/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201222.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 255

                            Headlines

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Skiadas Putative Class Suit Ongoing
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Pharmaceutical Firms Sue Over Multi-Drug Conspiracy
ADMIRAL INDEMNITY: Court Dismisses Cetta's COVID-19-Related Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: Seeks Review on Plaintiff's Class Certification

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Carino Files Suit in California
AGENTRA LLC: Court Allows Abboud to Intervene in Abramson TCPA Suit
AIRBNB: Shares Up 112% After Public Market First Day of Trading
ALPINE DIGITAL: Henderson Files TCPA Suit in Colorado
AMERICAN WEB LOAN: McDaniel Suit Transferred to W. Va. Dist. Ct.

ANCESTRY.COM: Faces Bonilla Suit Over Improper Business Practices
APPLE INC: Agreed Validation Protocol OK'd in Epic, Cameron Suits
APYX MEDICAL: Obligations in J-Plasma(R) Related Suit Fully Paid
ARCHON INC: Saiyed Wins Default Judgment on Some FLSA Claims
ARDEN FAIR: Brooks Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users

ATLAS OIL: Fails to Pay Oilfield Workers' OT, Dean Suit Claims
BAE SYSTEMS: Cordova Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Revisit Denial of Dismissal Bid
BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 28 Deadline

BERRY CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 21 Deadline
BILLIE INC: Angeles Files Suit under Americans w/ Disabilities Act
BIOGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline
BLANK LABEL GROUP: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Nix Johansen Suit Pending

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Continues to Defend Boyd Class Action
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Putative Class Suit Underway
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 2021
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed
BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: Sanchez Alleges Violation under ADA

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 2 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline
BUFF BAKE INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in New York

C&W FACILITY: Ramirez Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
CANCUN AND CANCUN: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
CANGSHAN INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
CCC INFORMATION: Niemis Contract Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
CELSION CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 28 Deadline

CENTURY HEALTH STAFFING: Erguera Files Suit in California
CEPHALON INC: Public Schools Sue Over Unfair Marketing of Opioids
CHARLES SCHWAB: Cargo Order Routing Litigation Ongoing
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Seeks to Certify Sales Reps Class
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement Talks on Royalties Suits Reopened

CHICAGO KNIFE WORKS: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Garitano Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. Colorado
CHRISTMAS INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
CIMAREX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dolan Suit Alleges
CITIGROUP INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 29 Deadline

CITIGROUP INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of December 29 Deadline
CMR CONSTRUCTION: Shinn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
COLLIVE CORP: Suris Alleges Violation under ADA
COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Chavez Files FDCPA Suit in New York
CONQUEST COMPLETION: Sanchez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Underway
COVETRUS INC: Suit by Hollywood, Fla. Cops Retirement Sys. Pending
COVIA HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Feb. 8 Deadline
CREDIT PROTECTION: Watkins Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
CRISLU CORPORATION: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA

CUSTOM PERSONALIZATION: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
CWI INC: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
DALE E. KLOSS: Haynie Files Suit in Arkansas
DALLAS JONES: Shortchanges Truck Drivers' Wages, McClurg Says
DCS ALL AMERICAN: Kibodeaux Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES: Faces Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Testing
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Court Grants More time to Respond in Adams Suit
DINGXIANG INC: Du Wins Conditional Collective Certification
DISH NETWORK: 4th Circuit Declines to Consider "Premature" Appeal
DJI TECHNOLOGY: Bishop Files Suit in New York under ADA

DONOTPAY INC: Hufnus Files TCPA Suit in California
EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend Class Suits in New Jersey
EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Russo Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sports Betting Operators Monitor Gamers' Suit
FEEDERS SUPPLY CO: Tucker Files Suit in New York under ADA

FIGO PET INSURANCE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in New York
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Baniyeva Files Suit under Breach of FDCPA
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Blanks Seeks Refund of Gym Membership Fees
FORD MOTOR CO: Lund Files Suit in Arkansas
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 26 Deadline

FOUNDATION BUILDING: Bushansky Challenges $1.37-B Proposed Merger
FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Another Suit Over Defective Vortec Engines
GEORGIA NUT: Rosario FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Miranda Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval

GOOGLE LLC: McCready Slams App Market Monopolization
GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Putative Class Action in California Underway
GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Class Action Ongoing
HAIN CELESTIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Ongoing

HARTFORD GOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Scheff Says
HERBIVORE BOTANICALS: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
HOWMET AEROSPACE: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
IDEANOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Rudani Putative Class Suit
IDEANOMICS INC: Lundy and Kim Suits Consolidated

INDIGO DYE GROUP: Belton Files TCPA Suit in California
INT'L FLAVORS: Bid to Dismiss Jansen Putative Class Suit Pending
INT'L FLAVORS: Securities Class Suits Ongoing in Tel Aviv
INT'L FLAVORS: Yehudai's $20MM Bonus Related Suit Stayed
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 4 Deadline

INTERFACE INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 11 Deadline
J. GIVOO: Parties in Gilbertson Suit Agree to Collective Status
JEFFERS INC: Tucker Files Suit in New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Udani Consumer Suit Goes to C.D. California
JOYY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline

JWB PROPERTIES: Class of Servers, Bartenders Certified in Fischer
K12 INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
KANSAS: Unemployed Kansans Plan to Join in Labor Class Action
KINGSTONE COS: Considers Woolgar Putative Class Suit Closed
KURT S. ADLER INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA

KUSHAGRAM INC: Faces Nieman Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses May Class Suit
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Facing Choate Putative Class Suit in California
LA JOLLA BEACH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Staff, Fuentes Says
LAKES VENTURE: Marcum's Conditional Class Status Bid Granted

LEGAL LEADS: Faces Sloatman Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Gaviria Files Suit in New Jersey
LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Still Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit vs. LLANY Underway
LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Suit Still Pending
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
MAGFORMERS LLC: Duncan Files ADA Suit in New York

MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Suit Seeks Class Certification
MARY JANE: Jennings Files FDCPA Suit in Michigan
MASK POT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ding Suit Alleges
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Bodovinac Files FDCPA Suit in Nevada
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Martin Files FDCPA Suit in Florida

MENARD INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Earls' Consumer-Fraud Claims
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Atkins Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Dismissal of Miller Putative Class Suit Affirmed
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Bernstein Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline

MINNESOTA: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Prisoners Suit
MOBILELINK LOUISIANA: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Scott et al. Claim
MODERNIZING MEDICINE: AIPD Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Enderle Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah

N&C CLAIMS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Amoko Suit Alleges
NATIONAL ELITE: Faces Barnes Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NESTLE WATERS: Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
NEW JERSEY: District Court Dismisses Greco Suit With Prejudice
NOODLE TO NOODLE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Angel Suit Alleges

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suits Ongoing
OJ SMITH: FLSA/NCWHA Collective, Classes Certified in Gonzalez Suit
OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Class Suit in New Jersey
OTTAWA, MI: Grainger Seeks to Certify Class of Real Property Owners
PACIFICORP: James Putative Class Suit Underway

PAIGELAUREN ENTERPRISES: Nisbett Seeks Blind's Full Website Access
PAPER CULTURE LLC: Duncan Asserts Breach of ADA
PERKINS COIE: Dam Sues Over Cryptocurrency Investment Scheme
PHH MORTGAGE: Culver Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
PHI AIR: Marshall Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California

POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Bid to Junk Soto-Melendez Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Dismissal of Maura Class Suit Under Appeal
POPULAR INC: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Suit
POPULAR INC: Petition for Rehearing in Camacho Suit Pending

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Danford Files Suit Under FDCPA
QIWI PLC: Faces Ochakof Suit Over 20.6% Drop in Share Price
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Norris Sues Over 7% Drop in Share Price
RCN TELECOM: Reid Seeks to Certify Customers Class & Subclass

READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits
REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Marin County
REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gavric Suit Claims
REWALK ROBOTICS: IPO Related Securities Class Suit Underway
ROI SOLUTIONS: Stenulson Seeks to Certify Call-Center Agents Class

RTS PACKAGING: Oregel Files Suit in California
SAFELITE GROUP: Elliott Seeks Unpaid OT for Repair Technicians
SAINT ELIZABETH: Walkinshaw Wins Collective Action Certification
SAPUTO DAIRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reed Suit Alleges
SEIDLER OIL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Telemarketing Messages

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Schall Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Bid to Nix Illinois Combined Suit Tossed
SKIDATA INC: Hyoguchi Torts Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
SKIMS BODY INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA

SLEEPY'S LLC: Gundell Seeks to Certify New Jersey Consumers Class
SMOKY MOUNTAIN KNIFE: Duncan Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
SMS TRANSPORTATION: Hundley Sues Over Retaliation & Termination
SOLACE ORAL: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Sedaghatfar Suit Alleges
SOLIANT HEALTH: Johnson Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defends Wasa Medical Holdings & Calvo Suits
SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Harding Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Shea's Bid to Certify Class Denied
SPEEDY CASH: Faces Caldera Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SPLUNK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline

STEPHEN HERETICK: Class Status Bid in Dockery Suit Denied as Moot
SUNRISE SENIOR: Altamirano Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
SUNRISE SENIOR: Goldberg FMLA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Burgos Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
TEXAS MACULAR: Faces Nieman Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Can Compel Hansen to Arbitrate Claims
ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: MMA Fighters Get OK for Lawsuit
ULTRA MUSIC: Ticketholders Class Suit Forced Into Arbitration
UNDER ARMOUR: Dill Sues Over Mislabeled Apparel Products
UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Claims

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Robins Disputes Debt Allegation
VELODYNE LIDAR: Case Management Conference Set for Feb. 3
VELODYNE LIDAR: Graf Shareholder's Suit in New York Underway
VELODYNE LIDAR: WARN Act Related Class Suit Dismissed
VISTA DEL MAR: Faces Beltran Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Nurses

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Catignani Sues Over Mismanagement of Landfill
WEIGHT WATCHERS: New York Dismisses Putative Securities Class Suit
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney to Seek Class Cert. of 401(k) Plan Members
WILD IRISHMAN: Dominguez Case Seeks Collective Action Status
ZOSANO PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Dec. 28 Deadline


                            *********

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to its collection
of Annual Membership Fee.

In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former
members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the
Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying
the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the
plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was
granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other.

The Company is appealing the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration and filed its appellate brief in November 2019.  

Appellate proceedings are delayed due to COVID-related court
shutdowns. An arbitrator conducted arbitration between the Company
and the plaintiff ordered to arbitration, and in June 2020, issued
a decision that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable against
the plaintiff. The Company filed its challenge to the arbitrator's
decision in August 2020.

The trial court upheld the arbitrator's decision, and the Company
plans to file a writ petition with the appellate court for review.


In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation,
the Company is unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. Legal
fees, net of amounts recoverable from the Company's insurance
provider, have been recorded as general and administrative expenses
in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Additional
attorney's fees in excess of those covered will be expensed as
incurred.

1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.

ACER THERAPEUTICS: Skiadas Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Acer Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Skiadas
v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al.

On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al, No.
1:19-cv-06137GHW, against the Company, Chris Schelling and Harry
Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by allegedly making material false and misleading statements
regarding the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration approval
for the EDSIVOTM NDA.

With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case is now captioned
Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al.

The Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 28,
2020 and the Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on May 1, 2020.

On June 16, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss. The Company filed its answer to the
Second Amended Complaint on August 7, 2020, and the Court held an
initial conference on August 17, 2020.

Acer Therapeutics said, "The Company has not recorded a liability
as of September 30, 2020 because a potential loss is not probable
or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the
proceedings."

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

ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Pharmaceutical Firms Sue Over Multi-Drug Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RELIABLE PHARMACY, INC.; HALLIDAY'S & KOIVISTO'S PHARMACY;
RUSSELL'S MR. DISCOUNT DRUGS, INC.; FALCONER PHARMACY, INC.; and
CHET JOHNSON DRUG, INC.; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC.; ACTAVIS
PHARMA, INC.; ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; ARA APRAHAMIAN; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA,
INC.; MITCHELL BLASHINSKY; DOUGLAS BOOTHE; FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS
INC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAMES "JIM" GRAUSO;
GREEENSTONE LLC; G & W LABORATORIES; WALTER KACZMAREK; ARMANDO
KELLUM; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MYLAN INC.; MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MYLAN N.V.; KURT ORLOFSKI; MICHAEL PERFETTO;
PERRIGO NEW YORK, INC; PFIZER INC.; SANDOZ, INC.; SUN
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC; TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.;
ERIKA VOGEL-BAYLOR JOHN WESOLOWSKI; and WOCKHARDT USA LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06291 (E.D. Pa., December 15, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman
Act, state antitrust statutes, and state consumer protection
statutes, and for unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have participated in
conspiracy to maintain and raise prices of more than a hundred
generic drugs and to allocate customers and drug markets between
manufacturers in order to assign each Defendant manufacturer its
fair share of business while keeping prices high. The Defendants
reinforced their overarching agreement at industry conferences,
private dinners, cocktail nights, and golf outings, and via calls,
emails, texts, and private app messages when they could not speak
in person. Conversations between competitors discussing customer
allocation, cover bids, specific nonpublic prices, and future price
increases are so pervasive among the Defendants that some
conspirators did not even question whether their arrangements were
illegal despite being warned to conceal their communications. As a
result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class
members have been forced to pay and continue to pay
supracompetitive prices for several generic drugs and also suffer
actual losses when they dispense the drugs without being reimbursed
for the artificially-high cost.

Reliable Pharmacy, Inc. is a privately-held independent pharmacy
located in Northridge, California.

Halliday's & Koivisto's Pharmacy is an independent pharmacy located
at 4133 University Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida.

Russell's Mr. Discount Drugs, Inc. is a privately-held independent
pharmacy located at 334 Depot Street, in Lexington, Mississippi.

Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. is a privately-held independent pharmacy
located in Falconer, New York.

Chet Johnson Drug, Inc. is a privately-held independent pharmacy in
Amery, Wisconsin.

Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
pharmaceutical company Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., with its
principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey.

Actavis Pharma, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actavis Holdco
U.S., Inc., with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New
Jersey.

Actavis Elizabeth LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actavis
Holdco U.S., Inc., with its principal place of business in
Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical firm with its
principal place of business in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Dayton, New Jersey.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey.

G&W Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in South Plainfield, New Jersey.

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Baltimore, Maryland.

Mylan Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dutch pharmaceutical
firm Mylan N.V., with its principal place of business in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dutch
pharmaceutical firm Mylan N.V., with its principal place of
business in Morgantown, West Virginia.

Perrigo New York, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its executive
offices in Allegan, Michigan and its primary business location in
the Bronx, New York.

Greenstone LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of pharmaceutical firm
Pfizer Inc., with its principal place of business in North Peapack,
New Jersey.

Sandoz, Inc. is a subsidiary of pharmaceutical company Novartis AG
with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a a wholly-owned subsidiary of
pharmaceutical firm Sandoz, Inc., with its principal place of
business in Melville, New York.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is a pharmaceutical firm with
its principal place of business in Cranbury, New Jersey.

Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is a pharmaceutical firm with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York.

Wockhardt USA LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal
place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
         Victoria Sims, Esq.
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
         4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 789-3960
         E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

                - and –

         Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq.
         Christian Hudson, Esq.
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
         16 Court Street, Suite 1012
         Brooklyn, NY 11241
         Telephone: (202) 789-3960
         E-mail: pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com

ADMIRAL INDEMNITY: Court Dismisses Cetta's COVID-19-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL CETTA, INC. d/b/a SPARKS STEAK HOUSE on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 4612 (JPC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Admiral's Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Sparks Steak House is a restaurant in Midtown Manhattan.  It
purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy from
Admiral that ran from June 26, 2019, to June 26, 2020.  The Policy
insured the restaurant against a wide range of losses.  Three of
these coverage provisions are at the center of the instant dispute.
They are the business income coverage, the extra expense coverage,
and the civil authority coverage, a special type of business income
and extra expense coverage for certain governmental actions.
Besides these coverage provisions, the Policy also enumerates
several exclusions, which identify situations that bar coverage in
all circumstances.

COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus that began in Wuhan, China, at the
end of 2019 and quickly spread around the world.  By late April
2020, the deadly virus had infected millions of people across the
globe and had killed 40,000 Americans.  On March 11, 2020, the
Director of the World Health Organization categorized the COVID-19
outbreak as a "pandemic." Two days later, Pres. Donald J. Trump
declared it a national emergency.  The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and members of the national Coronavirus Task Force
soon issued guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Following from this, many governmental entities around the country
ordered what they deemed "non-essential" businesses to suspend or
severely curtail business operations in order to stop the spread of
COVD-19 among the population.  The Complaint alleges that almost
all States issued some form of a "stay-at-home" order and ordered
private, "non-essential" businesses to close.  According to Sparks,
these restrictions have been "catastrophic" for "non-essential
businesses," especially restaurants.  As of the filing of the
Complaint, all but one state had closed restaurants and bars for
services other than take-out and delivery.

