D., et al. v. GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT, in his
individual capacity, THE STATE OF TEXAS, TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMISSION (Texas HHSC), TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH
SERVICES (Texas DSHS), PHIL WILSON, in his official capacity as
Executive Director of Texas DSHS, AND JOHN WILLIAM HELLERSTEDT, MD,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas DSHS, Case
No. 4:20-cv-02104 (S.D. Tex., June 15, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for
violations of the Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights in connection with the Defendants' alleged
unjustified interference with the Plaintiffs' lawful activities and
the Defendants' unlawful adoption of "contact tracing" to track and
monitor daily movements of Texans.

The Defendants lock down most business activities in Texas with a
series of orders (Lock Down Orders), under the guise of combating
COVID-19, the Plaintiffs allege. On March 13, 2020, Greg Abbott,
Governor of Texas, issued a disaster proclamation, certifying under
Section 418.014 of the Texas Government Code that the COVID-19
poses an imminent threat of disaster for all counties in the State
of Texas. On April 12, 2020, Governor Abbott issued a proclamation
renewing the disaster declaration for all counties in Texas.

In May 2020, and without consulting with the Texas legislature,
Defendant Abbott entered into a $295 million contract for "contact
tracing" in order to begin surveillance and monitoring of the daily
activities of Texans, according to the complaint. The contract was
signed without the "consent of the governed"-no vote by the duly
elected representatives, no debate, no legislative oversight. In
fact, the bidding process was open for a mere two days.

Contact tracing is used to trace, track, and monitor (investigate)
personal contacts of an infected person to notify them of their
exposure and to take action to allegedly prevent the spread of the
disease.