New York did so through several executive orders, of which the
Court takes judicial notice.  Mayor De Blasio ordered that
restaurants, bars, and similar establishments could remain open for
the sole purpose of providing take-out or delivery service, so long
as they did not exceed 50% of their occupancy or seating capacity
while persons are waiting for take-out and that such persons follow
social distancing protocols.  Together, these state and local
executive orders, which the Court refers to as the closure orders,
meant that restaurants in New York City could no longer serve
patrons on their premises, but instead could allow customers only
to place take-out orders.  The Complaint alleges that, because of
these restrictions, Sparks was forced to close.

Sparks filed a claim for "business interruption losses" under its
all-risk Policy with Admiral.  In a letter dated April 17, 2020,
Admiral denied Sparks coverage for three reasons.  First, with
regard to business income and extra expense coverage, Admiral
claimed that there was "no physical damage" to Sparks.  Second, as
to civil authority coverage, Admiral stated that the necessary
prerequisites were not met.  Finally, Admiral denied all claims
because certain "exclusions and limitations in the P]olicy"
precluded coverage.

Sparks began the instant diversity action in the Court on June 16,
2020, with the filing of the Complaint.  The crux of the Complaint
is that Admiral wrongly denied coverage because the Policy covers
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 outbreak.

Sparks brought the suit as a putative class action on behalf of
itself and "all entities that (1) suffered losses due to measures
put in place by civil authorities' stay-at-home or shelter-in-place
orders since March 15, 2020; and (2) purchased from Admiral a
standard all-risk commercial property insurance policy that
provided for business income losses and extra expenses, and did not
exclude coverage for pandemics."

The Complaint pleads three counts of declaratory judgment and three
counts of breach of contract.  Counts One, Three, and Five each
seek a declaratory judgment that Admiral is obligated to pay Sparks
under the business income, civil authority, and extra expense
coverage provisions, respectively.  Each of these counts seeks a
declaratory judgment covering losses already incurred and losses to
be incurred in connection with the closure orders.  Counts Two,
Four, and Six allege that Admiral breached its obligations under
the Policy when it denied Sparks coverage under these same coverage
provisions.

On Sept. 9, 2020, Admiral filed its Motion to Dismiss.  It argues
that Sparks is not entitled to business income or extra expense
coverage because Sparks did not suffer "direct physical loss of or
damage to" property, and that Sparks failed to plead entitlement to
civil authority coverage because the closure orders were not the
result of physical damage near the restaurant and did not prohibit
access to the restaurant.  Admiral also argues that several
exclusions bar coverage in all events.

Sparks opposed the motion on Oct. 7, 2020, and Admiral replied on
Oct. 21, 2020.  Because the Court holds that Sparks failed to plead
that it met the requirements for the three types of coverage at
issue, the Court does not reach whether the virus or other
exclusions apply.

Sparks first claims that it is entitled under the Policy to
business income coverage due to losses incurred as a result of the
closure orders.  Judge Cronan opines that bone of the facts pleaded
in the Complaint suggest that the suspension in Sparks' operation
was "caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property."
Sparks, therefore, has failed to plead allegations that would
entitle it to the requested declaratory relief as to the Policy's
business income provision.  Nor has Sparks sufficiently alleged any
breach of contract as to that provision.  Accordingly, Counts One
and Two of the Complaint are dismissed.

Sparks also claims entitlement to extra expense coverage by
alleging that it sustained expenses that it would not have incurred
but for Sparks' closure.  These claims necessarily fail for two
reasons.  First, extra expense coverage only applies if business
income coverage applies.  Because the Judge concludes that business
income coverage does not apply, extra expense coverage does not
either.  Relatedly, extra expense coverage--like business income
coverage--requires that Sparks suffer a physical loss or damage to
property.  The Complaint fails to plead facts alleging such
"physical loss or damage."  Therefore, because Sparks has not
alleged sufficient facts with respect to the extra expense
provision to establish the declaratory relief it seeks or to
establish a breach of contract, Counts Five and Six of the
Complaint are dismissed.

The Judge next turns to Sparks' claim that it is entitled to
coverage under the Policy's civil authority provision.  Because
Sparks has not pleaded facts establishing either of these
prerequisites, Sparks' claims related to civil authority coverage
fail as well.  The Complaint fails to plead that the area
surrounding Sparks suffered damage or that a civil authority order
completely barred access to Sparks and the area immediately
surrounding any neighboring damaged area.  As with the Policy's
business income and extra expense provisions, Sparks has failed to
allege sufficient facts to establish its entitlement to the sought
declaratory relief or to present a plausible breach of contract
claim as to the civil authority provision.  Counts Three and Four
are, therefore, dismissed.

Sparks brought the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of itself and "all other
persons similarly situated."  To the extent that Sparks sought
class certification in its Complaint, the Judge does not reach this
because he grants the motion to dismiss as to all claims that
Sparks brought.

Finally, the Complaint noted in passing that it sought a
declaratory judgment that the Policy provides coverage for future
civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or
curtailments of business operations.  The Judge does not read the
Complaint's declaratory judgment counts as seeking such relief, but
instead understands them to focus on the closure orders already
issued.  If Sparks meant to seek a declaratory judgment that the
Policy also provides coverage for future orders, Sparks would not
be entitled to such an advisory opinion by the Court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cronan granted Admiral's Motion to
Dismiss.  Sparks did not move the Court for leave to amend the
Complaint, and, in all events, the Judge finds that allowing leave
to amend would be futile.  Therefore, the case is dismissed with
prejudice.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd26qke7 from Leagle.com.


ADVANCE AUTO: Seeks Review on Plaintiff's Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the defendants
in the class action suit pending before the  U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, intend to seek review by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals on the granting of class certification to
the plaintiff.

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

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

On February 7, 2020 the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss.

The surviving claims are subject to discovery. On November 6, 2020
the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification, for
which defendants intend to seek review by the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Advance Auto said, "In addition, derivative complaints purportedly
on behalf of the Company were filed against us as nominal defendant
and certain of our current and former officers and directors
related to similar allegations for the Class Period on April 29,
2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and
August 13, 2020 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The defendants
have moved to dismiss the federal derivative complaint and the
state court derivative claim is stayed pending the determination of
the federal motion to dismiss. We strongly dispute the allegations
of the complaints and intend to defend the cases vigorously."

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

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Carino Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adventist Health
Delano. The case is styled as Justin Carino, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Adventist
Health Delano, Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-102879 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 8, 2020).

The case type of the suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.

Adventist Health Delano is a Hospital in Delano, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremy Fine Bollinger, Esq.
   Moss Bollinger, LLP
   15300 Ventura Blvd Ste 207
   Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
   Tel: (310) 982-2984
   Fax: (818) 963-5954
   Email: jeremy@mossbollinger.com



AGENTRA LLC: Court Allows Abboud to Intervene in Abramson TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge grants Monica Abboud's motion to
intervene in the lawsuit captioned STEWART ABRAMSON and JAMES
EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. AGENTRA, LLC, ANGELIC
MARKETING GROUP L.L.C., and MATTHEW JONES, Case No. Case No. 18-615
(W.D. Pa.).

In the class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs Abramson and Shelton allege
that the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by making pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular telephone
numbers for the purpose of advertising Agentra's goods and
services.

Since January 2019, Abboud has been litigating a separate class
action lawsuit, (Abboud v. Agentra, LLC, 3:19-cv-00120-X (N.D.
Tex.), against Agentra in the Northern District of Texas.  While
the Plaintiffs' allegations are limited to unsolicited calls with
pre-recorded messages, Abboud alleges receipt of both calls and
texts from Agentra in her lawsuit. She bboud has now moved to
intervene in this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs and Agentra oppose her
intervention.

In March 2020, Abboud filed a motion to certify two classes in her
lawsuit: a "text class" of consumers who received texts from
Agentra's internal "CRM" system, and an "agent class" of consumers
who were called by the same two agents that called her -- Health
Care Enrollment Center ("HCEC") and Life and Health Insurance
Services ("LHIS"). HCEC is associated with Jake Gabbard, and LHIS
is a company run by Jason Espinoza.

A month after Abboud filed her motion for class certification, the
Plaintiffs and Agentra informed the Court that they had reached a
class action settlement agreement. For the next several months,
however, the parties disputed whether they had entered into a final
enforceable agreement. The Court resolved that dispute in the
Plaintiffs' favor on August 20, 2020. That same day, the Plaintiffs
moved for preliminary approval of the agreed upon settlement.

Their motion indicated that the Settlement would create a fund of
$275,000, and sought provisional certification of the following
settlement class:

     Plaintiffs and all persons contacted by Alexander Glynn, Ann
     Fils, Charles Donisi, Jacon Mcleod, Jake Gabbard, Jason
     Espinoza, Kristina Calo, Scott Shapiro, Steve Guerrero,
     Witfield Jean-Baptiste, or Theresa Jones (or on behalf of
     any individual Agent, whether by a downline sub-agent,
     vendor, or other third party) regarding the sale of a
     product offered by Agentra at any time between May 8, 2014
     to Feb. 1, 2020 that were contacted on a cellular
     telephone or while they were on the National Do Not Call
     Registry for at least 30 days.

In an order dated Sept. 4, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved
the Settlement and Plaintiffs' proposed settlement class. Ten days
later, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas
certified Abboud's "text" and "agent" classes. On Oct. 6, 2020, the
Court extended the class notice deadline to Oct. 26, 2020, and the
opt-out, objection, and claim submission deadline to Dec. 24,
2020.

Abboud filed the instant motion two days after the class notice
deadline. She seeks to intervene either as of right under Rule
24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or alternatively, for
permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Additionally, Abboud
requests the Court to modify the protective order between the
Plaintiffs and Agentra and designate her as a "qualified person"
under the terms of that order so that she may evaluate the fairness
of the Settlement.

According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion, there is no question
that the preliminarily approved Settlement Class would subsume the
"agent class" which has been certified in the Abboud case.
Additionally, because it is not limited to unsolicited calls with
pre-recorded messages, Abboud contends that the Settlement reached
in the lawsuit extends well beyond the nature of the calls alleged
by the Plaintiffs in the case. She suspects that value of the
settlement is insufficient to redress the injuries suffered by the
consumers -- including herself and her impacted class -- now
encompassed in the Settlement Class. Therefore, she seeks to
intervene and to modify the protective order in this lawsuit so
that she may evaluate any financial documents supporting the
Settlement.

Abboud moved to intervene approximately two months before the
deadline for her to opt out or object to the Settlement. Therefore,
the presumption of timeliness applies to her application. The Court
finds that the totality of the timeliness factors weighs in favor
of granting Abboud's motion to intervene and does not rebut the
presumption of timeliness.

Because Abboud's application is timely and the representation of
her interests may be inadequate, the Court concludes that she is
entitled to intervene in this lawsuit as of right.

Abboud's stated objective in seeking to intervene in the lawsuit is
to evaluate the fairness of the Settlement. She maintains that the
financial documents, which Agentra produced during their mediation
were insufficient for her to make a fair evaluation of Agentra's
financial position. Therefore, Abboud wishes to review any
financial documents provided by Agentra that may have been used to
support the Settlement, as well as any confirmatory discovery that
the Plaintiffs' counsel conducted before agreeing to settle. In
order to facilitate her review those documents, she requests the
Court to modify the protective order between the Plaintiffs and
Agentra and designate her as a "qualified person" under the terms
of that order.

Given the circumstances of the lawsuit, the Court finds that it is
appropriate for Abboud's counsel to review the financial documents
relied upon by the Plaintiffs' counsel in reaching the Settlement.
Therefore, the protective order will be modified to accommodate
such a review.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 14,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2q7mf4 from
Leagle.com.


AIRBNB: Shares Up 112% After Public Market First Day of Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Feiner at cnbc.com reports that Airbnb shares ended the day
up more than 112% in its IPO debut, the latest tech stock to show
monster gains in its first day of trading this year.

Shares of Airbnb originally priced at $68, but showed a massive pop
when it opened trading at $146 per share. Shares closed the day at
$144.71, giving the home-sharing company a market cap of about
$86.5 billion, more than double the valuation it sought in the IPO
just a day ago.

That puts Airbnb past the market cap of travel giant Booking, which
has a valuation of more than $86 billion. Competitor Expedia has a
market cap of more than $18 billion.

Its market cap far surpasses hotel chains as well, such as Marriott
and Hilton, which hold market caps of more than $42 billion and $29
billion, respectively. Delta Air Lines has a market value of about
$30 billion.

The first-day surge made Airbnb the 10th best debut in 2020 based
on price gain from its IPO.

Airbnb trades under the ticker "ABNB" on the Nasdaq.

Speculation that it would join one of the major indexes in the next
couple years seems to be driving interest, a well-placed source
told CNBC's Leslie Picker.

The company is going public at a time when the sector has been
battered by reduced-travel trends during the public health crisis.
Its revenue shrank nearly 19% last quarter to $1.34 billion
compared with the same period a year prior. But it still managed to
turn a profit of $219 million and has had other intermittent
quarters of profitability.

While travel has been lower, Airbnb managed to hit a sweet spot for
those willing to venture out who preferred home stays over
traditional hotels. That could change when vaccines make more
widespread travel more accessible again, possibly as soon as late
next year.

Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said in an interview with CNBC's Deirdre
Bosa ahead of the IPO that the platform is considering the changed
ways travelers are looking to plan their trips now that remote work
is a possibility for many.

"Now that people are coming to Airbnb, they don't even necessarily
have a destination in mind or dates, because they're flexible.
We're all obviously on Zoom, and so people are saying, ‘I want to
go anywhere 300 miles around me, what can you show me?'" he said.
"Now we're going to be getting a little bit more into the game of
inspiration and matching people to the perfect home experience for
them."

Chesky also said he isn't too concerned about valuation.

"I don't think I'm going to worry much more than in April and May
when we saw our business drop 80% in eight weeks in the middle of a
pandemic," he said.

Airbnb struggled with complaints from hosts on its platform early
in the pandemic when the company granted leniency to guest
cancellations, leaving hosts without payments they had come to
expect. A Texas-based host filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company last month, alleging Airbnb violated its contract with
hosts by offering the refunds. Airbnb called the lawsuit "frivolous
and without merit" in a statement at the time.

As part of its IPO, Airbnb has created an endowment fund for hosts
consisting of 9.2 million nonvoting shares it set aside. Airbnb
said in its IPO prospectus the fund would benefit hosts through
programs and grants.

"We want hosts to share in our success, not merely for a single
moment in time, but for as long as Airbnb exists in the world," the
company wrote. "We intend the Host Endowment Fund to be a long-term
investment in the future of our host community, to be shaped by
hosts for hosts."

Airbnb has been named to CNBC's annual Disruptor 50 list eight
times and ranks at 41 of the 2020 Disruptor 50 companies. [GN]

ALPINE DIGITAL: Henderson Files TCPA Suit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpine Digital Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Richard Henderson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpine
Digital Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03608-MEH (D. Colo., Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.

Alpine Digital Group operates in the online marketing industry,
focused on lead generation and customer acquisition through online
advertising placements. ADG's network of publishing partners can
place ads all across the web including banners, email, search
engines, affiliates, social media, and mobile.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
   Eggnatz Pascucci P.A.
   7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
   Davie, FL 33314
   Tel: (954) 889-3359
   Fax: (954) 889-5913
   Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com

     - and –

   Jordan Lee Richards, Esq.
   USA Employment Lawyers
   805 East. Broward Boulevard
   Suite 301
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 871-0050
   Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com



AMERICAN WEB LOAN: McDaniel Suit Transferred to W. Va. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Charles P. McDaniel, on behalf of himself and
all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 20-C-169, was transferred from the Circuit Court of Ohio
County, West Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia on Dec. 15, 2020, and assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00257-JPB.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over the Petition For Removal--Other Contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
   Mountain State Justice, Inc.
   922 Quarrier St., Suite 525
   Charleston, WV 25302
   Tel: (304) 344-3144
   Fax: (304) 344-3145
   Email: bren@msjlaw.org

     - and -

   Jason E. Causey, Esq.
   Bordas & Bordas, PLLC
   1358 National Rd
   Wheeling, WV 26003
   Tel: (304) 242-8410
   Fax: (304) 242-3936
   Email: jason@bordaslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Raymond S Franks , II, Esq.
   Bailey & Glasser
   209 Capitol St.
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 345-6555
   Fax: (304) 342-1110
   Email: rfranks@cdkrlaw.com

     - and -

   Simon A. Latcovich, Esq.
   Williams & Connolly LLP - Washington
   725 Twelfth St, NW
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 434-5000
   Fax: (202) 434-5029
   Email: slatcovich@wc.com

     - and -

   Steven Robert Ruby, Esq.
   Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby, PLLC
   707 Virginia Street, East, Suite 901
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 345-1234
   Fax: (304) 342-1105
   Email: sruby@cdkrlaw.com


ANCESTRY.COM: Faces Bonilla Suit Over Improper Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC.; ANCESTRY.COM
INC.; ANCESTRY.COM LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07390 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 14, 2020) is an
action against the Defendants for knowingly misappropriating the
photographs, likenesses, names, and identities of Plaintiff and the
class; knowingly using those photographs, likenesses, names, and
identities for the commercial purpose of selling access to them in
Ancestry products and services; and knowingly using those
photographs, likenesses, names, and identities to advertise, sell,
and solicit purchases of Ancestry services and products; without
obtaining prior consent from Plaintiff and the class.

Ancestry.com Operations Inc. provides online family genealogy
information and resources. The Company allows website users to
upload family history information to create genealogy networks.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle Street, 31 st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: SMM@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          102 Bergen St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464
          E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com


APPLE INC: Agreed Validation Protocol OK'd in Epic, Cameron Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed a joint stipulation and
order relating to a validation protocol in the lawsuits captioned
EPIC GAMES, INC., Plaintiff, Counter-defendant v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Counter-claimant; IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION; DONALD R. CAMERON, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR, 4:11-cv-06714-YGR,
4:19-cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Epic, the Developer Plaintiffs, the Consumer Plaintiffs
and Defendant Apple, submit a protocol to govern the use and
validation of the Parties' respective document culling and review
efforts.

The protocol is categorized into three parts: Validation of Apple's
TAR Process, Validation of Epic's Linear Review Process and Parties
Exempted from Validation.

The Validation of Apple's TAR Process includes this process: Apple
is using Technology Assisted Review ("TAR") to select the documents
that will be subject to human review or produced without human
review. The steps described in the remainders of the process will
be completed separately for the following document populations (a)
and (b): (a) Apple's total TAR population comprised of (i) the
documents collected by Apple for the custodians and time periods
identified initially in the class action cases (Apple's Class
Action Collection) and (ii) the documents collected by Apple for
the custodians added following the filing of the Epic litigation,
as well as the documents collected by Apple for additional time
periods for certain class action custodians ("Apple's Epic
Collection"); and (b) Apple's Epic Collection alone.

The Validation of Epic's Linear Review Process includes this
process: Epic is using linear review of documents that hit on
agreed upon search terms to identify documents responsive to
requests for production served on it. At the substantial completion
of its linear review process, Epic shall disclose the number of
documents that hit on the agreed search terms, the number of
documents produced or withheld as privileged, and the number of
documents identified as non-responsive during the course of the
review.

A Party is not obligated to conduct validation if it has conducted
exhaustive linear review of every document in its document
collection, which does not exceed 2500 documents.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dpf24l from Leagle.com.

RACHELE R. BYRD -- byrd@whafh.com -- BRITTANY N. DEJONG --
dejong@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, San
Diego, CA.

MARK C. RIFKIN -- rifkin@whafh.com -- MATTHEW M. GUINEY --
guiney@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, in
New York City, Interim Class Counsel for the Consumer Plaintiffs.

STEVE W. BERMAN -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- ROBERT F. LOPEZ --
robl@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, WA.

SHANA E. SCARLETT -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- BENJAMIN J. SIEGEL --
bens@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Berkeley,
California, Interim Class Counsel for the Developer Plaintiffs.

PAUL J. RIEHLE -- paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com -- FAEGRE DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH LLP, in San Francisco, California.

CHRISTINE A. VARNEY -- cvarney@cravath.com -- KATHERINE B. FORREST
-- kforrest@cravath.com -- GARY A. BORNSTEIN --
gbornstein@cravath.com -- YONATAN EVEN -- yeven@cravath.com --
LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ -- lmoskowitz@cravath.com -- M. BRENT BYARS --
mbyars@cravath.com -- CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, in New York
City, Attorneys for Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc.

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- RICHARD J.
DOREN -- rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- DANIEL G. SWANSON --
dswanson@gibsondunn.com -- JAY P. SRINIVASAN --
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, in Los
Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.


APYX MEDICAL: Obligations in J-Plasma(R) Related Suit Fully Paid
----------------------------------------------------------------
APYX Medical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company had
settled and fully paid all obligations in the J-Plasma(R)
technology for use in dermal resurfacing procedures related
putative class action suit.

On April 17, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against the
Company and Charles D. Goodwin, the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer and a member of the Company's Board of Directors,
alleging certain violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  

On July 16, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel. On September 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint with the Court.

The Amended Complaint seeks class action status on behalf of all
persons and entities that acquired the Company's securities between
December 21, 2018 and April 1, 2019, and alleges violations by the
Company and Goodwin of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to certain public statements concerning the
Premarket Notification 510(k) submission made to the US Food and
Drug Administration for a new indication for the Company's
J-Plasma(R) technology for use in dermal resurfacing procedures.  

On October 3, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and on March 11, 2020, the Court denied that
motion.  

On July 10, 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval. The Court preliminarily
approved the settlement on July 21, 2020. The settlement agreement
provides for the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

On November 6, 2020, the Court issued its final order approving the
settlement and dismissing the action and all claims contained in
the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

On September 30, 2020, the company had settled and fully paid all
obligations related to this matter.

APYX Medical Corporation is a medical technology company and the
developer of J-Plasma(R) (marketed and sold under the Renuvion(R)
Cosmetic Technology brand in the cosmetic surgery market), a
patented plasma-based surgical product for cutting, coagulation and
ablation of soft tissue. The company also leverages its expertise
through original equipment manufacturing (OEM) agreements with
other medical device manufacturers. The company is based in
Clearwater, Florida.

ARCHON INC: Saiyed Wins Default Judgment on Some FLSA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Michael Vazquez granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for default judgment in the
lawsuit styled AMJAD SAIYED v. ARCHON, INC., et al., Case No.
16-9530 (D.N.J.).

According to the Court's Opinion, default judgment is granted only
as to Defendant Rashid Patel and solely as to liability for Counts
Four, Nine and Ten of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Default
judgment is otherwise denied without prejudice. As to damages,
default judgment is also denied without prejudice, and the
Plaintiff is directed to provide documentary support for his
damages award by Dec. 31, 2020.

The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action on Nov. 21, 2014,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging, among other things, that the Defendants failed to pay him
and other similarly situated employees overtime and minimum wage in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Archon Inc. and/or Archon
Distribution, Inc. from January 2009 until he was terminated on
December 19, 2013.

The Plaintiff is from India, and represents that Archon submitted
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") Form I-129,
which enabled him to obtain a visa to work in the United States. He
maintains that throughout his employment, Archon represented on
USCIS forms that it paid him vastly different salary amounts than
what he was actually paid. The Plaintiff also contends that he was
forced to work under oppressive conditions and was mistreated. He
asserts that he tolerated these conditions out of fear of
deportation.

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA");
common law fraud; the FLSA; NYLL; quantum meruit; and NJWHL on
behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated employees. On
April 9, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered default as to the
Defendants for failure to plead or otherwise defend.

On May 16, 2019, James B. Clark, III, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the
District of New Jersey, issued an Order to Show Cause ("OTSC")
after Defendants Rashid Patel and Mohamed Gajra failed to appear at
a May 14, 2019 conference. Because Patel and Gajra were not served
with the initial OTSC, Judge Clark issued a second OTSC on July 8,
2019, which required responses by July 31, 2019. Neither Patel nor
Gajra responded to the July 8 OTSC.

On Sept. 11, 2019, Judge Clark issued an order scheduling a
conference call with the parties on Nov. 7, 2019, warning that the
failure to appear for the conference call may result in sanctions.
Patel and Gajra failed to appear for the call. As a result, on Nov.
19, 2019, Judge Clark issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
explaining that Patel and Gajra's Answers should be stricken and
default entered against them for their failure to comply with Court
orders and defend the case. Patel and Gajra did not respond to the
R&R, and on Jan. 8, 2020, the Court entered an Order adopting the
R&R. The Clerk of the Court subsequently entered default as to
Patel and Gajra. On March 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant
motion for default judgment as to all Defendants.

In Counts One and Two, the Plaintiff asserts claims under the
TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. Section 1595. The threat to withdraw support for a
plaintiff's work visa can be sufficient to state a claim under the
TVPRA, Judge Vazquez states. The Plaintiff's allegations, however,
are too vague. The Plaintiff refers to the Defendants collectively
and fails to attribute any explicit threats to any specific
Defendant. As a result, the Court will not grant default judgment
as to any Defendant for Count One.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants violated 18 U.S.C.
Section 1590 in Count Two. Judge Vazquez states that the Plaintiff
does not plead any facts demonstrating that he was a victim of
trafficking; rather, the Plaintiff pleads that he learned about the
employment opportunity with Archon from his brother and that the
Plaintiff then began the process of applying for a visa and of
moving his family to the United States. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim in Count Two.

In Count Four, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay him overtime and/or minimum wage in violation of the FLSA.
Judge Vazquez opines that the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that
the Defendants' violations of the FLSA were willful. The
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied as to Archon
Distribution, Inc. because he fails to establish that he properly
served the entity. Because Archon does not appear to have been the
Plaintiff's employer during the relevant period, the Plaintiff's
FLSA claims are denied as to Archon.

Turning to Defendants Patel and Gajra, the Plaintiff pleads that
both are owners of Archon Distribution and were in "active control"
of the entity. The Plaintiff pleads that while employed by Archon
Distribution, he regularly worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week
and was not provided with vacation days, holidays, or sick days. In
addition, given the fact that the Plaintiff was paid less than
minimum wage, the Plaintiff also sufficiently establishes that he
was not paid an overtime wage when he worked more than forty hours
in a given week, which was allegedly a frequent occurrence.
Therefore, the Plaintiff states a claim in Counts Four and Ten as
to Patel and Gajra.

The Plaintiff also alleges that he was not paid for all hours
worked in violation of the FLSA in Count Four and in violation of
the NJWHL in Count Nine. Accordingly, he also states a claim for
unpaid wages in violation of the FLSA and NJWHL as to Patel and
Gajra in Count Nine.

In addition, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated
NYLL Section 195 in Count Seven. Outside of the Plaintiff's
conclusory allegation that the Defendants failed to provide him
with accurate wage statements, the Amended Complaint is devoid of
specific allegations to support the claim. The Plaintiff,
therefore, fails to state a claim in Count Seven.

In Count Five, Plaintiff alleges that the USCIS Letters bind Archon
to employing the Plaintiff and should be treated as Plaintiff's
employment contract. Thus, Plaintiff maintains that he is entitled
to the difference between the amount that he was actually paid and
the amount that Archon represented it was paying the Plaintiff to
the USCIS. The Plaintiff provides no authority for his allegation
that the USCIS letters constitute an employment contract. As a
result, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff fails to state a
claim in Count Five.

In Count Six, the Plaintiff maintains that pursuant to 12
N.Y.C.R.R. Section 146-1.6, he is entitled to additional pay for
days that he worked more than 10 hours. But the regulation applies
to restaurants and hotel employees, and the Plaintiff provides no
facts indicating that he worked at a restaurant or hotel.
Consequently, the Plaintiff also fails to state a claim in Count
Six.

Finally, in Count Eleven, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
failed to advise him of changes to his hourly rate and failed to
pay him backpay and overtime. His allegations about the failure to
pay backpay and overtime are addressed through other claims in the
Amended Complaint. As for his allegation about changes to his
hourly rate, the Plaintiff does not plead facts demonstrating what
his hourly rate actually was, that it changed during his
employment, and/or that any Defendant failed to inform him of a
change. As a result, default judgment will not be granted as to
Count Eleven.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions to him regarding (a) his
immigration status; (b) his payments; (c) his benefits; and (d) his
required work hours. He, however, provides insufficient details
about any purportedly wrongful statement, which the Defendant made
the statement, or when the statements were made. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a claim for fraud.

In Count Eight, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants received
services from him without fully compensating him, and that this
entitles him to the quantum meruit for the value of his services.
His allegations in Count Eight are premised on the same conduct as
alleged in his FLSA claims and seek the same relief -- the
Plaintiff's unpaid wages. Because the Court already determined that
the Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment for his FLSA claims,
it will not enter default judgment as to Count Eight. The Plaintiff
is not entitled to a double recovery.

The Plaintiff contends that he should be awarded $6 million in
damages. He, however, provides no factual support for the amount.
Instead, the Plaintiff asks that the Court schedules a hearing to
determine his damages in this matter. Consequently, the Court
denies the motion for default judgment as to damages without
prejudice and the Plaintiff is directed to provide a written
submission, with documentary support, that justifies the damages
sought with respect to the surviving FLSA and NJWHL claims. After
reviewing the  submission, the Court will determine if an
evidentiary hearing is necessary.

The Plaintiff's attorney also seeks approximately $50,000 in
attorney's fees, and submits invoices documenting his work in the
case. The FLSA provides that a prevailing party is entitled to an
award of reasonable attorney's fees. Therefore, the Plaintiff is
entitled to his reasonable attorney's fees in this matter. But
because he is directed to provide additional information as to
damages, the Court will not award attorney's fees at this time.
Instead, his attorney is directed to submit updated invoices that
document the total time spent on the matter with the supplemental
damages submission.

Since the outset of the matter, Gajra and Patel have both
represented that Gajra is not an owner and does not have any
control of the Defendants. Consequently, Patel and Gajra's repeated
representation that Gajra has no control over either entity could
serve as a complete defense. The Plaintiff, however, fails to
address the issue. Because the Court lacks critical information as
to Gajra's liability, it concludes that default judgment is not
appropriate as to Gajra.

Patel's Answer was stricken as a sanction for his failure to comply
with Court orders and to defend the case. But even if his Answer
was not stricken, Patel failed to provide any specific facts that
would establish a complete defense. Additionally, there is nothing
on the face of the Amended Complaint indicating that a meritorious
defense is available. Because it does not appear that Patel has a
meritorious defense, this factor weighs in favor of granting the
Plaintiff's motion as to Patel.

Since Judge Clark issued the R&R, Patel's failure to participate
has continued. Patel did not file an objection to the R&R or
respond to this motion. That further illustrates that the Plaintiff
is prejudiced by Patel's lack of participation in the matter. In
sum, the Court finds that default judgment is warranted just as to
Patel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdekn52 from Leagle.com.


ARDEN FAIR: Brooks Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARDEN FAIR ASSOCIATES, L.P.; FULCRUM
PROPERTY CORP.; THE MACERICH COMPANY d/b/a ARDEN FAIR; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02463-JAM-AC (E.D.
Cal., December 11, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and
the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants' Website,
https://www.ardenfair.com/, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent,
which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a
description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text
causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to
the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same
Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which results in additional
navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and
(4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an
image within a link contains no text and that image does not
provide alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that their Website will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Arden Fair Associates, L.P. is a limited partnership that operates
a shopping center in Sacramento, California.

Fulcrum Property Corp. is a real estate development and investment
firm, with its headquarters in Sacramento, California.

The Macerich Company, doing business as Arden Fair, is a real
estate investment trust that invests in shopping centers, with its
headquarters in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thiago Coelho, Esq.
         Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
         WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
         3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-9988
         Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
         E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com

ATLAS OIL: Fails to Pay Oilfield Workers' OT, Dean Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MWALIMU DEAN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ATLAS OIL TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-13237-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich., December 10, 2020) is a class
and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been working for the Defendant as a "FAS
Operator" since at least July 2018.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated oilfield workers regularly work more than 80 hours a week.
However, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a
week, the Defendant pay them a flat amount only for each day worked
in a week. The Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation
at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Atlas Oil Transportation, Inc. offers single-source solutions for
fuel, transportation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Charles Sturm, Esq.
          STURM LAW PLLC
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Tel: (713) 955-1800
          Fax: (713) 955-1078
          E-mail: csturm@sturmlegal.com


BAE SYSTEMS: Cordova Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AIMEE CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated v. BAE SYSTEMS, INC., BAE
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS & SERVICES INC. and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00041326-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on December 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02425-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
compliant itemized wages statements, and unfair competition.