The Plaintiffs include Hotze Health & Wellness Center, Edd Hendee,
Taste of Texas Restaurant, Physicians Preference Pharmacy
International, LLC, Curam Health, LLC, Hon. William w. Zedler, Hon.
Molly White, Hon. Gary W. Elkins, Hon. Rick Green, Cathie Adams,
Norman Adams, Al Hartman, Thomas Tyrrell, Clayton Davenport, Jim
Monroe, Jared Grein, Steve Kerns, Robert Morgan, MSN, Pastor Juan
Bustamante, Pastor David Valdez, Pastor John Greiner, Pastor Matt
Woodfill, Gary Giuffre, Pastor Bridgette Lozano, Pastor Cody
Weightman, Pastor Aaron Collier, Pastor Patrick Stewart, Pastor
Rick Scarborough, Hannah Young, Ken Prejean, Matt Brice, owner of
American Federal Grill, Mike Morton, Mike Zullo, Alicia Zullo,
Ashely Zullo, Rob Zullo, Trisha LaBlanc, Judson Aja, Jane Frazier,
Mario Hernandez, Mark Shannon Tammy Warren, Annmarie Cantwell,
Brian Speer, Melissa Carlisle, Paul Garland, Darrell W. Self, Lee
Jenkins, Robert Wheeler, Jr., Donald E. Page, Peggy Denson, James
Ray White, Sharon Sykes, Dal L. Sharp, Brent Edminster, Sam Rogers,
Michelle Pustejovsky, Dana Brock, Mike Wallace, Benjamin LaMoure,
Kelley Meshberg, Gabriel Tuft, Carol Markek, Teri A. Walter, Amy
Smith, Michael Vaughn, Mint Poker Clubs, Travis Norman, Thomas D.
Tyrrell, Bonnie Anderson, Robert Hungate, Gene Stevens, David
Smith, Kevin Moore, Joanie Markham, David Kemp, Barry D. Adkins,
Christine Bradley, Chris Persaud, William J. Boswell, Jr., Vickie
Michelle Kottwits, R.J. Smith, Julia Von Ehrenfried, David R.
Traynor, Janet Jackson, Ashley Bryan, Anthony Powell, Jason
Anderson, Cynthia D. Cruz, Dave Anderson, Michelle Anderson, Ian
Katz, Gary Purvis, Brenda Cheney, Grant Bynum, Benjemen Hitson,
Leslie Hunt, Gbenga Asedeko, Mike Tracy, Thomas Blackmer, Chace
Lyn, Ashley Harvey, William M. Stevens, Christina Brower, Eugene J.
Robinson, Emanuel Lewis, Rebecca Steinmetz, Andy Prestridge, Alayna
White, Steven Baysinger, Paula Moore, William Hammett, Keely
Thomas, Scott Chamberlin, Lyndsey Lusk, Krystal Kincaid, Sean
Bielstein, Amber Morris, Riley J. Nash, Salena Rothenberger, Kris
Moulton, Catherine Banks, Mack Miller, Bandee Bratton, Gabriel
Duran, Kelly Hamilton, Jay Weber, Araceli Castaneda, Dallas
Wottlin, Frank St. Francis, Dwayne Ryman, Tammy Gentry, Caren
Marshall, Denise Blalock, Arnoldo Rangel, Jim Palomo, Karla Dawn
Balluch, Terrie Pau, Pamela Granger, Glenna Hodge, Karen Rogers,
Richard Hotze, CEO, Compressor Engineering Corporation, CECO
Pipeline Services Company, Inc., CECO Services Corporation, In
Management, LLC Source of Supply Corporation, Inter NOS, LTD.,
Inter NOS Space Plus, LTD., Inter NOS Odessa, Ltd., Inter NOS
Pipeline, Ltd., Inter NOS TP Investments, LTD., Inter NOS Walker,
LTD., Inter NOS Springville, LTD., Priscilla Gorman, Dawn Walsh,
Tamara Austin, Barclay H. Russell, Jr., Texas Electrical Safety
Association, Robert E. Hatfield, II, Veronica B. Hatfield, Jeff
Kibodeaux, Elizabeth Blake, Jennifer Leiendecker, Adam Stacoviak,
Britt Hurst, Rick Smith, Building Blocks, LLC, ES Family Fitness,
LLC, Building Block, Inc., Ryann Day, Stuart Davenport, Richelle
Batt, Matthew Smith, Richard Thomas, Lindi Braddock, Rebecca Y.
Larson, Ryan Munoz, Jeff Landry, Lisa Landry, Linda Jansen, Tu
Phan, Melissa Rowell, Cynthia Salnias, Shane Walker, Cayla Walker,
Kathryn Standley, John Boretski, John D. Howell, Bruce Boyd, Debbie
Ramsey, Linda Allen, Margarete Cole, Matthew Nowell, Jacob Feldman,
Linda Collins, Tiffani Chapa, Robin Hubbard, David Kuchurivskyy,
Laurie Lozano, Oralia Acosta, Brienne H. Loftis, Raquetta
Portalatin, Jonathan Findley, Calvin Brown, Elvin Coy Chew, Connie
Jones, Tonia Allen Parker, Melissa Luce, Trinity Jackson Hall,
Nicholas Ritchie, Kathryn Ritchie, James Barclift, Stephine
Connelly, Riley Nash, Michelle LeTulle, Damon Sollman, Rose Rivera
Hutchinson, Randy Box, Monique Cooper, Tammy Cotton, Jenny Breen,
Tammie Birdwell, Kelly Pelletier, Tarrin Warren, Pacey Chynoweth,
David Lee Kykstra, Jr., Janie Blomquiest, Andrew Harman, Kraig Aron
Russell, Jon W. Marsh, Eric Christopher, Norman Harris, Tammy
Morris, Paul Morris, Hilary Wheeler, Scot Moran, Tim Nichols,
Michele Stricker, Carol Carter, Laurie McCawley, Leslie Neves,
Lance Neves, Wanda Webb, Sarah Vetere, Aaron R. Rasor, William J.
Odom, Joe W. Mathias, Melznie f. Webb, Colleen Crockett, Lori
McDonough, Wayne Ritchie, Jacqueline Ritchie, Lance Crockett, Lee
Ann Crockett, Michael J. Lathern, Mary Ann Lathern, M.J. Lathern
Co., Inc., Connie Wolfe, Blake McDaniel, Jose A. Rivera, Lisa
Wooldridge, Bryan Bilderback, Mark LaGrange, Chris Adams, Bobbye
Adams, Kevin Morgan, Kevin Wann, Kellie Messer, Thomas Wright,
Laurie Tindall, Katrina Cannon, Dawn Hayden, Nancy Roberts,
Kimberly Gutierrez, Robert Schoppe, Shelia Bartley, Thomas Barrett,
Kenneth T. McDonald, Lauren B. McGee, Dawn Simpson, Ken Dernehl,
Rita Dernehl, Mark S. Barlow, M.D., Holly Landry, Tee Parker,
Heather Vaughan, Chrystal Patterson, Joshua Troy Furnish, Charlene
Cheek, Carmen M. James, Daniel Corley, David Allen, Marsha
Wellmann, Ashley Zanella, Lance Olshovsky, Brandie Fussell, Jason
Fussell, Marcia Newman, Kevin Peterson, Mary Jennifer Duncan, Jay
Mincks, Catherine Engelbrecht, Rev. Bill Owens, Dr. Deborah Owens,
Everett Campbell, Jessie Wilcoxson, Jamie Borman, Robyn Cade,
Ashley Joslin, Robert Willeby, Susan Coburn, Johnnie Dryden, Ronald
White, Patricia Kudlacek, Galey Hannah, Patrika Romano, Janet
Yeaney, Leonard Swanson, WV Alliance Group Corp., Mark Blomquist,
Juanita Blomquist, Jay Webster, Martha Webster, James G. Caire,
Jr., Sandy Aronds, Donna Teeter, Yvette DeOtte, James A. Morris,
Kimberly Dean, Nikki Sopchak, Adrian Heath, Jay Lewchanin, Sarah
Hawthorne, Veronica Pedraza, Tammy Howard, Kelli Baliker, Steve
Sessums, Josie Moss, Tracy Forester, Joy Burwell, Sarah Duffy
Lamnek, Kenith Laird, Holli Feeley, Johanna Schuepbach, Joshua
Jones, Rebecca Jones, Heather Evan, Calvin Russell, Ginger Russell,
Dani Ortiz, Debbie Cooper, Christian Berger, Cheryle Acosta, John
Kmiecik, Sheila Manghera, Greg Sykes, Eileen Barlow, Brittany
McClure, Christina Sessums, Lydel Bertasz, Maris Smith, Philip
Conklin, Gary W. Whitaker, DC, Kirt Highberger, Gaye Powell,
Charles Ackerman, Shannon McGraw, Loucinda Palmer, Tracy Valdez,
Kelli Nicole Stone, Miranda Barnett, Diana Chapman, Darren Morahan,
Cougar Offshore, LLC, Michelle Morahan, Jeff Cokenour, Patsy Sacco
Ljungdahl, Matthew Jay, Kim Thiehoff, David Phillips, Karen
Phillips, Gary Stewart, Wanda Stewart, Corby Clark, Brenda Clark,
Kevin Massie, KAM Marketing, LLC, KAM Financial, LLC, Sheila
Clemmons, Amber Olsen, Kathy Norris, Jim Ray, Ruth Ray, Meredith
Garrou, Vicki Hogan, Margaret Immel, Cathi Wood, Judy Artall, Curt
Littman, James C. Pruett, Kim Swanger, Mary Ann Everett, Gary
Vandenberg, Wendy Bego, Laure Haro, Jose Luis Solis, Myrna Solis,
Rob Jensen, Carole Menefee-Jensen, Andrew Bennett, Devin Grider,
Susannea Grider, Dennis Alexander, Grace Wallace, Darrin W. Smith,