BAE Systems, Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of BAE Systems plc, an
international defense, aerospace and security company, with its
principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Falls
Church, Virginia.

BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc. is a subsidiary of
BAE Systems, Inc., a U.S.-based maker of armored combat vehicles,
weapons, munitions, and defense systems, with its principal place
of business and corporate headquarters in Mclean, Virginia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Mary C. Dollarhide, Esq.
         Taylor H. Wemmer, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
         San Diego, CA 92121-2133
         Telephone: (858) 677-1400
         Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
         E-mail: mary.dollarhide@dlapiper.com
                 taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Revisit Denial of Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 19 Civ. 2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
the motion to reconsider.

Defendants Natixis S.A., Nomura International plc, and Nomura
Securities International, Inc. ("NSI"), sought reconsideration of
the denial of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("TAC").

Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund and Electrical Workers
Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. commenced the putative antitrust
class action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, against Defendants Bank of America Merrill Lynch
International Designated Activity Co., Merrill Lynch International,
NatWest Markets plc, UBS AG, UBS Europe SE, UniCredit Bank AG, Bank
of America, N.A., NatWest Markets Securities, Inc., UBS Securities,
LLC, UniCredit Capital Markets LLC, Natixis, Nomura International,
and NSI.

The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons or
entities who purchased or sold European Government Bonds ("EGBs")
in the United States directly from the Defendants between Jan. 1,
2007 and Dec. 31, 2012, with the exception of the Defendants, their
employees and affiliates, and the United States government.  In
their TAC, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to
fix EGB prices during the Class Period, in violation of the Sherman
Act.

By letter dated Feb. 26, 2020, the Defendants notified the
Plaintiffs of their intent to move to dismiss the TAC.  The Letter
Motion raised four grounds for dismissal: (1) failure to plead
antitrust conspiracy; (2) failure to plead antitrust standing; (3)
failure to timely file the action; and (4) failure to plead
personal jurisdiction over the foreign Defendants, including
Natixis and Nomura International.  By letter dated March 11, 2020,
the Plaintiffs opposed the Letter Motion.

The Court construed the Defendants' Letter Motion as a motion to
dismiss the TAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) and granted the motion as to all the
Defendants, except Natixis, Nomura International, and NSI ("Moving
Defendants").

Pending before the Court is a motion for reconsideration of the
Order, filed by the Moving Defendants on Aug. 6, 2020.  The
Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law, opposing the motion on Aug.
20, 2020, and the Moving Defendants filed a reply memorandum of law
in further support of the Reconsideration Motion on Aug. 27, 2020.
The Moving Defendants additionally filed a supplemental authority
letter on Dec. 7, 2020, and the Plaintiffs responded by letter on
Dec. 9, 2020.

Judge Marrero finds that the Moving Defendants make several
unavailing arguments regarding the Court's alleged
misinterpretation of the relevant caselaw.  For example, they argue
that the Plaintiffs did not plead antitrust standing as to Natixis
and Nomura International because they did not plead facts regarding
specific transactions with either entity.  They insist that, in
holding otherwise, the Court misinterpreted Harry v. Total Gas &
Power North America, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2017), and Allianz Global
Investors GmbH v. Bank of America Corp., Case No. 18 Civ. 10364
(S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2020).  However, they do not claim that the Court
overlooked these cases.  Rather, the Moving Defendants simply
disagree with the Court's examination and application of the legal
standard, which is an insufficient ground for reconsideration.

Likewise, the Moving Defendants argue that the Court overlooked
case law requiring a relevant, suit-related connection to the forum
to subject Natixis and Nomura International to personal
jurisdiction.  But, again, many of the cases they cite as
"overlooked" were also cited and relied upon in the Order. As is
well-established, disagreement with the Court's analysis does not
entitle the Moving Defendants to reconsideration.

The Reconsideration Motion also asks the Court to dispute the facts
alleged in the TAC and reconsider certain inferences drawn
therefrom.  For example, they argue that the TAC does not establish
that the Plaintiffs were "direct purchasers," and, thus, the
Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing.  But the Court previously found
that the TAC alleged Ohio Carpenters purchased EGBs from Natixis
and Local 103 transacted directly with Nomura International.  The
Moving Defendants offer no persuasive basis in fact or law for the
Court to alter that finding, apart from its differing
interpretation of the facts alleged.

Similarly, the Moving Defendants contend that the Court
misinterpreted and improperly credited Figure 12.  However, the
Court thoroughly scrutinized Figure 12 in the Order and addressed
many of the issues Moving Defendants raise now.  In asking the
Court to revisit its interpretation of the facts alleged in the
TAC, the Moving Defendants not only propose a standard that is
inappropriately skeptical on a motion to dismiss, but pursue
reconsideration on a legally invalid basis.

The Judge finds the remainder of the Moving Defendants' arguments
unavailing for substantially the same reasons.  The Moving
Defendants nowhere identify controlling decisions or data that the
Court overlooked that would alter any of its prior conclusions.
Instead, the Moving Defendants' motion attempts to impermissibly
take a second bite of the proverbial apple.  When a party seeks
solely to relitigate issues already decided, the motion for
reconsideration must be denied, Judge Marrero opines.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Marrero denied the Moving
Defendants' motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycd9ggmw from Leagle.com.


BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Baudax Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action
suit against Recro Pharma, Inc. is ongoing.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against Recro Pharma, Inc. (Recro)
and certain of Recro's officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.
2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by Recro
concerning the new drug application (NDA) for ANJESO.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorney's fees,
and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.

On February 8, 2019, Recro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on
April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, Recro filed its response and
briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss.

In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019.  On February 18, 2020,
the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
Recro filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to Recro's motion
to dismiss on August 17, 2020.

On September 16, 2020, Recro filed a reply in support of the motion
to dismiss.

Baudax said, "In connection with the Separation, we accepted
assignment by Recro of all of Recro's obligations in connection
with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify Recro for
all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. Recro and we
believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to
its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us."

Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes innovative products for acute care settings. The
Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG stockholders.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

Class Period: November 3, 2015 to September 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020

On December 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was probing BMW's sales practices.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per ADR, or nearly 6.87%, to
close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019. The same day, BAMXF
ADRs fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60.

On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement agreement
with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order,
from January 2015 to March 2017, BMW US "used its demonstrator and
service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and
meet internal targets, resulting in demonstrator and loaner
vehicles accounting for over one quarter of BMW [US]'s reported
retail sales in this period." Additionally, the order found that
BMW US, from 2015 to 2019, maintained a reserve of unreported
retail vehicles sales - referred to internally as the "bank" - that
it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when
the actual sale occurred. The order also found that BMW improperly
designated vehicles as demonstrators or loaners so they would be
counted as sold when in actuality they were not. Without admitting
to or denying the order's findings, BMW agreed to a settlement to
pay $18 million and cease and desist from future violations.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2.2%,
to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020. The same day,
BAMXF ADRs fell $2.54, or about 3.5%, to close at $68.91.

The complaint, filed on October 27, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail
vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW
artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register
cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; (3) as a
result, BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about BMW's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the BMW class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BMW

About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com

URL : http://www.bespc.com

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

BERRY CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of Berry Corporation stockholders. Stockholders
have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found
at the link provided.

Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY)

Class Period: (a) Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July
26, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or (b) Berry securities
purchased between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021

On June 29, 2018, the Company filed its Registration Statement on
Form S-l for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared
effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018 (the "Registration
Statement"). On or around July 26, 2018, Berry conducted the IPO,
upon which the Company began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select
market ("NASDAQ"), issuing 13 million shares of Berry common stock
at $14 per share, generating over $138 million in proceeds before
expenses. On July 27, 2018 Berry filed its Prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

On November 3, 2020, Berry reported its financial and operating
results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other results, Berry
reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell short of
estimates. In addition, Berry reported that during the quarter,
"the Company undertook certain operational improvements that caused
temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we performed some
plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in the temporary
shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam management
reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water disposal and
well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease in
production."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or
5.28%, to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020,
representing an 80.78% decline from the IPO price.

The complaint, filed on November 20, 2020, alleges that the
Offering Documents were negligently prepared, and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material
facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under
the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Berry had materially
overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's
operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably
necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the
Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing
would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

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


BILLIE INC: Angeles Files Suit under Americans w/ Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Billie, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa
Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Billie, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10327 (S.D.
N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

Billie is a wellness company that offers shaving supplies and body
products at a fair price, without the pink tax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented
   
   Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


BIOGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)

Class Period: October 22, 2019 to November 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021

On November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled "FDA
advisory panel convenes to discuss whether Biogen Alzheimer's drug
should be approved" which stated that "Biogen shares were halted
ahead of the advisory panel meeting." Later on November 6, 2020,
Reuters published an article entitled "U.S. FDA panel votes cannot
ignore unsuccessful trial data on Biogen Alzheimer's drug."

On this news, Biogen's stock price fell $92.64 per share, or 28%,
to close at $236.26 per share on November 9, 2020, the next trading
day.

The complaint, filed on November 13, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not
provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2)
the EMERGE study did not and would not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (4) the data provided by the Company to the FDA's
Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did
not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Biogen securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/BIIB

                         About Bragar Eagel

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

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


BLANK LABEL GROUP: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Blank Label Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Blank Label Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10319 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

Blank Label Group Inc. is a manufacturer of men's clothing. They
offer sport shirts and dress shirts that are custom made to fit the
customer's liking and means.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented
   
   Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com



BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Nix Johansen Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the purported class action suit initiated by
Kenneth Johansen, is pending.

On July 14, 2020, Kenneth Johansen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited for alleged violations of the
TCPA.

Specifically, the named plaintiff alleges that he received at least
nine telemarketing calls from BVU while he was on the National Do
Not Call Registry.

He seeks to certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs.

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We intend to vigorously defend the
action. We filed a motion to dismiss, and plaintiff in response
filed an amended complaint on September 18, 2020."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Continues to Defend Boyd Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited (BVU) continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Eddie Boyd.

On July 18, 2019, Eddie Boyd, et al. filed an action alleging that
BVU and co-defendants violated the Missouri Merchandise Practices
Act for allegedly making false statements and misrepresentations
with respect to the sale of vacation ownership interests.

Plaintiffs further have filed a purported class action allegation
that BVU's charging of an administrative processing fee constitutes
the unauthorized practice of law, and have also asserted that the
company and its outside counsel engaged in abuse of process by
filing a lawsuit against plaintiffs' counsel (The Montgomery Law
Firm).

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

On August 31, 2020, the Judge certified a class regarding the
unauthorized practice of law claim and dismissed the claims
regarding abuse of process.  

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We believe the lawsuit is without
merit."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by
Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare.

On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier
and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin
law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law
prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions.

Plaintiffs allegations include that the company failed to disclose
the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of its
initial contact with the purchaser; that the company misrepresented
who the seller of the real property was; that the company
misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the company
included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales
document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only"
incentive to purchase; and that the company utilize an illegal
referral selling program to induce the sale of vacation ownership
interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from us one or more VOIs within six
years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The company moved to dismiss the case, and on November 27, 2019,
the Court issued a ruling granting the motion in part.

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We have answered the remaining claims.
We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend the action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that final
approval hearing of the settlement in the purported class action
suit initiated by  Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael, is set for
January 2021.

On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed
purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU).  

The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018,
include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination
and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to
non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses;
and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly,
non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since
March 1, 2014.  

In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter
for an immaterial amount. The parties have executed the settlement
documents.  

The court issued preliminary approval of the settlement agreement
on September 8, 2020. The final approval hearing is set for January
2021.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
purported class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha, has
remain stayed.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited called plaintiff's
cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an automated dialing
system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his express written
consent to do so.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class comprised of other persons
in the United States who received similar calls from or on behalf
of BVU without the person's consent.  

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys's fees and injunctive
relief.

The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. On July 15, 2019, the court entered
an order staying this case pending a ruling from the Federal
Communications Commission clarifying the definition of an automatic
telephone dialing system under the TCPA and the decision of the
Eleventh Circuit in a separate action brought against a VOI company
by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA.

On January 7, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling consistent
with BVU's position, and on June 26, 2020, the FCC also issued a
favorable ruling.

The case currently remains stayed.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: Sanchez Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Bornstein Seafoods, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bornstein Seafoods, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10100 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020).

Bornstein Seafoods, Inc. is located in Bellingham, WA, United
States and is part of the Seafood Processing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the
"Company") (NYSE:BSX) from April 24, 2019 through November 16, 2020
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Boston Scientific securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Boston
Scientific Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E.
Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery system
was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of the
entire product line; (2) as a result, the Company had materially
overstated the continued commercial viability and profitability of
the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On November 17, 2020, pre-market, Boston Scientific announced a
global recall of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System due to "complexities associated with the product
delivery system." Boston Scientific also announced that "[g]iven
the additional time and investment required to develop and
reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to
retire the entire LOTUS product platform immediately."

On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share,
or 7.89%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Boston Scientific securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bostonscientificcorporation-bsx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-341/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 2, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston
Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX) securities between April
24, 2019 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Boston Scientific investments or
would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover
your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your
contact information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/boston-scientific-corporation/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On November 17, 2020, Boston Scientific announced a worldwide
recall of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System, a transcatheter aortic valve replacement product which had
been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in
April 2019. Citing "complexities associated with the product
delivery system" and the "additional time and investment required
to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system," the
Company stated that it had "chosen to retire the entire LOTUS
product platform immediately."

On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share,
or approximately 8%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17,
2020, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the LOTUS Edge
Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and
threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (2)
as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
February 2, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

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



BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of BSX shareholders. Shareholders interested in
serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to
petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at
the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

BSX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11479&wire=1

BSX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2019 -
November 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 2, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11479&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Boston
Scientific Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge
Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and
threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii)
as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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



BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Boston
Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or "the Company")
(NYSE:BSX) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 24,
2019 and November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 3, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Boston Scientific's LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System suffered from a dysfunctional product delivery system
which the viability of the entire product line at risk. The Company
overstated the continued profitability of the LOTUS system. Based
on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Boston Scientific, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

BUFF BAKE INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
Buff Bake, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa
Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Buff Bake, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10320
(S.D. N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

Buff Bake protein cookies are the better-for-you snack that
provides your body with the fuel it needs for any activity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


C&W FACILITY: Ramirez Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RUTH RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV42243, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
December 14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-11319 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay final
wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair business practices.

C&W Facility Services, Inc. is a company that offers facility
services located in Needham Heights, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
                  
         John R. Giovannone, Esq.
         Allison Chua, Esq.
         CDF LABOR LAW LLP
         707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 612-6300
         E-mail: jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com
                 achua@cdflaborlaw.com

CANCUN AND CANCUN: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
RULDER A. RODRIGUEZ YAX and LUIS FERNANDO CIPRIANO CAPIR,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CANCUN AND CANCUN CORP (D/B/A DELICIAS MEXICANAS), LA NORTENA
RESTORANT INC. (D/B/A LA NORTENA), BLUE WATER RESTAURANT CORP.
(D/B/A BLUE WATER RESTAURANT), ISAURO VALDEZ, BRAULIO VALDEZ, and
ARTURO R. HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 724318/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., December 15, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to compensate the Plaintiffs
and all other similarly situated employees appropriate minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay spread of hours wage,
failure to provide a written payroll notice, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and failure to pay on a regular weekly basis.

Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Cipriano were employed as cooks, dishwashers
and delivery workers at the Defendants' restaurant located at
102-14 Roosevelt Ave., Corona, New York from approximately 2006
until on or about December 31, 2015 and from approximately March
2016 until on or about June 2017, respectively.

Cancun and Cancun Corp, doing business as Delicias Mexicanas, is a
Mexican restaurant located at 102-14 Roosevelt Ave., Corona, New
York.

La Nortena Restorant Inc., doing business as La Nortena, is a
restaurant located at 102-14 Roosevelt Ave., Corona, New York.

Blue Water Restaurant Corp., doing business as Blue Water
Restaurant, is a restaurant located at 102-14 Roosevelt Ave.,
Corona, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
         E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com

CANGSHAN INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Cangshan Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cangshan Inc, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06007-FB-SJB (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

Cangshan Inc is a cutlery company in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com



CCC INFORMATION: Niemis Contract Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL NIEMIS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
20-005022-CI, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Sixth
Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida, Pinellas County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on December
12, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:20-cv-02956-WFJ-JSS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for
alleged tortious interference with contractual relations and
third-party beneficiary breach of contract by using an improper
condition adjustment in determining the value of the Plaintiff's
damaged vehicle.