Rich DeOtte, Nicholas Lamme, Tracy M. Thomas, Jennifer Milner,
Megan Hartman, Heidi Trimpe, Lynette Gogol, Alicia D. Cornell,
Linda Rice, Cameron Jennings, Joy Roberts, Cortney Russell, Dr.
Polly Heil-Mealey, Julie Lawrence, Christi Moorman, John F. Foos,
Brandy Green, Joni Schultz, Steven Salfelder, Melody Spray, William
Spray, Marianne Lagerstrom, Christian Dobbins, Colette Dobbins,
Rebecca Graves, Mike Molina, Mark Lawrence, Katherine Hagood, Kent
Hagood, Nina Lee, Lesley Pyle, Robert L. Sanchez, Margaret Fournet,
Dr. David Cox, DC, Justin K. Hall, Lori Raines, Joseph Raines,
Chris Blystone, Mary D. Corley, Mark Russell, Debra Slaton, Lee
Proctor, Tiffanie Fowler, John Anderson, Donna McCune, Joseph L.
Trahan, Jr., Patricia Krenek, Allen McHenry, Judy H. Burns, Amber
Kutach, Kodi Kieler, David Watts, Matt Gokingco, Joy Kristine
Walls, Alyson Hayes, Mary Cashion-Smith, Jessica Rushing, Jeff
Clark, Laura Senser, Robyn Aldridge, Steven C. Thoe, Mitzi Pudlo,
Paul Traskal, Liz DeOtte, Kelsey Morris, Claude M. Jaynes, Michelle
Petersen, Jeff Gunter, Larry Burkham, Teresa Burkham, Ronald
Ashmore, Kristi Goebel, Carolyn B. Gard, Scott C. Stanton, April L.
Pylie, Brent Staggs, Troy Horton, Jerry Perdue, Larry E. Slovak,
Joanne E. Juren, Roy Phillips, Veronica Phillips, Joseph Ohnheiser,
Carol Creamer-Pompa, Gari-Anne Smith, Debbie Branch, Julie
Huffaker, Lisa Duran, DeLila G. Bogart, Casey Hubbard, Danne
Thompson, Katheryn Moore, Richard Pudlo, Harper Price, Carla Nagel,
William B. Tyler, William J. Whitburn, Jr., Denice Yeagin, William
Zed Penn, Rose Marie Penn, Karen Starnes, Jo Caraway, Ellen Stein,
Laura Oakley, Debbie Allcott, Deborah Thorne, Kathleen Thonsgaard,
Michael Silversmith, Vanessa Silversmith, Sherrie Morrison, Cheryl
Garihan, Nicole Tait, Dani Trees, Araceli Morris, Lonnie Beaty,
Mary Windham, Hilary Rabeler, Thomas Jenkins, Sharilyn Fathy, Bill
Satterlee, John P. Nichols, Cinda L. Nichols, Greg Collis, Keatha
Brown, Charles Haight, Debra Jones, Liz Cockrell, Brittany
Buchanan, Clinton E. Hildabrand, Michael Ford, Rebecca Fanning,
Todd Bullis, Anthony Uebel, Nicole Uebel, Beth Collis, Jessica
Herrera, Robert Herrera, Jonathan DeAnda, William Roberts, Julianne
Adams, Audra Gray, Susan Grindon, Laurie Schmid, Anndrea Criswell,
Jennifer Ringgold, Alice Aten, Denise Greer, Ken W. Browning, Judy
Thompson, Gene Lamoreaux, John R. Todd, Dale J. Kubbs, Mary
Konarik, Laura Pressley, Ph.D., Jeffrey G. Bane, Tim Zymantas, Jen
Zymantas, Diane Van Hoozer, Sherri Golden, Mike Blackledge, John
Neighbors, Philip Pepin, Linda Gonino, Gaye Mackie, Jim Wade, Lori
Valenti, David Bernal, Thomas Mackie, Sheri Southard, Dawn Lock,
Andrea Moede, Scott Down, Sri Down, Terry Flick, Darin Cade, Nicole
Fleming, Whitney Thomas, Tiffany Powers, Richard Mendoza, Pamela
Faye Cain-Johnson, Frank Dryden, Nita Adam, Antonio Sanchez, Terri
Snow, Peggy Dazzio, Kristine Longwood, Monica Halliburton, Kerry
Hellums, Toni Hellums, Ricci Bratton, Linda Trevino, Lourdes
Gonzalez, Helenna Marie Nesler, Krista Graff, Linda Veselka,
Franklin L. Allbright, Maureen Godsey, Spencer Delling, Marsha
Brister, Dr. Christy Flick, Cody Becker, Betty Anderson, Dana
Zuercher, Joan Britz, Charity King, Joni Boyd, Rand Boyd, Pamela
Farley, Rachael Barton, Thomas R. Hull, Callie Gibson, George M.
Clemens, Ed Huber, Juan M. Padron, Martha L. Anglin, Paul Anderson,
David Wakeen, Sondra Zimmerman, Sandra E. Ray, Julia E. Dailey,
Jeanine T. Voss, Janice Borne, Karen Gates Frost, Laura Beth
Jackson, G. Scott Jackson, Diane Barnes, Thomas B. Beau, David L.
Hartman, Jr., Angela L. Hough, Charlotte Denmark, Gary M. Pirkle,
Donald Zeek, Geri Bentley, Joseph A. Bourge, Terri Wilson,
Christine Martinez, Michael Ketter, Martha MacLean, Ken Clark,
Cynia Read, Dennis Read, Janet Jordan, Douglas Haun, Kenneth Clark,
Brad Booth, Ronda Latham, Rosa M. Montano, Jennifer Peterson,
Richard Ertl, Desmond Flores, Janice Dempsey, Rose Mary Leal,
Rhonda Mogford, Anastasia Sanders, Don Sanders, Monica Clark, Pat
Corcoran, Keith Noack, Jared Saenz, Kevin Overbay, Lee Lester,
Cynthia Bowen, Mary Kesler, Angela Covarrubio, Allison Straub,
Kevin Smith, Gina McGee, Monette Smith, Cynthia Caton, Gary L.
Cathey, Kari Schneider, Larry Latham, Judy McDaniel, William
Bruncke, Jennilyn Salinas, Lyndsay Miller, John Bermudez, Diane
Bloomberg, Paul Kliman, Darrell Jarnagin Lori Davette Ince, Monette
Ince, Katharine Kilpatrick, William Kilpatrick, Nancy Insko, Danny
Garvin, Angelia Garvin, Myra J. Anderson, Mike Olmstead, Kristin
Bota, David Bota, Wilfred Vandrese, Curtis Fish, Paul Bilyeu,
Cynthia Newton, Marita Segal, Howard Segal, Gregory Scott Fulghum,
Philip Eichelberger, Melanie Webb, Jason Larman, Wendy Carlson,
Chelsea Schwartz, Blake Gunn, Lisa Gunn, Edwin Haugen, Kristen
Haugen, Dr. Jerry Morrison, MD, Debra Ann Benson, Phillip
Archibald, The Physique Builder, LLC, Wyatt Winn, Eula Dennison,
Butch Marsalis, Karen Marsalis, Shannon Saldivar, Raymond Saldivar,
Chelsey Lindsey, Darlene A. Pendery, David Alan Pendery, Richard
Baker, Rashell Bridle, Robert Bridle, Elizabeth Grimmett, Susan
Featherstone, Logan Bartley, Lori Valadez, Albert Valadez, Denise
Davis, Stacy Dannenfelser, Donna J. Brown, Leslie Berridge, Brian
Glover, Randy Brandt, Ivan G. Mieth, Jr., Liz Elliott, Keith
Elliott, Leslie Wetzel, James Tomberlin, John A. Kenagy, Michael D.
Puckett, Thomas B. Miller, Kathy Spitale, Kari Richardson, Leigh
Wilcox, Rex Febus, Patrick Whipple, Rita Whipple, Allison Fey, Lisa
Cox, Doug Folks, Sandra G. Smith, Lou Marini, Jennifer Marini,
Alaina Marini, Michael Molina, II, Sarah Becker, Fred Brown,
Matthew Connell, Charlene Connell, James C. Kallimani, Billy Wayne
Moore, Margie Viola Moore, J.L. Fox, Forrest Jackson, Kellianne
Jackson, T.J. Fabby, Tracy Forde, Joy Mitchell, Cindy Dodson, Jerri
Neese, Donald F. Woodson, Karen Jones, Daniel Miller, Dana Bartels,
Clide Ferreira, David Kimbrough, Wendy Land, Lorin Cardona, Donald
W. Skiles, Jeffery G. Bane, Mary Ross, Jerri Lynn Ward, JD,
Christian Collins, Amanda Huggins, Jack Reagan, Miranda Woodcock,
Mike Sanders, Joey Luder, Alicia Zbylot, Chris Dishman, Donna Holt,
Mary Anne Aiken, Linda Ogden, Nicole Adkins, Jean Shaw, Wendy Peng,
Philip Litton, Maribi S. Litton, Cheryl Carter, Cathy Collins, Tim
Archer, Diane Noskrent, Jeanne Garcia, Peter Allison, Angela
Knittel, Michele Dunham, Patrick Knapick, Shane Reuther, Chelsey
Reuther, J.B. Daniel, Stacy McMahan, Jeanie Huble, Craig Licciardi,
Catherine Masden, George McDonough, Maria Kind, Ann Marek, Sheryl
Hendrix, George Lingenfelder, Charles A. Barron, Karen Dormois,
Teresa Coleman, Monica Kidd, Cathy Crate, Joe Locetta, Carol
Pauwels, Kendal Johnston, David R. Mogill, Billy Graff, David Hill,
Elizabeth Dingman, Carmen Studer, Sharon Wade, Deniz Boyd, Sarah
Gardner, Rosalie Doyle, Margaret Ragland, Dale Bocker, Mollie
Hlebik, Robin Arnold, John Day, Otilia Capistran, Carole H. Haynes,