CCC Information Services, Inc. is a company that provides software
products and services based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Joseph H. Varner, III, Esq.
         HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
         P.O. Box 1288
         Tampa FL 33601-1288
         Telephone: (813) 227-8500
         Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
         E-mail: joe.varner@hklaw.com
                 gloria.mcknight@hklaw.com

                 - and –

         Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
         Jason R. Burt, Esq.
         George C. Chipev, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20004-1304
         Telephone: (202) 637-2200
         Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
         E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com
                 jason.burt@lw.com
                 george.chipev@lw.com

CELSION CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Celsion Corporation.

Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Celsion Corporation

Class Period: November 2, 2015 to July 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020

Celsion is an integrated development clinical stage oncology drug
company that focuses on the development and commercialization of
directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based
therapies for the treatment of cancer.

Celsion's lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a heat-activated
liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III
clinical development for treating primary liver cancer.

In February 2014, Celsion announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had reviewed and provided clearance for the
Company's planned pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase
III trial of ThermoDox in combination with radio frequency ablation
("RFA") in primary liver cancer, also known as hepatocellular
carcinoma ("HCC"), called the "OPTIMA Study." The trial design was
purportedly based on a comprehensive analysis of data from the
Company's Phase III HEAT Study, which purportedly demonstrated that
treatment with ThermoDox resulted in a 55% improvement in overall
survival ("OS") in a substantial number of HCC patients that
received an optimized RFA treatment.

On July 13, 2020, Celsion announced that "it ha[d] received a
recommendation from the independent [DMC] to consider stopping the
global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox® in combination with
[RFA] for the treatment of [HCC], or primary liver cancer."
According to the Company, "[t]he recommendation was made following
the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the
DMC on July 9, 2020," which "found that the pre-specified boundary
for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an
actual value of 0.903."

On this news, Celsion's stock price fell $2.29 per share, or
63.97%, to close at $1.29 per share on July 13, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of ThermoDox;
(ii) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval and
commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Celsion class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CLSN

About Bragar Eagel

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

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


CENTURY HEALTH STAFFING: Erguera Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Health
Staffing Services Inc. The case is styled as Margarita Erguera, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Century Health Staffing Services Inc., Defendant, Case No.
BCV-20-102883 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 8, 2020).

The case type of the suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.

Century Health Services is a provider of Healthcare Staffing
Solutions in Bakersfield, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kye Douglas Pawlenko, Esq.
   Hayes Pawlenko LLP
   595 E Colorado Blvd Ste 303
   Pasadena, CA 91101
   Tel: (626) 808-4357
   Fax: (626) 921-4932
   Email: kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com



CEPHALON INC: Public Schools Sue Over Unfair Marketing of Opioids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THORNTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOLS DISTRICT 205;
ROCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT; MINNETONKA PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT; MASON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; EAST AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT 131; THORNTON
FRACTIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS DISTRICT 215; JOLIET PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DISTRICT 86; FAYETTE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; LARUE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; BULLITT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BREATHITT COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; ESTILL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; HARRISON COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; HART COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; JOHNSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; LAWRENCE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; MARTIN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MENIFEE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; OWSLEY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; WOLFE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
BANGOR SCHOOL DEPARTMENT; CAPE ELIZABETH SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAINE
REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT ("RSU") 10; MAINE RSU 13; MAINE RSU 25; MAINE
RSU 26; MAINE RSU 29; MAINE RSU 34; MAINE RSU 40; MAINE RSU 50;
MAINE RSU 57; MAINE RSU 60; MAINE RSU 71; MAINE RSU 9; MAINE SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT ("SAD") 11; MAINE SAD 15; MAINE SAD 28/FIVE
TOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAINE SAD 35; MAINE SAD 44; MAINE SAD
53; MAINE SAD 55; MAINE SAD 6; MAINE SAD 61; MAINE SAD 72; PORTLAND
SCHOOL DISTRICT; SCARBOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH PORTLAND SCHOOL
DISTRICT; ST. GEORGE MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATERVILLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT; ELLSWORTH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT; GOSHEN SCHOOL DISTRICT;
KEARSARGE RSU-SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT 65; LEBANON SCHOOL
DISTRICT; PITTSFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT; TAMWORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CEPHALON; INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS;
INC.; ORTH-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a/ JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, INC; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a/ WATSON PHARMA, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; McKESSON
CORPORATION; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS INDIANA L.L.C.; CVS RX
SERVICES, INC.; CVS TN DISTRIBUTION, LLC; CVS PHARMACY, INC.;
OMNICARE DISTRIBUTION CENTER LLC; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.
a/k/a WALGREEN CO.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC.; and WALMART INC.
f/k/a WAL-MART STORES; INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; WSE
MANAGEMENT; LLC; WSE INVESTMENT, LLC; WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC.;
RITE AID CORPORATION; RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP.; RITE AID OF MARYLAND,
INC. d/b/a RITE AID MID-ATLANTIC CUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER, INC.;
ECKERD CORPORATION d/b/a RITE AID LIVERPOOL DISTRIBUTION CENTER;
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-op-45281-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 16, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants misled the public regarding the dangers
of opioid addiction and the efficacy of opioids for long-term use.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that children who are
exposed to opioids in utero frequently develop cognitive and
behavioral disabilities as a result, and they require extra
interventions and supports throughout their education. Public
schools are, in turn, required to provide special education and
related services to multiple generations of children born with
prenatal opioid exposure.

Because of the Defendants' horrific wrongdoing, which created the
worst man-made epidemic in history, births of children with
prenatal opioid exposure have increased exponentially since the
onslaught of the opioid epidemic, and they show no signs of slowing
down.

While great attention has been paid to the strain placed on states
and local governments for their vast public health expenditures to
respond to the opioid epidemic, the astounding harm caused to
public schools has gone largely unnoticed. Children born with
opioid exposure in utero are tragic victims of the opioid epidemic,
and they suffer from a host of developmental and behavioral
problems for the rest of their lives. Public schools are tasked
with finding the resources to provide special support and education
to these children

Cephalon Inc. provides biopharmaceutical products. The Company
develops and markets medicines for the treatment of nervous system
disorders, cancer, and pain management. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Charles D. Wysong, Esq.
          Emily R. Brown, Esq.
          Margaret Truesdale, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS
          RESNICK &DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  cwysong@hsplegal.com
                  ebrown@hsplegal.com
                  mtruesdale@hsplegal.com

               -and-

          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          Steve Skalet, Esq.
          Joshua Karsh, Esq.
          Aisha Rich, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
                  sskalet@findjustice.com
                  jkarsh@findjustice.com
                  arich@findjustice.com

               -and-

          Neil Henrichsen, Esq.
          HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          301 W. Bay Street, Suite 1400
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 381-8183
          E-mail: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com

               -and-

          Wayne Hogan, Esq.
          Leslie Goller, Esq.
          TERRELL HOGAN, P.A.
          233 E. Bay Street, Suite 800
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telelphone: (904) 722-2228
          E-mail: hogan@terrellhogan.com
                  lgoller@terrellhogan.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Cargo Order Routing Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a securities class action suit related
to its Cargo Order Routing

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co. The lawsuit names Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co)
and CSC as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which
CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and
December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
are vigorously contesting the lawsuit.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a savings and loan holding
company and engages, through its subsidiaries, in wealth
management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management,
custody, and financial advisory services. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Seeks to Certify Sales Reps Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY-CATHERINE BOUMAIZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-CV-06997-JLS-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on April 30, 2021, to
enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action, on behalf of:

      "all of the Defendants' Charter Store Associates (and/or
      similarly titled employees) who worked for Defendants
      during the Relevant Time Period within the state of
      California;"

   2. appointing Mary-Catherine Boumaiz as class representative;

   3. appointing Marlin & Saltzman, LLP as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and

   4. approving that notice of certification shall be given to
      the class members.

According to the complaint, the "similarly titled employees" refers
to all nonexempt Charter Sales Representatives. The proposed class
is comprised of more than 500 members, each of which perform the
same general sales and customer service duties at Charter's
California retail store locations. These employees are subject to
the same commission payment plans, wage and hour policies, employee
handbooks, trainings, etc. They receive the same template wage
statements, which are created by utilizing the Defendant's uniform
time and pay databases.

The Plaintiff Mary-Catherine Boumaiz alleges that hundreds of
current and former California Charter retail sales employees have
been subjected to common, improper, and illegal practices
throughout the class period. The primary cause of action, and
resulting derivative claim, arises from the Defendant's own
business conduct that the defendant systemically applied to the
proposed class members. The Defendant has systematically failed to
comply with California's wage statement requirements and has
derivatively violated California Unfair Competition Law, asserts
the complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/389X254 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement Talks on Royalties Suits Reopened
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties
in the class action suits related to the alleged underpayment of
royalties, have reopened settlement discussions.

Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and
purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on
behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages
related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the
divestiture of substantially all of the company's midstream
business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013.

These cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to
violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and for an unlawful market allocation agreement for mineral
rights, intentional interference with contractual relations, and
violations of antitrust laws related to purported markets for gas
mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering sources.

These lawsuits seek in aggregate compensatory, consequential,
treble, and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of
profits, declaratory and injunctive relief regarding our royalty
payment practices, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorney's
fees and costs.

On December 20, 2017 and August 9, 2018, the company reached
tentative settlements to resolve all Pennsylvania civil royalty
cases for a total at that time of approximately $36 million. In
light of the company's Bankruptcy Filing, the parties have reopened
settlement discussions.

Chesapeake said, "We believe losses are reasonably possible in
certain of the pending royalty cases for which we have not accrued
a loss contingency, but we are currently unable to estimate an
amount or range of loss or the impact the actions could have on our
future results of operations or cash flows. Uncertainties in
pending royalty cases generally include the complex nature of the
claims and defenses, the potential size of the class in class
actions, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, and the applicable production years."

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

CHICAGO KNIFE WORKS: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Knife Works, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Eugene Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chicago Knife Works, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06005 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

Chicago Knife Works Inc. is an online retail store that sells
knives, camping gear, lights, sports and marine supplies along with
other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com



CHICK-FIL-A INC: Garitano Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GABRIELLA GARITANO, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., Case No.
2020CV31906, was removed from the District Court of El Paso County,
Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on
December 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03631 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged civil theft and
violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum
Wage Act.

Chick-fil-A, Inc. is a franchisor of a system of quick-service
chicken restaurants in the U.S., with its principal place of
business located at 5200 Buffington Road, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Michelle B. Muhleisen, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         2000 South Colorado Boulevard
         Tower Three, Suite 900
         Denver, CO 80222
         Telephone: (303) 764-6800
         Facsimile: (303) 831-9246
         E-mail: michelle.muhleisen@ogletree.com

CHRISTMAS INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Mr. Christmas Incorporated is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Eugene Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mr. Christmas Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05984 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

Mr. Christmas, Incorporated is located in Memphis, TN, United
States and is part of the Internet & Mail-Order Retail
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com



CIMAREX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dolan Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DOLAN; and JEFFREY LEE JONES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01304 (D.N.M., Dec. 16, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drilling
consultants.

Cimarex Energy Co. explores and produces crude oil and natural gas
in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, Box # 201
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


CITIGROUP INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Citigroup, Inc. Stockholders
have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found
at the link provided.

Citigroup, Inc.

Class Period: January 15, 2016 to October 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020

The Class Period begins on February 25, 2017, following the
Company's submission of its 2016 Annual Report to the SEC. In that
filing, and throughout the Class Period, Citi assured investors
that there were no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses
in the Company's internal controls. When faced with periodic
regulatory penalties for noncompliance, the Company continued to
assure investors that the specific deficiencies at issue were being
remediated promptly and that internal controls and regulatory
compliance were a top priority at Citi. In particular, Citi assured
investors that it satisfied all regulatory requirements and
maintained adequate internal controls, data governance, compliance
risk management, and enterprise risk management.

In reality, during the Class Period and unbeknownst to investors,
Citi's internal controls and risk management capabilities suffered
from "serious" and "longstanding" inadequacies that exposed the
Company to massive regulatory penalties and will cost significantly
more than $1 billion to remediate. Specific control failures about
which Citi executives were warned remained unresolved for years and
the Company's culture of non-compliance was so widespread that
Citi's CEO, Defendant Michael Corbat, exhorted employees in an
internal memo that regulatory compliance required more than
"checking boxes."

The truth began to emerge on September 14, 2020, when reports
surfaced that regulators were preparing to reprimand Citi for
failing to improve its risk-management systems.

That disclosure caused the price of Citi's stock to decline $2.85
per share, from $51.00 to $48.15, erasing $5.91 billion in
shareholder value.

After the market closed on September 14, 2020, an internal memo
sent to Citi employees revealed for the first time the Company's
disregard for adequate internal controls and regulatory
compliance.

As a result, the price of Citi's stock declined an additional $3.34
per share, from $48.15 to $44.81, erasing $6.93 billion in
shareholder value.

Then, on October 13, 2020, Citi reported earnings for the third
quarter of 2020, and disclosed that the Company's expenses
increased during the third quarter by 5%, to $11 billion, due to an
increase in costs including a $400 million fine, investments in
infrastructure, and other remediation costs related to control
deficiencies.

These disclosures caused Citi's stock price to decline by $2.20 per
share, from $45.88 to $43.68, erasing $4.57 billion in shareholder
value.

For more information on the Citigroup class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/C

About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

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

CITIGROUP INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of December 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) between
January 15, 2016 and October 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important December 29, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Citigroup investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Citigroup class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1999.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or concealed and/or
failed to disclose: (1) Citigroup's failure to implement and
maintain an enterprise-wide risk management and compliance risk
management program, internal controls, or a data governance program
commensurate with the Company's size, complexity, and risk profile;
(2) Citigroup's failure to establish an effective risk governance
framework; (3) Citigroup's failure to establish enterprise-wide
risk management policies, standards, and frameworks necessary to
adequately identify, measure, monitor, and control risks; (4)
Citigroup's failure to establish effective front-line units,
independent risk management, internal audit, and control functions;
(5) Citigroup's failure to develop and execute on a comprehensive
plan to address data governance deficiencies, including data
quality errors and failure to produce timely and accurate
management and regulatory reporting; (6) that Citigroup had failed
to make the investments required to address its regulatory
shortcomings; (7) that Citigroup had failed to implement and
establish the requisite internal controls, risk management and data
governance processes to comply with regulatory requirements,
existing consent orders, and applicable laws and regulations; (8)
that Citigroup was currently exposed to significant financial and
operational risk, including risk from outdated and manual processes
that left Citigroup susceptible to material accounting errors; (9)
that Citigroup was currently suffering from material deficiencies
in its policies, procedures and practices applicable to data
integrity and data governance and had failed to develop and execute
on a plan to address these deficiencies as required by regulators;
(10) that Citigroup lacked the required personnel with appropriate
training, experience and authority to implement the required risk
management and internal controls; and (11) that as a result of the
foregoing, Citigroup had engaged in unsafe and unsound business
practices that exposed it to heightened regulatory, legal, business
and reputational risks. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
29, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1999.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

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


CMR CONSTRUCTION: Shinn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN SHINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CMR CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, LLC, Case No.
CACE-20-020906 (Fla. Cir. Broward Cty., Dec. 12, 2020) is a
putative class action arising from the Defendant's violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging with no regard for consumers' privacy rights to
promote its roofing and construction services. Mr. Shinn asserts
that he did not provide the Defendant with his express written
consent to be contacted using an automatic telephone dialing
system.

The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff harm,
including invasion of his privacy and annoyance. The Defendant's
text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption
to his daily life, the suit says.

CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC was founded in 2002. The
company's line of business includes providing roofing, siding, and
sheet metal services and installation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.  
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713  
          E-mail: mhiraldo@ruraldolaw.com  

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.  
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 628-5793
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

COLLIVE CORP: Suris Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Collive Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Collive Corporation and Collive Media Group
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06096 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 15,
2020).

The Defendants are engaged in Communications services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Chavez Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Chavez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Columbia
Debt Recovery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06014 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC is a debt collection agency located in
Bellevue, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CONQUEST COMPLETION: Sanchez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Conquest Completion Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04167 (S.D. Tex., December 7, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Conquest operates fleets of high capacity extended reach coiled
tubing units where Sanchez was employed as a mixing plant operator
from approximately October 2018 through April 2020. Conquest
allegedly paid Sanchez on a day-rate basis without paid overtime
for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Email: Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
             aortiz@fslawfirm.com


CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2020, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by Gary D. Voigt.

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action Complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC (CD&R), Clayton,
Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII, L.P. (CD&R Fund VIII), and certain
directors of the Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.