Ph.D, Shannon Prater, Denell McClure, Marcia Walden, John Mann,
Cindi Salinas, Helen Reyes, Rene Garza, Ann Barfield, James
Preston, Renee Sullins, Alan R. Stearns, Charlene Creek, Phyllis
Anderson, Marilyn Word, Laura Grizzle, Scott Bailey, Andrea
Sallade, Mary Escalante, Linda Canady, Tad Preston, Sylvia
Hallerman, Cathy Wells, B.J. Harman, Debbie Vanderburg, Jan Hinson,
Sheila Ambroz, Marcia Newman, Rose Hutchinson, Teesha Spencer,
Michelle Mittelstaedt, Carol LaFon, Jack Cunningham, Sharon
Morgan-Lind, Gwyn Eury, Krislena Weston, Rebecca Kumar, Virginia
Lamoureux, Jacob Langston, Kimberly Kraus, Beth Heinley, James
Boucher, Joan Engen, Natalia DeLaOssa, Barbara Hawkins, Heather
Harris, Tina Landrum, William Robinson, Wayne Potter, Laura
Stearns, Richard Stoisits, Tanya Adkins, Cheryl Wyble, Alcia
Criswell, Jackie Medina, Lisa Dimmitt, Robert Howle, Eula McKown,
Shonda Juarez, Arturo Galindo, Ronald Lapaglia, Missie Carra, Cliff
Criswell, Hilary Shellhorse, Rhea Robison, Kim Walton, Shelli
Schulgen, James Schulgen, Deborah Hart, Roy Streckfuss, Kate
Buenger, Milton Ryan, Kathryn Krosley, Angelica Clark, LaDona
Willess, Alva Driscoll, Philip Peoples, Austin Brodeur, Candy Hall,
Deanna Briem, Marsha, Bujnoch, Tammy Blair, Krischena Allred, Maria
Maldonado, Charles Johnson, Jenifer Gibson, Doug Cotton, Marty
Whitmire, Maria Solis, Laura Davlin, Carla Robertson, Jason Bailey,
Todd Smith, Ruth York, Todd Hartman, Margo Keller, Linda DeAnda,
Paula Lipsey, Sam Anderson, Betsy Rodriguez, Diane Cole, Kristi
Pendergrass, Candie Shipman, Angela Hooper, Cara Gunia, Sommer
Lapitsky, Rachelle Seaton, Barbara Patton, Katy Martinez, Gina
Cornelius, Deb Neuhuys, Laurie Westenhaver, Rebecca Dahlquist,
Susan Miller, Lisa Wien, Elaine Fleming, Libby Harkey, Marina Von
Bergen, William Landers, Rhesha Landers, Arlene Smart, Michelle
Nelson, Terri McGee, Allison Barton, Tracy Bridges, Veronica
Dayoub, Claudia Turcott, Joelene Lux, Benjamin, Barney, Donald
Clark, Jane Scussel, Starla Malek, Suzy Fitzgerald, Teresa Powell,
Mike coy, Grady Thompson, Doc Greene, Cindy Torio, Eric Sutphin,
Kathy Young, Steven Jones, Sandra Birkline, Debbie Laird, Luella
May, Jerry Pearce, Veronica Pearce, Nancy McConnell, Alan Stearns,
James Villarreal, Brad Birdwell, Rosemary Panici, Gail Atwater,
Kandise Bertelson, Jill Ebel, Ann Hamilton, Karen Gilbert, Sandra
Caldwell, Kim McMahon, Thomas Landry, Debra Stearns, Brian Adkins,
Patrick Wallace, Julie Rainey, Felix Rodriquez, Hannah Zbylot,
Julia Stephens, Dennis Mangrum, William Tolbert, Lynette Lucas,
Amber Collier, John Sprankle, Andrea Sheinbein, James Walker,
Suzanne Johnston, James Dowell, Amy Lindsay, Steve Sills, Kavita
Proothee, Emanuela Rios, Cameron Adom, Fidel Sanchez, Jean Sanchez,
Carre Perry, Jose Rivera, Dee Jones, Yvonne Riley, Lisa Henderson,
Kathleen Airaudi, Tami Smith, Debbie Landry, Alan Tessneer, Beau
Hughes, Holly Craig, William Drennan, Lynn Ford, Christi Cheramie,
Russell Rush, Marie Anne Rush, Debbie Weatherford, Nancy Madson,
Diane Johnson, Joanna Stirt, Wanda McKenzie Best, Roger Morman,
Valerie Murphy, Vicky Milner, Terri Morgan, Jeanne Kelley, Michael,
Yeary, Delaine Shenkir, Janet Currie, Bobby Chamberlain, Debbie
Landrum, Mary Mills, Dianna Rhodes, Tonya Fowler, Gary Wilhide, Ben
Allen, Millee Procella, Lydia Burns, Mechelle Johnson, Matt Bryant,
Susan Butler, Carl Reed, Kathy Boop, Selma Smith, Jennifer Bertino,
Terry Hall, Robert Butler, Joy Montgomery, Kimberly Waltz, clint
McBride, Glenda Piacenti, Bridgett Anderson, CNE Toliver, Michelle
Smith, Dana Larue, James Honey, Shirlene Shears, Johanna Barton,
Sherrie Hairston, Shad Marshall, Roberta Agness, Anastasia Bright,
Melissa Kalina, Christina Tierney, Candice Edwards, Marta Basez,
Angela Hartsock, Teresha Nelson, Kristen Stone, Courtney Hanson,
Alane Beard, Frances Perez, Candida Granados, Denise Hernandez,
Candace Denney, Kenneth Bush, Jim Burns, Wendi Bucher, Chris Biddy,
David Treibs, Kristy Kincaid, Christina Kinder, Richard
Shellenberger, Cory Crouch, Lori Beth Cabrera, Tommie Quider, Amy
Martinez, James Taylor, Melinda Cernero, Debbie Smith Hartwell,
Heather Smith, Rawney McVaney, Zdenka Duran, Bobby Hilliard,
Melissa Ciechanowicz, Kim Foxhoven, Deona Baker, Teresa Taylor,
Steve Galloway, Jan Beck, Elizabeth Austin, Laythan Cloke, Margaret
Coleman, Lizie Pilicy, Sonja Ruehle, Kierstin Cheever, Kaleta
Burgin, Kimberly Loe, Laura Fair, Angela Neywick, Amy Frere, Janeen
Osina, Jose Reyna, Debra Perry, Teresa Dear, Rebecca Gosart, Suzen
West, Julie Jumes, Elizabeth Pamplin, Lind Munroe, Caroline Kyhl,
Melba Parker, Jerry Metker, Debra Scaggs, Audrey Amirian, Rebecca
Staggs, Charys Leal, Lanny Carnley, Meg Longhenry, Caleb
Swackhamer, Matthew Buckley, Christopher Swackhamer, Nicole
Swackhamer, Cassie Allen, Joe Wilson, Aliya Mathiesen, Steve
Groebe, Kimberly Thomas, Jacklyn King, Susan Stogner, Randa
Anderson, Theo Wood, Steve Spence, Sandra Toth, Jennie Klaas,
Gregory Knapp, Nathan Holloway, Ashley Holloway, Billy Owens,
Kristi Young, Monty Suther, Michelle Schrader, Sharon Jones, Joey
Lowery, Kathleen Bosgraaf, Cori Hyland, Cami Dean, Francine
Daniels, Carey Boynton, Deborah Smithson, Jennifer Lopez, Traci
Gervase, Deanna Newman, Brian Howell, Julia Appleton, Gary Cain,
Kandy Davis, Heidi Keller, Amberlyn Belden, Lori Jenkins, Lisa
Sneed, Melanie Stein, Jeanne Jacobs, Mandie Price, Kenneth Mosley,
Lisa McConville, Todd Daughtry, Kelly Chau, Carla Gravenkemper,
Bryan Casalegno, Michelle Knight, Monti Pogue, Cindy David, Suzanne
Blackstone, Jeremy Morvant, Eugene Ralph, Tammy Smith-Maxwell,
Vanya Wolf, Etta Doyle, Monica Stinnett, Gina Olsen, Mary Toland,
Michael LeRoy, Heather McAdow, Tonya Alexander, Lara Feagins,
Suzanne Veal, Carol Daley, Leslie Strickland, Tiffany Duran,
Heather Hultgren, Lana Warren, Erin Naranjo, Julie Jones, Kimberly
Vasquez, Patricia white, John Amann, Marylin Reynolds, Jeffrey
Clark, Linda Howell, Andrew Farrell, Jenny Cudd, Ronald Guidry, Dan
Scott, Deborah Sapp, Charles Smith, Felisa Williams, Michael
Voetee, Donna Voetee, Collettee Rogers, Angela Hampton, Scott
condit, Lyn Trevino, Donald Jones, Elizabeth Pritchard, Tiffany
Kampmann, Alicia Cornell, Cathy Edminster, Ron Speaks, Willard
Kerr, Kristal Quintanilla, Peggy Ploss, Elaina Mango, Charlie
Martin Melinda, Preston, Lori Martin, Janie Brittain, Katy Hardin,
Patricia Nichols, Shannon Ta, Jennifer Maxwell, Michelle
Oberlechner, Audra Stinson, Rowena Harmon, Jeremiah Huter, Jeffery
Reed, Scott Bell, Allison Reed, Luis Duque, Jr., Patricia Kennedy,
Allen K. Neighbors, Wanda W. Griffin, Judi J. Benestante, Ph.D,
John E. Benestante, Rachael Freeman, Rebecca Rogers, Terry Wareham,
Rosa Flores, Cyndi Vara, James Daggett, Stephen McKinley, Jonny
Jahani, Patrick Gallagher, Rachel Gallagher, Hannah Jahani, Tom
Williamson, Vicki Williamson, Emily Jackson, Gregory T. Harrop,
Lynda Harrop, Betty J. Winters, Charles A. Mulvena, Josefina
Mulvena, and Katherine Pratt.

Texas is a state in the South Central Region of the United States.
Texas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and
population.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared Woodfill, Esq.
          WOODFILL LAW FIRM, PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 750
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 751-3080
          Facsimile: (713) 751-3058
          E-mail: woodfillservice@gmail.com
                  jwoodfill@woodfilllaw.com


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Bang Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WM BANG LLC and BANG LLC D/B/A BANG, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 7:20-cv-04540-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 12,
2020), alleges that the Defendant has systematically refused to pay
all their insureds for losses suffered connected to the COVID-19
pandemic and/or civil authority orders, regardless of whether the
implicated insurance policy has an applicable pandemic exclusion or
not.

When Bang suffered an actual loss of perishable goods, and Business
Income as a result of a Covered Cause of Loss and needed its
Business Personal Property, Business Income, and Civil Authority
coverages, the Defendant wrongfully--in contravention of the
policy--denied Bang's insurance claim, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends in the policy, the Defendant agreed to pay
"for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property caused
by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss." A Covered Cause of
Loss is defined as all "RISKS OF DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS" except those
that are expressly and specifically listed in the Limitations or
Exclusions sections of the policy.

Bang is a restaurant located in The Westchester. The Westchester is
a shopping mall located in downtown White Plains, New York. Like
many businesses in New York, including restaurants, Bang was forced
to significantly curtail its services due to Orders issued by the
State of New York in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. Bang
also suffered loss of Business Personal Property in the form of
food stock loss.

Travelers Casualty operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers property and casualty insurance service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: 917-471-1894
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-875-4656
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Telephone: 919-600-5000
          Facsimile: 919-600-5035
          E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                  pat@whitfieldbryson.com


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Poughkeepsie Sues Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Poughkeepsie Waterfront Development, LLC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
AMERICA, and THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
7:20-cv-04890-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' breach of their contractual obligations under common
general commercial property insurance policies.

According to the complaint, these Policies are supposed to
indemnify the Plaintiff for business losses and extra expenses, and
related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to
stop the human to human and surface to human spread of the COVID-19
pandemic.

The result of these government-mandated restrictions and
prohibitions has threatened the survival of many businesses,
especially small and medium enterprises, which have been forced to
shut down operations, lose cash flow, and furlough employees--while
continuing to pay for substantial existing obligations and
overhead, according to the complaint. The COVID-19 crisis is
especially acute for non-essential businesses, including businesses
dependent on their ability to tenants operate on their premises,
allow customers to visit, and pay rent.

The Plaintiff purchased Commercial General Liability Coverage from
the Defendants on September 3, 2019, for a period from September 1,
2019, through September 1, 2020. The Defendants have reneged on
their obligations and have refused to cover business income losses
and other covered expenses incurred by the Plaintiff caused by the
government mandated COVID-19 pandemic closure. Consistent with New
York insurance claims handling standards, the Plaintiff says it had
the right to rely on the Defendants to handle its insurance claim
for business interruption losses in a manner consistent with the
standards of good faith and fair dealing. Unfortunately for the
Plaintiff, the Defendants denied the claim in its entirety.

The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop its spread triggers coverage, has caused
physical property loss and damage to the insured property, provides
coverage for future civil authority orders that curtail
policyholders' business operations, and finds that Defendants are
liable for the corresponding business losses suffered by
policyholders.

Plaintiff Poughkeepsie is the landlord for the building and
property at 176 Rinaldi Boulevard in Poughkeepsie--the location of
Shadows on the Hudson restaurant and The Grandview event venue.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a major U.S. insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Sami Ahmad, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1 N Broadway Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone 914-298-3290
          Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                 gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                 sahmad@fbfglaw.com


TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Anderson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE ANDERSON, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELEX INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC. and TRANSAMERICA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-CV-362 (D. Neb.), Judge John M. Gerrard
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denied both
(i) the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (ii) the Plaintiff's
motion for hearing.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims for damages and
restitution for herself and others similarly situated, concerning
the Defendants' refusal to return a pro rata share of the premium
she paid for travel insurance.  The pro rata share the Plaintiff
seeks is the amount that can be attributed to post-departure
coverages, and is owed to the Plaintiff because she had to cancel
her travel plans.  As such, according to the Plaintiff's complaint,
the Defendants were never at risk of having to cover any
post-departure perils because the Plaintiff canceled her travel
plans prior to her scheduled departure.  The Defendants initially
moved for dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The Court denied the Defendants' motion,
finding that the Plaintiff stated a plausible claim for relief on
theories of unjust enrichment and violation of the Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act.

As the matter has progressed, the parties reached an impasse in
discovery.  The Plaintiff sought discovery regarding all
single-trip travel insurance plans the defendants provide through a
variety of channels.  The Defendants would only produce discovery
regarding the specific travel insurance plan purchased by the
Plaintiff, and refused to respond to the plaintiff's discovery
requests regarding the other 200-plus travel protection plans sold
through Travelex and underwritten by Transamerica from 2012 through
2018.

The Magistrate Judge held a telephone conference regarding the
discovery impasse in November 2019.  The Defendants argued that the
Plaintiff only had standing to litigate her claims with respect to
the specific travel insurance plan she purchased, and did not have
standing to litigate claims regarding the defendants' other
insurance plans.  Because Article III standing would be
theoretically dispositive regarding a large number of the
Plaintiff's possible representative claims, the Magistrate Judge
ordered the Defendants to file a motion regarding standing, which
the Defendants did.  The Defendants' Article III standing motion is
the matter now before the Court.

The Defendants' argument concerns the Article III standing
requirement of actual injury.  In this regard, they do not argue
that the Plaintiff's complaint does not allege an actual injury for
herself, but that her alleged actual injury only extends to those
products of the kind actually purchased by the Plaintiff.  The
Defendants assert that the travel insurance plan the Plaintiff
purchased, the Just Air Ticket plan, is a unique product,
customized, priced, and sold exclusively to Just Air Ticket
customers.  According to the Defendants, the Just Air Ticket plan
differs substantially from the defendants' other travel insurance
plans in a variety of ways, and there is no question that the
Defendants' other travel insurance plans are distinct products sold
to a different class of customers with different features than the
Just Air Ticket plan purchased by the Plaintiff.