An Amended Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019. The Amended
Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for breach of
fiduciary duty against twelve director defendants in connection
with the Merger.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and, on February
10, 2020, the court denied the motions except as to four of the
director defendants.

Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

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

Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems,
Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and
marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's
operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal
components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The
company is based in Cary, North Carolina.

COVETRUS INC: Suit by Hollywood, Fla. Cops Retirement Sys. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Covetrus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the City of
Hollywood (Florida) Police Officers' Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police
Officers' Retirement System filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12,
2019, against the Company, its Former Parent, its former Chief
Executive Officer and President, and its former Chief Financial
Officer.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions,
primarily regarding the Company's financial prospects and the
integration costs relating to the business combination involving
the Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.

Covetrus said, "We intend to defend the matter vigorously and have
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this
action."

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

Covetrus, Inc. is a global animal-health technology and services
company dedicated to supporting the companion, equine, and
large-animal veterinary markets. Its mission is to provide the best
products, services, and technology to veterinarians and
animal-health practitioners across the globe, so they can deliver
exceptional care to their patients when and where it is needed. The
company is based in Portland, Maine.

COVIA HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Feb. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of investors that purchased Covia
Holdings Corporation (Other OTC: CVIAQ) securities between March
15, 2016 and June 29, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until February 8, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 22, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018 (the "2018 10-K") with the SEC, which
provided the Company's fiscal year 2018 financial results and
position. In the 2018 10-K, the Company revealed that it had
received a subpoena from the SEC investigating certain value-added
proppants.

On this news, the Company's share prices dropped by $0.45, or
approximately 6.9%, from closing at $6.50 on March 22, 2019 to
close at $6.05 on March 25, 2019, the next trading day.

On November 6, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019 (the "3Q19 10-Q") with
the SEC, which provided the Company's third quarter financial
results and position. In the 3Q19 10-Q, the Company revealed that,
in addition to the March 18, 2019 SEC subpoena, additional
information was requested and subpoenaed regarding current and
former employees.

On this news, the Company's share prices dropped by $0.07, or
approximately 4.3%, from opening at $1.63 on November 6, 2019 to
close at $1.56.

On June 29, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into a
comprehensive restructuring agreement with lenders and voluntarily
filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code to implement the agreement.

On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating in part,
"the Company is no longer suitable for listing [. . .] after the
Company's June 29, 2020 disclosure that the Company filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code[.]"

On this news, the Company's share prices fell $0.18, or 37.5%, from
closing at $0.48 on June 29, 2020, suspending trading June 30,
2020, and resuming trading OTC on July 1, 2020 at $0.30.

The complaint, filed on December 10, 2020, alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's proprietary ‘value-added' proppants were
not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) the
Company's revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary
‘value-added' proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3)
when Company insiders raised this issue, the defendants did not
take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Covia securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

Contacts

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


CREDIT PROTECTION: Watkins Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P. and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00941-ALM (E.D. Tex.,
December 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff on or about February 24, 2020 regarding his
alleged debt incurred to creditor COSERV ACCOUNT, who has
contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. However,
the letter is confusing and deceptive to the Plaintiff because it
contains a discrepancy between the original amount due and the
balance past due without any explanation, and it also states that
the no amounts have been paid with no explanation at all.
Allegedly, the Defendant's letter is a false representation of the
amount of the debt.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff has been damaged as a
result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt
collection practices. The Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual
damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

Credit Protection Association, L.P. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRISLU CORPORATION: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Crislu Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Crislu Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10322 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

CRISLU Corp. is a go-to online store for high-quality CZ jewelry at
an affordable price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


CUSTOM PERSONALIZATION: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Custom Personalization Solutions, LLC is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Custom Personalization
Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10325 (S.D. N.Y., Dec.
8, 2020).

Custom Personalization Solutions LLC (CPS) is a group of fast
growing web-oriented businesses specializing in the personalization
industry. Formally founded in 2012, CPS brought together three
world-class brands dedicated to producing high quality, unique
gifts that leave a lasting impression.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com



CWI INC: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------
CWI, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CWI, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10603-SHS (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 15, 2020).

CWI, Inc. retails sporting goods. The Company offers sporting
equipment, bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories. CWI serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

     - and -

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


DALE E. KLOSS: Haynie Files Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dale E. Kloss. The
case is styled as Mattie Powell, Samantha Haynie, Cheyenne
Kimbrell, Alexandria Parker-Shipman, Lani Powell, Destiny
Richardson, Tatiana Sandoval, Taylor Smith and Brianna Venable,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Dale E. Kloss, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-06145-SOH
(W.D. Ark., Dec. 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed over the Denial of Overtime Compensation.

Dale E. Kloss is an individual.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Josh Sanford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm, PLLC
   650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


DALLAS JONES: Shortchanges Truck Drivers' Wages, McClurg Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny McClurg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Dallas Jones Enterprises Inc
(d/b/a CLAY'S TRUCKING), Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00201 (W.D. Ky.,
December 8, 2020) seeks to recover all remuneration in the regular
rate of pay for all wages owing at termination of employment under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and California state law.

Dallas Jones Enterprises operates as "Clay's Trucking" where
McClurg worked as a truck driver. McClurg worked overtime in many
workweeks but was not paid overtime compensation for his overtime
work, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark N. Foster, Esq.
     Law Office of Mark N. Foster, PLLC
     P.O. Box 869
     Madisonville, KY 42431
     Tel: (270) 213-1303
     Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com


DCS ALL AMERICAN: Kibodeaux Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kibodeaux, on of behalf himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DCS All American, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-04168 (S.D. Tex., December 7, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

DCS works as a third-party vendor that provides workers with solids
control experience to companies in the oil and gas industry where
Kibodeaux was employed as a solids control hand from approximately
September 2017 through January 2020. DCS allegedly paid Kibodeaux
on a day-rate basis without paid overtime for the hours they worked
in excess of 40 hours each week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Email: Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
             aortiz@fslawfirm.com


DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES: Faces Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Lowe at pressofatlanticcity.com reports that a Margate woman
is suing Infinity Diagnostic Laboratories, the owner and operator
of a lab in Ventnor being investigated by the FBI related to its
COVID-19 testing.

Dana Kares, represented by attorney Stephen P. DeNittis, filed a
complaint in Atlantic County Superior Court alleging the Teterboro,
Bergen County-based company duped "thousands" of people out of $75
each by knowingly providing antibody blood tests for the
coronavirus but advertising them as "rapid" tests that could detect
the virus.

The complaint seeks to have the judge designate the suit as a class
action to include anyone who purchased finger-stick tests from
Infinity in Atlantic County since March 1. The lawsuit also seeks
refunds for such testing and to have the court direct Infinity to
pay the costs of the retesting the FBI has said should be
undertaken.

"People are understandably worried about COVID and want desperately
to protect their families, their workers and themselves from this
disease. Unfortunately, some people want to make money off of that
and do not care how they do it, even if it means putting people at
risk of getting sick, or worse, death," DeNittis said. "This
lawsuit cannot undo what was done, but we can try to get back the
money these people paid and force the defendant to pay for
retesting."

The FBI released a statement directing anyone who received a
coronavirus test at the Infinity Diagnostic Laboratory at 6715
Atlantic Ave. to be retested as soon as possible. Although the
statement did not specify what initiated the warning, it did
include a notice that a "rapid" finger prick blood test is an
antibody test and should not be used for diagnosing active cases of
COVID-19.

According to the suit, Kares purchased the finger-prick tests
advertised as rapid tests for COVID-19 for herself and two family
members at $75 each from the Infinity lab in Ventnor on Aug. 2.

"According to witnesses, the facility refused to accept credit or
debit card payments and required any payments or insurance co-pays
to be paid in cash," the suit states.

One patient, J.F., who asked only to be identified with initials
due to concerns over privacy, said she went to the lab Nov. 11 for
a test after being exposed to someone who tested positive for
COVID-19, and described the experience as strange, especially being
asked to pay $75, either in cash or via Venmo, despite having
insurance.

According to J.F., the woman at the lab performed both a finger
prick and a nasal swab test, but did not distinguish what each test
was for.

"She pricked my finger, and she made me wait a couple minutes and
said, 'OK, you're negative,'" J.F. said. "When I walked out of
there, I was under the assumption that I was negative of COVID."

J.F. received a phone call days later confirming negative results
from her nasal swab test, she said.

J.F. went on to describe being asked to speak to a doctor on the
phone before the test was completed.

"When I was talking to the doctor on the telephone, I did think it
was a little unusual because I thought, 'Gosh, I could be talking
to anybody,'" J.F. said. "The other thing, too, was there was no
privacy there. ... I thought they would take you in the back and do
it, but they did it in the front of the store there."

The diagnostic lab moved into its Atlantic Avenue location in
September, according to the building owners. [GN]


DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Court Grants More time to Respond in Adams Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Latorsha Adams, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dickey's Barbecue
Restaurants, Inc. and Dickey's Capital Group, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-03603-C, Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas granted on December 18, 20202, a
motion for extension of time for Defendants to answer or otherwise
respond to the original petition pending JPML Ruling. The deadline
for Defendants to respond to the Original Petition is 30 days after
the JPML issues its ruling on the MDL Transfer Motion.

This case was brought before the Court pursuant to a NOTICE OF
REMOVAL filed by Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., Dickey's
Capital Group on December 9, 2020.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Torts/Personal
Injury.

Dickey's Barbecue Pit is an American family-owned barbecue
restaurant chain based in Dallas, Texas, and is a subsidiary of
Dickey's Capital Group. Since Travis Dickey established the
restaurant in 1941, it has become the largest barbecue franchise in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Austin Paul Smith, Esq.
   Steckler Wayne Cochran PLLC
   12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
   Dallas, TX 75230
   Tel: (972) 387-4040
   Fax: (972) 387-4041
   Email: austin@swclaw.com

     - and -

   Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
   Steckler Wayne Cochran PLLC
   12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045
   Dallas, TX 75230
   Tel:(972) 387-4040
   Fax: (972) 387-4041
   Email: bruce@swclaw.com

     - and -

   Paul D Stickney, Esq.
   Stickney Mediations PLLC
   12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
   Dallas, TX 75230
   Tel: (682) 313-9656
   Email: judgestick@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Christopher S Dodrill, Esq.
   Greenberg Traurig
   2200 Ross Ave, Suite 5200
   Dallas, TX 75201
   Tel: (214) 665-3681
   Fax: (214) 665-3601
   Email: dodrillc@gtlaw.com


DINGXIANG INC: Du Wins Conditional Collective Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEI RONG DU, on her own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DINGXIANG
INC. doing business as BIRDS OF A FEATHER, CAFE CHINA GROUP LLC
doing business as CHINA BLUE, SHANZHA INC doing business as CAFE
CHINA, YIMING WANG, XIAN ZHANG, and RUI GANG WANG, Case No.
1:19-cv-11924-JPO-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
      certification as to:

      "Kitchen and Pastry Workers employed at Birds of a Feather
      on or after December 30, 2016;"

   2. directing the Defendants to produce a spreadsheet, in
      excel if possible, containing the names, last known
      mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last
      known email addresses, last known WhatsApp, WeChat and/or
      Facebook usernames, dates of employment, and positions of
      all Kitchen and Pastry Workers employed at Birds of a
      Feather on or after December 30, 2016; and

   3. directing the parties, after meeting and conferring, to
      prepare and submit to the Court, for approval, a revised
      form of notice (and related consent form) incorporating
      the Court's rulings.

The Court said, "Because the plaintiff failed to make the requisite
factual showing that employees of Cafe China and China Blue are
"similarly situated" to her and the other Kitchen and Pastry
Workers at Birds of a Feather, notice will be limited to the
Kitchen and Pastry Workers employed at Birds of a Feather."

The Plaintiff Mei Rong Du worked as a dim sum chef at Birds of a
Feather restaurant, which is owned and operated by the defendants
Yiming Wang, Xian Zhang, and Rui Gang Wang (the Individual
Defendants). She brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), and state law, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated persons, alleging that the Individual Defendants together
with the Corporate Defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL)
as well as the spread-of-hours and wage notice provisions of the
NYLL.

The Defendants own and operate three restaurants: Birds of a
Feather, located at 191 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York; China
Blue, located at 135 Watts Street, New York, New York; and Cafe
China, located at 13 E 37th Street, New York.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 17, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LJ3kRC at no
extra charge.[CC]

DISH NETWORK: 4th Circuit Declines to Consider "Premature" Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As readers of this blog may recall, the Middle District of North
Carolina recently denied Dish Network's request for reversion of
$11 million in unclaimed funds from the jury-awarded damages in a
TCPA class action trial. See Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, No.
14-0333 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 2020). Noting that the TCPA is a
deterrence statute, the District Court held that allowing unclaimed
funds to revert to the defendant would undermine the function of
the damage award, and it determined that such funds should either
escheat to the government or be donated to an appropriate charity
whose work is related to the objectives of the TCPA. But the
District Court did not decide the ultimate recipient of the
unclaimed funds, appointing a special master to identify and
evaluate potential cy pres recipients and make recommendations to
the court.

Now, in a roughly one-page order, the Fourth Circuit denied Dish
Network's appeal of the District Court's final disbursement order.
See Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 20-1077, No. 20-1198 (4th
Cir. Dec. 1, 2020). Notwithstanding that the District Court had
denied in no uncertain terms Dish's motion that the unclaimed funds
revert to Dish, the appellate court determined that the appeal was
not yet ripe, given that the issue of where the funds will go has
not yet been decided by the District Court and therefore "Dish's
interest in the ongoing claims administration process is contingent
upon the issue-not yet resolved in the district court-of whether
any unclaimed class funds revert to Dish." Id. It concluded that if
the District Court resolved not to allow such a reversion, "then
the errors that Dish assigns to the claims administration process
will not have caused any injury to Dish." Id. Thus, on both
standing and ripeness grounds, the Fourth Circuit denied the
appeal.

The $11 million question -- who will ultimately receive the
unclaimed funds -- still remains to be seen. We will continue to
monitor this case as it develops. [GN]


DJI TECHNOLOGY: Bishop Files Suit in New York under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
DJI Technology, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DJI Technology, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10605 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 15, 2020).

DJI develops and manufactures innovative drone and camera
technology for commercial and recreational use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


DONOTPAY INC: Hufnus Files TCPA Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DoNotPay, Inc. The
case is styled as Mathew Hufnus, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DoNotPay, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-08701 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 9,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

DoNotPay is a legal services chatbot founded by Joshua Browder, a
British-American entrepreneur. The chatbot was originally built to
contest parking tickets, but has expanded to include other services
as well.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend Class Suits in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend securities class action suits in New Jersey.

On August 13, 2020 Tiandong Tang commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Company, its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in Federal District Court
in the District of New Jersey, and on August 26, 2020 Jimmie A.
McAdams and Judy P. McAdams commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Company and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New
York.  

The Securities Class Actions seek damages and other relief based on
alleged violations of federal securities laws in the context of the
announcement of the potential Development Finance Corporation (DFC)
Loan and Pharmaceutical Initiative.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
Securities Class Actions.

Eastman Kodak Company is a global technology company focused on
print and advanced materials and chemicals. Kodak provides
industry-leading hardware, software, consumables and services
primarily to customers in commercial print, packaging, publishing,
manufacturing and entertainment. Kodak is committed to
environmental stewardship and ongoing leadership in developing
sustainable solutions.

EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Russo Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mary Russo, Sanchelle Johnson, Juliann
Callery, Wendi O'Brien, Brianna Bendik, Kyle Grego, Ahmad Lewis,
Neverrol Thompson, Randy Brown, Marvin Ravenel, Juan Dozier, Maria
Turner, Matthew Shreve, Mae Taylor, Samuel Halverson, Nicole Floyd,
Dolores Smiley, Lucinda Liferidge, Janelle Wright, Lynn Washington,
Jeremy Sheltra, Peter Fortner, Jason Pogar, Jessica Ancrum, Megan
Felkel, Jeremy McNeer, Janica Hunter, Christian Hallock, Sherryl
Anderson and Kathleen Harvey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Eastwood Construction
Partners LLC, formerly known as: Eastwood Construction LLC,
formerly known as: Eastwood Homes Inc, Eastwood Homes Inc, Exterior
Contract Services LLC, Southcoast Exteriors Inc and Alpha Omega
Construction Group Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the
Charleston County Court of Common Pleas with the assigned Case No.
2020-CP-10-03794 to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina on Dec. 9, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04267-DCN.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Real Property:
Other filed over Property Damage.

Eastwood Construction LLC provides construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, Esq.
   The Steinberg Law Firm LLP
   103 Grandview Drive
   Summerville, SC 29483
   Tel: (843) 871-6522
   Fax: (843) 871-8565
   Email: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Catherine Ava Kopiec, Esq.
   Rogers Townsend LLC
   PO Box 100200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 744-1534
   Fax: (803) 343-7017
   Email: catherine.kopiec@rtt-law.com

     - and -

   Robert Bryan Barnes, Esq.
   Rogers Townsend and Thomas
   PO Box 100200
   Columbia, SC 29202-3200
   Tel: (803) 744-1273
   Fax: (803) 343-7017
   Email: bryan.barnes@rtt-law.com



ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sports Betting Operators Monitor Gamers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Silver at Forbes reports that sports wagering operators
-- along with anyone interested in the status of mandatory consumer
arbitration -- have their eyes on a class action lawsuit filed by
three video game players in November against Electronic Arts EA +2%
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Electronic Arts' EA Sports division is the developer of popular
sports video game franchises including the Madden NFL football,
FIFA soccer, and NHL hockey games. The gamers filed their class
action against EA alleging that the games are programmed to adjust
the difficulty of games based upon individual gamers' skill levels.
By adjusting the skill level in this way, the gamers allege, they
are caused to purchase more "loot boxes" called "Player Packs."
Player Packs allow gamers the chance to access superstar athletes,
such as soccer star Lionel Messi, for use in the games' "Ultimate
Team" mode to improve their team. Electronic Arts has not yet
responded to the lawsuit, and its initial response is expected on
January 11.

We are just beyond the opening kickoff, so to speak, in the gamers'
lawsuit against Electronic Arts, but before even getting to the
heart of the lawsuit, EA will likely ask the court to compel the
gamers to have their claims decided in mandatory individual
arbitration, as opposed to in court as a class action. EA's user
agreement, to which gamers subject themselves, contains a provision
by which gamers agree to waive the rights to a trial by jury and to
participate in a class action lawsuit, in favor of agreeing to
having their claims decided via arbitration under a modified
version of the American Arbitration Association's Consumer
Arbitration Rules. Like EA, most sports wagering operators' account
agreements contain similar arbitration clauses.

Although the Federal Arbitration Act generally allows for
arbitration clauses to exist, consumers have occasionally been
successful in getting around arbitration clauses, such as that in
EA's user agreement, in order to pursue a class action. However, in
2015, in another class action lawsuit brought by a gamer against
Electronic Arts, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York rejected a gamer's attempt to void EA's
arbitration clause, and required that the claims be decided in
arbitration.

Much has changed as it relates to consumer arbitration since 2015.
Indeed, in 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
issued a rulemaking that served to limit companies' ability to
require consumers to submit to mandatory arbitration rather than
pursue class actions in court. However, that rule was short-lived,
as later in 2017, the Senate invoked the Congressional Review Act
to vote to repeal the rule, in a measure approved by President
Trump. Now, many are speculating that the incoming Biden
administration may attempt to issue similar rulemaking (whether
through the CFPB, the Federal Trade Commission, or some other
agency) in an effort to once again scale back businesses' ability
to avoid class actions in favor of sending consumer lawsuits to
mandatory arbitration.

In other words, the new Player Pack lawsuit against Electronic Arts
could have implications for many businesses. Although it has not
yet responded to the lawsuit, EA will almost certainly ask the
court to enforce its arbitration agreement. The gamers will contend
in response that the arbitration clause is unenforceable under
California law-an argument which has occasionally succeeded in
California courts. However, if the incoming Biden administration
were to act quickly with respect to arbitration, that might provide
the gamers with added ammunition in their efforts to avoid
arbitration.

Because of the potential arbitration impact, many businesses,
including sports wagering operators, will have an eye on the
gamers' lawsuit against Electronic Arts. The case could be
particularly relevant to sports wagering operators for multiple
reasons. First, because sports wagering operators almost
universally employ arbitration clauses in their customer
agreements, any court rulings (or action by an incoming
administration) that chip away at the legality of consumer
arbitration would certainly impact how sports wagering operators do
business.

Second, and less obviously, there is a potential gambling
connection to the gamers' lawsuit against Electronic Arts. This is
because the plaintiffs refer to purchasing the Player Packs as
"games of chance," in that by purchasing a loot box like a Madden
Player Pack, they are taking a gamble in the hopes of adding a
superstar player such as Stephon Gilmore or Lamar Jackson to their
Ultimate Team. And while others have discussed the question of
whether loot boxes are, in fact, "gambling," the more important
issue for sports wagering operators is that if gamers are
successful in avoiding arbitration against EA, consumers may
consider filing class actions against other businesses offering
"games of chance," such as sports wagering operators.

The puck has just been dropped in the gamers' Player Pack lawsuit
against Electronic Arts, and President-Elect Biden is not even
being sworn in until next month. But both the outcome of the
lawsuit along with the prerogatives of the incoming administration
could have a significant impact on businesses' ability to subject
consumers to arbitration. Because of the potential impact on their
businesses, sports wagering operators will be paying particularly
close attention.

(Disclosure: My law firm represents the iDevelopment & Economic
Association, a trade association that includes legal wagering
operators and suppliers.) [GN]



FEEDERS SUPPLY CO: Tucker Files Suit in New York under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
Feeders Supply Company, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Feeders Supply Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10393 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

Feeders Supply Company, LLC is a retailer offering an array of pet
food & supplies, plus services such as adoptions & dog
training.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal



FIGO PET INSURANCE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Figo Pet Insurance LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Figo Pet Insurance LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10394 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

Figo offers premium pet insurance plans for dogs and cats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Baniyeva Files Suit under Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Yana Bangiyeva, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. and LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06016 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Uri Horowitz, Esq.
   Horowitz Law, PLLC
   14441 70th Road
   Flushing, NY 11367
   Tel: (718) 705-8706
   Fax: (718) 705-8705
   Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com



FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Blanks Seeks Refund of Gym Membership Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIHU BLANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a LA FITNESS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07421 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2020) seeks
to recover membership fees.

According to the complaint, on March 16, 2020, the Defendant
voluntarily and indefinitely closed its fitness facilities around
the country and furloughed most of its employees due to COVID-19
pandemic. Defendant remained closed until June 26, 2020.

Rather than cease its collection of membership fees, the Defendant
continued charging its members, primarily through automatic
electronic debits that Plaintiff and the putative class members
were helpless to stop. Instead of doing right by its members and
refunding the unearned membership fees it should have never
collected in the first place, the Defendant has kept millions of
dollars to which it is not entitled. The Plaintiff estimates that
the Defendant is wrongfully refusing to refund at least
$100,000,000 in unearned membership fees, and potentially even
more.

Instead of refunding these improperly collected fees, on March 30,
2020, the Defendant sent an email to all members purporting to
offer extended memberships or a free three-month membership for a
friend or family member as an apology for closing its facilities
earlier in the month and not refunding its members.

Fitness International, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness operates sports and
fitness clubs. The Company offers exercise equipments, fitness
classes and programs, personal trainers, sports leagues, and
education on healthy living. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

               -and-

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               -and-

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               -and-

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 628-5793
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


FORD MOTOR CO: Lund Files Suit in Arkansas
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Patricia Lund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02228-PKH (W.D. Ark., Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and
incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Phillip J. Milligan, Esq.
   Milligan Medlock Gramlich LLP
   500 So. 16th Street
   P.O. Box 2347
   Fort Smith, AR 72902
   Tel: (479) 783-2213
   Fax: (479) 783-4329



FORTRESS BIOTECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FBIO) between December 11, 2019 and October 9, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important January 26, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Fortress investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Fortress class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1997.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) intravenous ("IV") Tramadol was not safe for the intended
patient population; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not approve the New Drug
Application for IV Tramadol; and (3) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
26, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1997.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


FOUNDATION BUILDING: Bushansky Challenges $1.37-B Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNDATION BUILDING MATERIALS,
INC.; RUBEN D. MENDOZA; CHASE HAGIN; CHRIS MEYER; RAFAEL A.
COLORADO; MATTHEW J. ESPE; FAREED A. KHAN; CHAD R. LEWIS; JAMES F.
UNDERHILL; and MAUREEN HARRELL, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-02345
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, seeking to enjoin the close of a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Foundation will be acquired by
American Securities LLC ("American Securities") through American
Securities' affiliates ASP Flag Intermediate Holdings, Inc.
("Parent"), and ASP Flag Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the
"Proposed Transaction").

According to the complaint, on November 15, 2020, Foundation issued
a press release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated November 14, 2020 (the "Merger Agreement")
to sell Foundation to American Securities. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, each Foundation stockholder will receive $19.25
in cash for each share of Foundation common stock they own (the
"Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $1.37 billion.

On December 4, 2020, Foundation filed a Schedule 14C Definitive
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning,
among other things: (i) financial projections for Foundation; (ii)
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by Evercore Group L.L.C.
("Evercore"), the financial advisor to the special committee of the
Board (the "Special Committee"); (iii) the background of the
Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest
faced by Evercore, the Company's financial advisor RBC Capital
Markets, LLC ("RBC") and Company insiders. Defendants authorized
the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Foundation Building Materials, Inc. operates as a distributor of
specialty building products. The Company offers wallboard and
suspended ceiling systems, metal framing, commercial and industrial
mechanical insulation, fasteners, tools, and drywall products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     9100 Wilshire Boulevard #725 E.
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310) 208-2800
     Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
     E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Bowen at fool.com.au reports that the embattled Freedom
Foods Group Ltd (ASX: FNP) now has yet another thing to worry
about.

Freedom Foods has announced to the market this morning that it is
now facing a class action lawsuit from law firm Slater & Gordon
Limited (ASX: SGH).

The announcement this morning was a short one:

Freedom  Foods Group Limited advises that a Victorian Supreme Court
class action proceeding was commenced against the Company and its
auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and served on the Company on 9
December 2020. The proceeding alleges breaches of the Corporations
Act 2001 (Cth), Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Act and Australian Consumer Law.

The Company has appointed Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABL) to defend the
proceeding.

According to reporting in the Australian Financial Review (AFR),
the class action is on behalf of shareholders who bought or
acquired Freedom shares between the dates of 7 December 2014 and 24
June 2020 (when the company was placed in a trading halt, which
remains in place to this day).

The AFR reports that the class action's "key allegation" is that
Freedom "withheld material information relating to its true asset
position since 2014". It alleges that Freedom Foods "engaged in
significant breaches of its continuous disclosure obligations and
misleading and deceptive conduct". It also alleges Freedom's
auditor Deloitte "failed in its duties in signing off on Freedom
Foods' accounts each financial year between 2014 and the first half
of 2020".

How did Freedom Foods get here?

Freedom Foods has had a year I'm sure it (and its shareholders)
would rather forget. It all started back in June, when it was
announced the company's former chief executive officer, Rory
McLeod, advised he would be going "on leave". A few days later, it
was announced that McLeod, as well as Freedom's chief financial
officer, would be leaving the company.

This came after revelations there had been some serious
irregularities in Freedom's accounting books, which failed to note
that large volumes of food stocks had perished in storage. This
lead to multiple writedowns amounting to around $60 million in
inventories and a further ~$10 million in ‘bad debts'.

Following these embarrassing revelations, it was announced the
company would go into an ASX trading halt until 30 October. Well,
30 October came and went and Freedom shares still remain in
purgatory.

The company finally released its full-year results for the 2020
financial year last Monday (30 November) and told investors it had
sustained a loss after tax of $174.5 million in FY2020.

Freedom Foods' Interim Chief Executive Officer, Michael Perich,
called these number a "deeply disappointing set of results for
Freedom Food Group, its people and its shareholders".

Where to invest $1,000 right now

When investing expert Scott Phillips has a stock tip, it can pay to
listen. After all, the flagship Motley Fool Share Advisor
newsletter he has run for more than eight years has provided
thousands of paying members with stock picks that have doubled,
tripled or even more.*

Scott just revealed what he believes are the five best ASX stocks
for investors to buy right now. These stocks are trading at
dirt-cheap prices and Scott thinks they are great buys right now.
[GN]



GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Another Suit Over Defective Vortec Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Williams at motorillustrated.com states that a new report says
that General Motors has been hit with a class-action lawsuit once
again over problems alleged with the fourth-gen 5.3L Vortec V8
installed in 2010-2014 Chevrolet and GMC full-size trucks and
SUVs.

The suit was filed in US District Court in the Northern District of
Ohio, reports GM Authority, and it's just the latest in a series
that have been filed in jurisdictions around the country over the
last few years. It's said to be the third such suit filed this
year.

At issue in the engine are alleged oil consumption problems that
are said to be related to the positive crankcase ventilation valve
on the engines. That PCV valve is designed to ensure that the
engine's sump doesn't become pressurised (by venting that extra air
into the intake), but the suit claims that the system is pulling
oil out of the valvetrain and into the intake where it is burned
off in the cylinders. It also claims that the piston rings fail to
maintain crankcase pressure and that a faulty oil pressure valve
sprays oil into the piston skirts, sending oil into the combustion
chamber.

In addition to excess oil burning fouling sparkplugs and possibly
damaging emissions controls systems, it can lead to low oil levels
in the engine and severe damage.

While there are various Technical Service Bulletin fixes, the suit
alleges they're only temporary fixes.

Last month, GM Authority reports, a similar nationwide class-action
suit was dismissed in Ohio by a federal judge saying that the
"named plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under the laws of
the states in which they do not reside or in which they suffered no
injury." A separate complaint that GM was breaching the terms of
its warranty agreement was also dismissed as the defect was
allegedly one of design and such defects are not covered under the
warranty.

The suit claims over the 5.3L V8 involve the 2010-2014 Chevrolet
Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe, Avalanche, and the GMC Sierra, Yukon,
and Yukon XL. The claims have not yet been proven in court. [GN]


GEORGIA NUT: Rosario FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADOLFO ROSARIO, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GEORGIA NUT COMPANY, Case No.
2020 CH 06604, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on December 14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07400 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to provide a proper
stand-alone disclosure form before conducting background checks on
applicants and employees for employment purposes, failing to obtain
proper authorization, and failing to provide consumers with notice,
a copy of their consumer report and summary of rights, before
taking adverse action against them based on the information in such
reports.

Georgia Nut Company is a retailer of nuts, chocolates & old-time
confections, plus gift baskets, with its principal place of
business located in Skokie, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 787-4949
         E-mail: Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com

GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Miranda Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MIRANDA and
PATRICIA TERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT (NV), INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00534-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary class certification for Settlement
      Purposes Only;

      The Court preliminarily finds under Federal Civil
      Procedure Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and for settlement
      purposes only that: (a) the Settlement Class certified
      herein numbers at least in the tens of thousands of
      persons, and joinder of all such persons would be
      impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact
      that are common to the Settlement Class, and those
      questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class
      predominate over any questions affecting any individual
      Settlement Class Member; and (c) the claims of the
      plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement
      Class they seek to represent for purposes of settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying the Settlement Class consisting
      of:

      "all customers, vendors, and current and former employees
      of Golden to whom Golden mailed notice that between May
      30, 2019, and October 6, 2019, Golden was the target of a
      cyberattack in which third parties sent phishing emails to
      Golden's employees in the hopes of gaining access to
      Golden's computer systems and might have resulted in
      unauthorized parties accessing personal information;"

      The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Golden and
      its respective officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement
      Class Members who timely opt-out of the settlement; (iii)
      the judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this
      settlement; and (iv) any other person found by a court of
      competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
      initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the criminal
      activity occurrence of the Phishing Attack or who pleads
      nolo contendere to any such charge;

   3. designating the Plaintiffs Jennifer Miranda and Patricia
      Terry as representatives of the conditionally certified
      Settlement Class;

      The Court preliminarily finds that these individuals are
      similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and
      therefore typical of the Settlement Class, and that they
      will be adequate class representatives;

   4. designating Further, Bursor & Fisher, P.A, as class
      counsel; and

   5. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and  
      warranting sending of notice to the Settlement
      Class;

On March 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs Jennifer Miranda and Patricia
Terry filed a proposed nationwide class action against Golden
Entertainment, asserting claims for (i) negligence; (ii) negligence
per se for violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA);
(iii) negligence per se for violation of the Nevada Data Breach Law
(NDBL); and (iv) violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (NDTPA). The March 16, 2020, complaint alleged that as a result
of Golden's negligence and failure to properly safeguard the
personally identifying information of individuals, a data breach
occurred that exposed said information. The Plaintiffs sought to
represent a nationwide class.

On June 18, 2020, Golden filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
That motion came after four unopposed extensions of Golden's
deadline to respond so that the parties could negotiate a
settlement. On July 2, 2020, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint. The First Amended Class Action Complaint also
asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation and of contract.