Judge Gerrard finds that there is an absence of evidence suggesting
that the Plaintiff's claim and alleged injury is so different from
the possible claims and injuries of putative class members, such
that the exception to the general standing requirement for class
actions should not apply.  Accordingly, Judge Gerrard finds that
the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) should be denied.

The Judge's ruling does not address, in any way, whether the
Plaintiff is an appropriate representative to litigate a class of
claims regarding all of the Defendants' travel insurance policies.
That issue will be addressed when considering class certification.
But at this juncture, the Plaintiff's standing to sue is not in
dispute.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff is a proper party to raise the
issues presented in her complaint, and there is no further class
action standing requirement for the Plaintiff to meet, the Court
opines.

Finally, the parties ask the Court to resolve their discovery
dispute.  That is a pending matter (or perhaps a matter held in
abeyance) before the Magistrate Judge and not currently before the
Court for resolution.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gerrard denied the Defendants' motion
to dismiss, and the Plaintiff's motion for hearing.  

The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for case
progression.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum
& Order is available at https://is.gd/zwfaaB from Leagle.com.

Michelle Anderson, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Burke Smith --
burke@burkesmithlaw.com -- BURKE SMITH, Ingrid Evans --
ingrid@evanslaw.com -- EVANS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, John G.
Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- BERGER, MONTAGUE LAW FIRM, Lane L.
Vines -- lvines@bm.net -- BERGER, MONTAGUE LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Peter R. Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- BERGER, MONTAGUE LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice & Yechiel M. Twersky -- mitwersky@bm.net -- BERGER,
MONTAGUE LAW FIRM, pro hac vice.

Travelex Insurance Services Inc. & Transamerica Casualty Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by Andres F. Chagui --
achagui@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON, FIELDS LAW FIRM, Julianna T.
McCabe, CARLTON, FIELDS LAW FIRM, Markham R. Leventhal --
mleventhal@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON, FIELDS LAW FIRM & Michael
N. Wolgin -- mwolgin@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON, FIELDS LAW
FIRM.


TWC ADMINISTRATION: Gibbs Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Laurence Gibbs, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Laurence Gibbs, et al. v. TWC
Administration LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01513-DMS-AGS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San
Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 3,
2020, Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Time Warner provides video, high-speed data, and voice services to
customers in the United States. Defendant Time Warner Cable
("TWC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Time Warner, directs Time
Warner's daily business practices. Plaintiffs Gibbs, Matthew
Lutack, Brent Quick, and Jessica Hueneberg worked as customer
service professionals ("CSRs") and call center leads for Defendant
Time Warner Cable ("TWC" or "Defendant") in San Diego and Ontario,
California.

At all times relevant to the action, the Plaintiffs were non-exempt
employees. As such, they were entitled to scheduled meal and rest
periods. TWC maintained a policy regulating off-the-clock work,
meal breaks, and rest breaks. Despite the policy, the Plaintiffs
contend TWC's phone system required off-the-clock work at the
beginning of their shifts. As such, they allege TWC required
off-the-clock work because they spent time loading their programs
before clocking in.

In addition to off-the-clock claims, Plaintiffs Quick, Gibbs, and
Hueneberg testified to missing meal breaks because their jobs
involved fielding high volumes of customer service calls during
their shifts. Further, they all testified to notifying supervisors
of either missed meal or rest breaks.

The appellate case is captioned as Laurence Gibbs, et al. v. TWC
Administration LLC, et al., Case No. 20-80018, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners LAURENCE GIBBS, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, MATTHEW LUTACK, BRENT
QUICK, and JESSICA HUENEBERG, are represented by:

          David Roger Markham, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          3636 Fourth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: mrealin@markham-law.com

Defendant-Respondent TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Carr, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          515 S. Flower Street, 36th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (404) 213-3987
          E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Ozmer, II, Esq.
          Paul G. Sherman, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (470) 447-0603
          E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com
                  psherman@kcozlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Transgenders Class Sought in Immigration Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as C.G.B., et al. v. WOLF, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01072-CRC (D. Colo.), the Petitioners ask the
Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all transgender people in civil immigration detention who
   are held, or who will be held, by Respondents in any U.S.
   detention center or facility during the pendency of the
   COVID-19 pandemic."[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory P. Copeland, Esq.
          Sarah T. Gillman, Esq.
          RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004-1490
          Telephone: (212) 843-0910
          Facsimile: (212) 257-7033
          E-mail: gregory@defensenetwork.org
                  sarah@defensenetwork.org

               - and -

          Lynly S. Egyes, Esq.
          TRANSGENDER LAW CENTER
          PO Box 70976
          Oakland, CA 94612-0976
          Telephone: (973) 454-6325
          Facsimile: (917) 677-6614
          E-mail: lynly@transgenderlawcenter.or

               - and -

          Matthew E. Kelley, Esq.
          Leslie E. John, Esq.
          Elizabeth Weissert, Esq.
          Alex Levy, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1909 K Street, NW - 12th Floor
          Telephone: (202) 661-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 661-6299
          E-mail: kelleym@ballardspahr.com
                  johnl@ballardspahr.com
                  weisserte@ballardspahr.com
                  levya@ballardspahr.com

USDA: Hall & Summers Seek to Certify Class of SNAP Recipients
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBIN HALL and STEVEN
SUMMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and GEORGE
ERVIN "SONNY" PERDUE III, in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of Agriculture, Case No. 4:20-cv-03454-HSG (N.D.. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

       "SNAP recipients in California who have been deemed
       eligible to receive, are receiving, or will receive the
       regular maximum monthly SNAP allotment for their
       household size from March 2020 until the Secretary for
       Health and Human Services rescinds the COVID-19 public
       health emergency declaration or the State-issued
       emergency or disaster declaration expires"; and

   2. appointing of class counsel.

This case challenges USDA's alleged misinterpretation of section
2302(a)(1) of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA),
which it has used to prevent California's most vulnerable
recipients -- those currently receiving the maximum regular monthly
benefit -- from getting supplemental emergency benefits.

SNAP is the country's largest anti-hunger program. It provides food
to over forty million low-income individuals and families and is
often the last resource to stave off hunger for children and adults
across the country.

Congress passed the FFCRA in March 2020 in response to the public
health emergency created by the global pandemic. Section 2302(a)(1)
of the Act directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to permit
states to provide "emergency allotments" to households
participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, previously known as the Food Stamp program). The statute
requires that these allotments "address temporary food needs and be
"not greater than the applicable maximum monthly allotments for the
household size."[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

VALDEZ PAINTING: Brasier Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUN BRASIER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. VALDEZ PAINTING,
INCORPORATED, a California Corporation; & DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00272761, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
June 17, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00581 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the California Labor Code.

Valdez's line of business include painting contractors, wall
coverings & wallpapers, and coatings--protective, decorative.[BN]

Defendant Valdez Painting is represented by:

          Matthew J. Ruggles, Esq.
          RUGGLES LAW FIRM
          7940 California Avenue
          Fair Oaks, CA 95628
          Telephone: (916) 758-8058
          Facsimile: (916) 758-8048
          E-mail: mruggles@ruggleslawfirm.com


WALGREEN CO: Le Appeals C.D. Cal. Order in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marcie Le and Karen Dao filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in her lawsuit titled Marcie Le, et al. v. Walgreen
Co., et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The questions presented are: 1) Did the court err by denying class
certification despite the existence of common evidence in the form
of standard company Rest Break and Performance Policies that
applied classwide? 2) Did the court make a fundamental legal error
by misinterpreting controlling precedent from the California State
Supreme Court? and 3) Did the court err by failing to perform the
"rigorous analysis" required by Rule 23 and Supreme Court and Ninth
Circuit precedent?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 18,
2020, the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

   "all persons who are and/or were employed as non-exempt
    pharmacists by Walgreens in any Walgreens' California retail
    store or express pharmacy between July 27, 2014 and the date
    of trial."

The Court said, "Given that the Plaintiffs' rest break claim does
not survive the predominance analysis, the Plaintiffs' derivative
claims are also not appropriate for class certification. In sum,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not met the burden of
demonstrating that the California Class satisfy the requirements of
[Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied
as to the derivative claims."

The Plaintiffs bring class claims for the Defendants' failure to
provide rest periods, or premium pay in lieu thereof; and failure
to provide complete and accurate wage statements under California
Labor Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcie Le, et al. v. Walgreen
Co, et al., Case No. 20-80101, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners MARCIE LE and KAREN DAO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lin Yee Chan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lchan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

Defendants-Respondents WALGREEN CO, an Illinois corporation;
WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company; and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Christopher John Archibald, Esq.
          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
          Irvine, CA 92612-4414
          Telephone: (949) 223-7341
          E-mail: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
                  allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com


WEATHERTECH DIRECT: Sosa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yona Sosa, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. WEATHERTECH DIRECT, LLC,, Case No. 1:20-cv-04901
(S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://www.weathertech.com/, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint.
Because the Defendants' Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

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

WEATHERTECH DIRECT, LLC, operates the Weathertech online retail
store across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com


WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: CUTPA Claims Dismissal Vacated in L.S. Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, L.S., Appellant, v. WEBLOYALTY.COM, INC., GAMESTOP
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, AMAZON.COM, INC., VISA INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-3639 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the
Connecticut District Court's grant of summary judgment favor of the
Webloyalty and Gamestop.

In the putative consumer class action, Plaintiff L.S. appeals from
a grant of summary judgment dismissing claims against the
Defendants under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
("CUTPA") and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA").  The
parties agree that the district court improperly dismissed L.S.'s
CUTPA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Therefore,
the only contested issue is whether the district court properly
granted summary judgment on L.S.'s EFTA claim against Webloyalty.

L.S. contends that Webloyalty failed to provide him with a "copy"
of his authorization of recurring monthly charges to his bank
account in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1693e(a).  Webloyalty
argues that it satisfied EFTA's "copy of such authorization"
requirement by sending a confirmation email containing the material
terms and conditions of the authorized electronic fund transfers.

The Second Circuit agrees with the district court that L.S.'
cramped interpretation of EFTA is inconsistent with the
common-sense meaning, context, and statutory purpose of the "copy"
requirement.  The Second Circuit thus holds that: (1) EFTA did not
require Webloyalty to provide L.S. with a duplicate of the webpage
on which he provided authorization for recurring fund transfers;
and (2) Webloyalty's email to L.S. was sufficient.  

L.S. has offered no convincing argument that his narrow reading
conforms more closely to the plain meaning or stated purpose of the
statute.  On the contrary, it conflicts with the CFPB's Official
Interpretations of Regulation E, which implements EFTA's "copy"
requirement the person that obtains the payment authorization must
provide a copy of the terms of the authorization to the consumer
either electronically or in paper form.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirms the district court's
holding that EFTA's copy requirement may be satisfied by providing
the consumer with an email containing the terms of the
preauthorized electronic fund transfer he has authorized from his
account.

Because the district court improperly dismissed L.S.' CUTPA claims
against the Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the
Second Circuit vacates the judgment of dismissal, and remands for
further proceedings.  Having determined that Webloyalty's testimony
was credible, the district court reasonably concluded that the
possibility that there were more potential errors, or that there
was deliberate interference with the automated system, was too
speculative to justify further discovery.  The Second Circuit
agrees with the district court that Webloyalty satisfied its
obligation under EFTA by sending L.S. the Join Email, a
contemporaneous communication that fully revealed the terms,
conditions, and monthly debit card charges under the program in
question.

The district court apparently rejected the application of CAFA
jurisdiction on the basis that there may be a conflict emanating
from CUTPA's class action limitations if this claim were to remain
in federal court, the Second Circuit notes.  But aside from certain
statutory exceptions that do not apply in the case, subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA is not discretionary; and the likelihood of
class certification or success on the merits had no bearing on the
district court's jurisdiction over L.S.' putative CUTPA
class-action claim in the first instance.  Therefore, the Second
Circuit agrees with the parties that the dismissal of L.S.' CUTPA
claim should be vacated, and the case remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.

L.S. requests that the case be assigned to a different judge on
remand.  L.S. expresses a fear the district court cannot be
expected to put its previously-expressed opinions out of mind while
further presiding over the case.  However, nothing substantiates
the concern; the fact that the district court ruled against L.S.
for a second time on remand is insufficient alone to call into
question Judge Haight's impartiality or jeopardize the appearance
of justice.  Accordingly, the Second Circuit declines to reassign
the case to a new judge on remand.

The Second Circuit has considered L.S.'s remaining arguments and
concluded that they are meritless.  

In sum, the Second Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's grant
of summary judgment on L.S.'s EFTA claim; but (ii) vacated the
district court's judgment dismissing L.S.'s CUTPA claims against
Webloyalty and Gamestop, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's March 20, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/w6XXuF from Leagle.com.

DAVID C. KATZ -- dkatz@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP, New York,
NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant L.S.

MARK C. FLEMING -- MARK.FLEMING@WILMERHALE.COM -- (John J. Butts --
JOHN.BUTTS@WILMERHALE.COM -- Timothy J. Perla --
TIMOTHY.PERLA@WILMERHALE.COM -- Jessica R. Lisak --
JESSICA.LISAK@WILMERHALE.COM -- Paloma Naderi --
PALOMA.NADERI@WILMERHALE.COM -- on the brief), Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, for Defendants-Appellees
Webloyalty.com, Inc. and GameStop Corporation.


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Appeals Order in Kirkland IPO Disclosure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the
Decision and Order of the New York Supreme Court, New York County,
issued on May 18, 2020, in the matter styled JEFF KIRKLAND, ANTHONY
FIORE, AND EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC
POWER AUTHORITY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WIDEOPENWEST, INC., STEVEN COCHRAN, RICHARD E. FISH,
JR., DAVID FREDERICK BURGSTAHLER, BRIAN CASSIDY, DANIEL KILPATRICK,
JEFFREY MARCUS, PHIL SESKIN, JOSHUA TAMAROFF, AVISTA CAPITAL
PARTNERS, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.,
EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., LIONTREE
ADVISORS LLC, AND RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
653248/2018.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action brought in connection with the Defendants' Initial Public
Offering commencing May 25, 2017, and closed May 31, 2017, alleging
that the Defendants negligently issued untrue statements of
material facts and omitted material facts from the Registration
Statement and incorporated Prospectus that the Defendants filed
with the SEC in support of the Offering, in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, between May 25, 2017, and May 31, 2017,
WideOpenWest conduct its IPO in which it offered 20,970,589 shares
for sale at a price of $17 per share, totaling more than $356
million before deductions for the Underwriters' discount,
commissions and estimated expenses. The shares of 18,235,295 were
initially offered plus an additional option held by the
Underwriters for an over-allotment of 2,735,294 which was fully
exercised.

On May 31, 2017, WideOpenWest announced the closing of the IPO.
Upon the close of the Offering and accounting for the underwriter
discount commission of $0.8925 per share, WideOpenWest raised
proceeds of $337.8 millioin.

On August 1, 2017, WideOpenWest announced its plan to sell its
Chicago fiber network to a subsidiary of Verizon for $225 million
in cash. The transaction was completed in December 2017. On March
14, 2018, WideOpenWest issued its financial results for the fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2017, each ended December 31, 2017,
announcing a full year decline in total revenue of 4%. WideOpenWest
also announced that it was required to record a $147.4 million
impairment to indefinite-lived intangible assets and goodwill,
purportedly primarily to WideOpenWest's stock price decline. On May
11, 2018, WideOpenWest announced that for the quarter ending March
31, 2018, it recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $256.4
million.

In response to these disclosures, WideOpenWest's stock plunged more
than 23% on March 15, 2018 to a closing price of $7.04, nearly 59%
below the IPO price.

WideOpenWest's common stock continues to trade at depressed levels,
trading at a closing price of $9.44 as of the date of the
complaint, representing a loss of 44% from the IPO price.

As a result of the materially misleading Offering Materials, the
price of WideOpenWest's common stock was artificially inflated at
the time of the Offering, the Plaintiffs contend.

The appellate case is captioned as JEFF KIRKLAND, ANTHONY FIORE,
AND EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER
AUTHORITY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, -against- WIDEOPENWEST, INC., STEVEN COCHRAN, RICHARD E.
FISH, JR., DAVID FREDERICK BURGSTAHLER, BRIAN CASSIDY, DANIEL
KILPATRICK, JEFFREY MARCUS, PHIL SESKIN, JOSHUA TAMAROFF, AVISTA
CAPITAL PARTNERS, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., LIONTREE
ADVISORS LLC, AND RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
2020-02789, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants WideOpenWest, Inc., Steven Cochran, Richard
E. Fish, Jr., David Frederick Burgstahler, Brian Cassidy, Daniel
Kilpatrick, Jeffrey Marcus, Phil Seskin, Joshua Tamaroff, and
Avista are represented by:

          Michael B. Carlinsky, Esq.
          Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
          Jesse Bernstein, Esq.
          Leigha Empson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com
                  jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com
                  jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com
                  leighaempson@quinnemanuel.com

Defendants-Appellants UBS Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc., Evercore Group L.L.C., Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., LionTree
Advisors LLC, and Raymond James & Associates, Inc. are represented
by:

          Marshall R. King, Esq.
          Brad Schoenfeldt, Esq.
          Alyssa Kuhn, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: mking@gibsondunn.com
                  bschoenfeldt@gibsondunn.com
                  akuhn@gibsondunn.com


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: EarthLink Merger Related Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend
several purported shareholder class action suits related to its
merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp.

On February 27, 2017, Windstream Holdings completed its merger with
EarthLink Holdings Corp. ("EarthLink"), a leading provider of data,
voice and managed network services to retail and wholesale business
customers and nationwide Internet access and related value-added
services to residential customers.

Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain
of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related
lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink in February
2017.

Two putative shareholders have filed separate purported shareholder
class action complaints in federal court in Arkansas and state
court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., et.
al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
respectively.

Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were
filed during the fourth quarter of 2018 in Arkansas federal court
on behalf of Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v.
Wells, et. al., and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et. al.

All of the complaints contain similar assertions and claims of
alleged securities law violations and breaches of fiduciary duties
related to the disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
soliciting shareholder approval of the merger, which the plaintiffs
allege were inadequate and misleading.

Suggestions of Bankruptcy and Notices of the Automatic Stay were
filed with regard to the Murray, Yadegarian and Graham cases, but
the Plaintiffs challenged the applicability of the stay with regard
to non-debtor defendants.

Windstream filed an adversary proceeding motion with the Bankruptcy
Court regarding this challenge. At a hearing on Windstream's
adversary proceeding motion conducted on June 17, 2019, the
Bankruptcy court agreed to lift the automatic stay temporarily to
allow the federal court presiding over the Murray case to hear
arguments regarding Windstream's motion to dismiss because it was
procedural in nature.

Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held August 22, 2019,
but a ruling has not yet been issued by the federal court. In the
Yadegarian case, Windstream agreed to lift the automatic stay for
the limited purpose of allowing the state court to rule on pending
Motions to Stay or Dismiss filed by Windstream.

Both motions were heard on November 18, 2019, with the state court
granting the Motion to Stay, pending a decision in the Murray
case.

While the plaintiffs in the Murray case filed a proof of claim for
an undetermined monetary amount, neither the plaintiffs in the
Yadegarian nor Graham cases submitted proof of claims.

Windstream said, "We believe that we have valid defenses for each
of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the pursuit of
all matters. While the ultimate resolution of the matters is not
currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling in any of
these matters, the ruling could constitute a material adverse
outcome on the future consolidated results of our income, cash
flows, or financial condition."

Windstream did not file a Suggestion of Bankruptcy as a result of
the filing of the Chapter 11 cases with regard to this matter as it
was determined it would fall under a regulatory exception and is
precluded from the automatic stay.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and
technology solutions in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. On
February 25, 2019, Windstream Holdings, Inc. along with its 202
affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York.


WSP2 LLC: Rorie Seeks Minimum Wage and Earned Tips for Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL RORIE and JUSTIN BAKER, Each Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. WSP2, LLC, and JOSEPH CLAYTON
SUTTLE, Case No. 5:20-cv-05106-TLB (W.D. Ark., June 17, 2020),
asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiffs and others minimum wage and earned tips.

Plaintiff Rorie was employed as an hourly-paid Server from January
2018 until June 2020. Plaintiff Baker was employed as an
hourly-paid Server and Manager from January of 2018 until June
2020.

WSP2 does business as Wood Stone Craft Pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          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: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


YGRENE ENERGY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Woolley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc., and Ygrene Energy Fund
Florida, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled George Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01258-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of a national class and California and
Florida subclasses, sue Ygrene Energy for fraud relating to
home-improvement loans.

The appellate case is captioned as George Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene
Energy Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80019, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners GEORGE W. WOOLLEY, KIMBERLY LOOK, TAMMY S.
WOOLLEY, ALEJANDRO MARCEY, FELICIA MARCEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, ANTHONY LOOK, Jr., and
GRACHIAN L. SMITH are represented by:

          Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          360 East 2nd Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 254-480
          E-mail: janderson@klwtlaw.com
                  glippsmith@klwtlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
          KASDAN SIMONDS RILEY & VAUGHAN, LLP
          19900 MacArthur Blvd.
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 851-9000
          E-mail: kkasdan@kasdancdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

Defendants-Respondents YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC. and YGRENE ENERGY
FUND FLORIDA, LLC, are represented by:

          Ali Abugheida, Esq.
          Fredrick S. Levin, Esq.
          Michael Rome, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 424-3900
          E-mail: aabugheida@buckleyfirm.com
                  flevin@buckleyfirm.com
                  mrome@buckleyfirm.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 29 PI Suits at April 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing 29 pending asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits as of April 30, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2020.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires.  As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the
use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the
future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss,
personal injury or property damage or violated environmental,
health or safety or other laws.

"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design,
a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties.  In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979.

"Since 2002 and as of April 30, 2020, approximately 1,007
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we
vigorously defend against them.  Of these, 968 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 29 are pending and only 10 have been
settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our
financial condition or operating results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/f3do3j


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HB Fuller Settled Two Suits for US$30,000
----------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 30, 2020, that it settled two asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims for US$30,000 in the six months ended May 31, 2020.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.  Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation.  However, certain of
our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of defense costs, settlements and judgments allocable
to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PAdZYT



                            *********

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 ***