On August 13, 2020, after a fifth and final extension, the parties
filed a Notice of Settlement. On December 2, 2020, the court
conducted a hearing on the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

A copy of the Court's order Preliminarily Approving Class Action
Settlement dated Dec. 17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/34u5j2J at no extra charge.[CC]

Class Counsel are:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

Golden's counsel are:

          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          Matthew D. Pearson, Esq
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  mpearson@bakerlaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: McCready Slams App Market Monopolization
----------------------------------------------------
Janette McCready, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-03556 (D.D.C., December 7, 2020), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief under Sections 4, 12, and 16 of
the Clayton Act including Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Google is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies
and a search engine. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet
Inc.

Google's Play Store is available to mobile device users running
Google's Android operating system which Google claims to be an
"open" source software. Google allegedly deterred competition in
the market for Android mobile applications and products sold with
such apps. McCready claims that users have overpaid for such
products due to Google's monopolization of this market.

Google's market dominance of Android OS was allegedly achieved
through a series of contracts with distributors designed to
minimize competition. Google requires OEMs such as LG, Motorola,
and Samsung to enter into agreements to specifically forbid them
from developing or distributing versions of Android that do not
comply with Google-controlled technical standards, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      Will T. Crowder, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
      Phone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
      Email: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
             willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

             - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
      Washington, DC 20016
      Phone: (202) 640-1160
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com


GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Putative Class Action in California Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gossamer Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Scott
Kuhne.

On April 3, 2020, Scott Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-MDD).

The first amended complaint was filed on August 31, 2020. The
complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 8,
2019 and December 13, 2019. The first amended complaint alleges
that the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors,
and the underwriters of its IPO made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its
business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees,
and other unspecified equitable relief.

Following meet and confer discussions amongst the parties to the
litigation, Plaintiff was granted leave to further amend his
complaint by no later than November 20, 2020.

Thereafter, the Company's deadline to move to dismiss or otherwise
answer that complaint is January 19, 2021.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Given the
uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and
the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action.

Gossamer Bio, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on discovering, acquiring, and developing
therapeutics in the disease areas of immunology, inflammation, and
oncology. Gossamer Bio serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in San Diego, California.


GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a federal securities class action suit
initiated by Robert F. Woodley.

In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action
against the company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R.
Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and such other and further relief that may be deemed just
and proper.

Gulfport Energy Corporation is an independent oil natural gas
exploration and production company. The company focuses on the
exploration, exploitation, acquisition and production of natural
gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil in the United States.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal
on the order of dismissal in the class action suit entitled, In re
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., et al.; and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al.

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017. The Amended Complaint named as
defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and
asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or
misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects, financial results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.


Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 6, 2019. The Second Amended Complaint again named
as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the
Amended Complaint, including materially false or misleading
statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial
results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August
5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019.

On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2020
indicating their intent to appeal the Court's decision dismissing
the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their appellate
brief on August 18, 2020. Defendants' opposition brief is due on
November 17, 2020.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.

HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, In re
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative
Litigation

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the former Board of Directors and
certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v.
Simon, et al. and Barnes v. Simon, et al., respectively. Both the
Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of
securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets
and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board
of Directors and certain former officers of the Company.

The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and
certain former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint
also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law
by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and
includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and
corporate waste.

On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case
and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al., and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver
Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017.

On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended
complaint through and including 30 days after a decision was
rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
Consolidated Securities Action, described above.

On March 29, 2019, the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action
granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its
entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Securities Action filed the Second Amended Complaint
on May 6, 2019.

The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative
Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint
through 30 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities
Action.

On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action,
with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in
the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until
May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint
in this matter.

This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Complaint on
June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs' opposition due August 7, 2020.

On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand
on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to
those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and
Derivative Action. On August 10, 2020, the Court vacated the
briefing schedule on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in order
to give the Board of Directors time to consider the demand. On each
of September 8 and October 8, 2020, the Court extended its stay of
any applicable deadlines for 30 days to give the Board of Directors
additional time to complete its evaluation of the demand.

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of
Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other
things, that the demand should be rejected. On November 6, 2020,
Plaintiffs and Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiffs are in
the process of evaluating the rejection of the demand, seeking
certain additional information and assessing next steps and
requested that the Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days,
to on or around December 7, 2020.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.

HARTFORD GOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Scheff Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCHEFF, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD GOLD GROUP, LLC and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV47565 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 11, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely
pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages upon
termination, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure
to keep requisite payroll records, and failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt sales
representative in the County of Los Angeles, California from
approximately August 21, 2019 to September 25, 2020.

The Hartford Gold Group, LLC is a gold dealer located in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
         Jill J. Parker, Esq.
         BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
         8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 622-4278
         Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
         E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                 jparker@blackstonepc.com

HERBIVORE BOTANICALS: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Herbivore Botanicals, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Eugene Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Herbivore Botanicals, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06003-PKC-RML (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9,
2020).

Herbivore Botanicals is a cosmetics company. The company creates
organic beauty products for face and body care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HOWMET AEROSPACE: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Howmet Aerospace Inc. (formerly known as Arconic Inc.) said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, 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 Arconic Inc.
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 Arconic Inc., three former Arconic Inc. executives,
several current and former directors, and certain banks. Howard and
Sullivan were subsequently consolidated and the lead plaintiffs in
the consolidated purported class action filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and seeking, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses.

After the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and all
defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Howmet Aerospace Inc., (formerly known as Arconic Inc.) is an
aerospace company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company
manufactures components for jet engines, fasteners and titanium
structures for aerospace applications, and forged aluminum wheels
for heavy trucks. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

IDEANOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Rudani Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Rudani
v. Ideanomics, et al. Inc.

On July 19, 2019, a purported class action, now captioned Rudani v.
Ideanomics, et al. Inc., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the
Amended Complaint alleges purported misstatements made by the
Company in 2017 and 2018.  

Ideanomics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on October
19, 2004. From 2010 through 2017, the Company's primary business
activities were providing premium content video on demand (VOD)
services, with primary operations in the People's Republic of China
(PRC,) through its subsidiaries and variable interest entities
(VIEs) under the brand name You-on-Demand (YOD). The Company closed
the YOD business during 2019. The company is based in New York, New
York.


IDEANOMICS INC: Lundy and Kim Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the purported class
action suits entitled, Lundy v. Ideanomics et al. Inc. and Kim v.
Ideanomics, et al., have been consolidated.

On June 28, 2020, a purported securities class action, captioned
Lundy v. Ideanomics et al. Inc., was filed in the United State
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company.


Additionally, on July 7, 2020, a purported securities class action
captioned Kim v. Ideanomics, et al, was filed in the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain current
officers and directors of the Company.  

Both cases allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from certain purported
misstatements by the Company beginning in March 2020 regarding its
MEG division.  

On November 4, 2020, the Lundy and Kim actions were consolidated.

Ideanomics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on October
19, 2004. From 2010 through 2017, the Company's primary business
activities were providing premium content video on demand (VOD)
services, with primary operations in the People's Republic of China
(PRC,) through its subsidiaries and variable interest entities
(VIEs) under the brand name You-on-Demand (YOD). The Company closed
the YOD business during 2019. The company is based in New York, New
York.

INDIGO DYE GROUP: Belton Files TCPA Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indigo Dye Group
Corp. The case is styled as Luckiesia Belton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Indigo Dye
Group Corp., doing business as: Budcars, a California Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-at-01214 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Budcars is a cannabis delivery service serving the Sacramento,
California area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INT'L FLAVORS: Bid to Dismiss Jansen Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action
suit initiated by Marc Jansen, is pending.

On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class
action against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results
of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating
principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to
representatives of customers.

On December 26, 2019, the Court appointed a group of six investment
funds as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. On March
16, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added
Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as defendants.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the
two companies, and the companies' financial reporting and results.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the
Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the
New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF
securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018
and August 12, 2019.

The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

IFF filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 26, 2020.

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.

INT'L FLAVORS: Securities Class Suits Ongoing in Tel Aviv
----------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a putative securities
class action suits in Tel Aviv District Court, Israel.

Two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly
alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements
largely in connection with IFF's acquisition of Frutarom and the
improper payments.  

One motion asserts claims under the U.S. federal securities laws
against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO. The other
("Oman") (following an amendment) asserts claims under the Israeli
Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its
former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom
officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli
Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and
directors.

On October 4, 2020, the Oman plaintiff filed a motion to remove IFF
and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations
from the US amended complaint.

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.


INT'L FLAVORS: Yehudai's $20MM Bonus Related Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the proceedings in the putative class action suit
related to the US $20 million bonus paid to Ori Yehudai, is
stayed.

On March 11, 2020, an IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a
class action in Israel against, among others, Frutarom, Yehudai,
and Frutarom's former board of directors, alleging that former
minority shareholders of Frutarom were harmed as a result of the US
$20 million bonus paid to Yehudai.

The parties to this motion agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute
through mediation to take place regarding the aforesaid claim
against Yehudai, during which the proceedings relating to this
motion are stayed.

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:ICPT) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-05377, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired Intercept securities between
September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intercept securities during
the class period, you have until January 4, 2021, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat
progressive non-viral liver diseases in the U.S.

Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid
("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of
primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), a rare and chronic liver
disease, in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults. The
Company is also developing OCA for various other indications,
including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH").

In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") granted
accelerated approval of Ocaliva for treating PBC.

Then, in late 2017, both Intercept and the FDA issued warnings
concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the drug, and
multiple reports of severe liver injuries and deaths linked with
its use.

Despite these concerns, Defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales
and purported benefits, and its potential indication for treating
various other medical conditions. For example, just two years
later, in September 2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the FDA for OCA to treat patients with liver
fibrosis due to NASH.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true
scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use
in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an
FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing
Ocaliva's continued marketability and the sustainability of its
sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy
in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a
result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA
in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a
result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit within the next
week."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or
12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the
Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated
that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has
determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate
histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not
sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated
approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to
NASH." The press release further advised, among other things, that
the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional
post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing
REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and
that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020.

Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was
"facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of
liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or
8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020.

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


INTERFACE INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)
between March 2, 2018 and September 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 11, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Interface
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Interface class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1788.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
consequently, Interface, among other things, reported artificially
inflated income and earnings per share (EPS) in 2015 and 2016; (3)
Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by
the SEC with respect to the foregoing since at least November 2017,
had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope
of Interface's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC
investigation; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
11, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1788.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


J. GIVOO: Parties in Gilbertson Suit Agree to Collective Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GILBERTSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. J.
GIVOO CONSULTANTS I, INC. And J. GIVOO CONSULTANTS CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06991-JHR-AMD (D.N.J.), the Parties stipulate that
the following collective be conditionally certified at this time so
that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

   "all individuals who are or were employed by J. Givoo
   Consultants I, Inc. in the 2.5 years prior to the Court
   granting Conditional Certification and entering an order
   ruling on the disputed issues in Paragraph 10 to the present
   and were paid their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
   in a week. (Putative Collective Members)."

The Plaintiff filed his collective action complaint on June 8,
2020. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and seeks to
prosecute this case as a collective action.

The Parties have agreed to participate in mediation to be completed
within 60 days after the close of the 60-day opt-in period. The
Parties agree that all pending discovery related to conditional
certification issues will be stayed pending the outcome of
mediation. To the extent the Parties are not successful at
resolving this lawsuit at mediation, the Parties will propose a new
joint scheduling order within 20 days after the mediation.

A copy of the stipulation and joint motion for conditional
certification dated Dec. 14, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3r0OCFNat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul J. Sopher, Esq.
          Christopher Michalski, Esq.
          Christian A. Angotti, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          Facsimile: (267) 285-2754
          E-mail: psopher@littler.com
                  cmichalski@littler.com
                  cangotti@littler.com

JEFFERS INC: Tucker Files Suit in New York
------------------------------------------
Jeffers, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry
Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jeffers, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10392 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

The Company offers apparel, bowls, food, treats, and beds, as well
as gates, medical supplies, shampoo, kennels, and other products
for dogs, cats, birds, and exotic animals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Udani Consumer Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NIMESH UDANI, as surviving son and statutory
beneficiary for the wrongful death of GEETA UDANI, deceased,
individually and on behalf of all other heirs of decedent v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01157951-CU-PL-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 December 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02340 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants under
several legal theories including negligence, negligence per se,
negligent failure to warn, strict liability for design defect and
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud for intentional
misrepresentation and concealment, negligent representation, loss
of consortium, wrongful death, survival action, and punitive
damages.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation that
develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged
goods, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., formerly known as Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is a company that engages in the
research and development of consumer staple products. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Michael F. Healy, Esq.
         Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         One Montgomery, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 544-1900
         Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
         E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                 eweissenberger@shb.com

                 - and –

         Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
         Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
         TUCKER ELLIS LLP
         515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
         Telephone: (213) 430-3400
         Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
         E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                 amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com

JOYY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of JOYY, Inc.. Stockholders
have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found
at the link provided.

JOYY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY)

Class Period: April 28, 2016 to November 18, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021

On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters
Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things,
had: (i) reported fraudulent revenue; (ii) component businesses
that were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (iii)
acquired BIGO as part of a scam that benefitted corporate
insiders.

On this news, JOYY's ADRs fell $26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close
at $73.66 per share on November 18, 2020.

The complaint, filed on November 20, 2020, alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping
scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the
Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition
of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and
(5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the JOYY class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/YY

About Bragar Eagel

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

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


JWB PROPERTIES: Class of Servers, Bartenders Certified in Fischer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY FISCHER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. JWB PROPERTIES LLC
d/b/a LOCAL GASTROPUB, Case No. 2:20-cv-02599-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Tu M. Pham entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the following class of similarly
      situated employees:

      "all servers and bartenders employed by Defendant at its
      Midtown location, at any time since August 13, 2017, who
      were paid an hourly rate by the Defendant of less than
      $7.25;"

   2. approving the Parties' proposed revised Fair Labor
      Standards Act Notice and Consent Form, submitted on
      December 16, 2020;

   3. authorizing the distribution of Notice and Consent Form
      via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and SMS or text message to all
      individuals who fall within the groups of similarly
      situated employees Within 14 days of the entry of this
      Order; and

   4. directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel
      with a Notice List in Excel format containing the names,
      last known mailing address, last known e-mail address, and
      last known telephone number of all employees who fall
      within the group of the Order.

JWB offers rental homes and full-time property management.

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38c1ZdS at no extra charge.[CC]

K12 INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of those who acquired K12
Inc. ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN) securities during the
period from April 27, 2020 through September 18, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until January 19, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that K12 made false and misleading statements
to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose
that: (1) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and
training to teachers, students, and parents; and (4) K12's officers
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

On August 26, 2020, reports emerged that K12's training for
teachers in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, one of the largest
school districts in the country, had been ineffective and
unacceptable. On this news, K12's shares declined by $4.40 (or
10.1%) to close at $39.17 on August 26, 2020.

When classes in Miami-Dade started on August 31, 2020, K12's
platform experienced major technical issues, disruptions, and a
series of cyberattacks. In response, the district's superintendent
revealed that the district had never executed its $15.3 million
contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12 shares declined
by $1.66 (or 4.5%) to close at $34.89 on September 3, 2020.

On September 10, 2020, the Miami-Dade County Public School's Board
voted to terminate their contract with K12. On this news, the price
of K12 common shares declined by $3.21 (or 11.5%) to close at
$30.55 on September 10, 2020.

If you acquired K12 securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

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

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

Contacts

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]


KANSAS: Unemployed Kansans Plan to Join in Labor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
ksnt.com reports that frustrations are reaching a boiling point
with Kansas' unemployment system.

A group of Kansans organized to file a class-action lawsuit against
the Kansas Department of Labor.

An organizer for the lawsuit, Jo-Anna Wright, sent out a mass email
to state and national lawmakers with the following message:  

"I am writing you on behalf of the thousands of unemployed Kansans
who are hurting and struggling thanks to the KDOL's mishandling of
our unemployment benefits. To be honest, we are more than mad. We
are livid and the KDOL is pushing us to file a class action
lawsuit. Those of us who have not received benefits in weeks are
beyond desperate. My fear is that you are going to have a civil war
on your hands."

Wright posed a question in a Facebook group about joining the
class-action lawsuit, and, within a few hours, over 100 Kansans
were willing to join the suit. In the email, Wright said she's been
in contact with lawyers, specifically Mark Thierman, a national
lawyer who worked on the PUA lawsuit against the state of Nevada.


"I suggest y'all get your stuff together," Wright warned in the end
of her message.  

The email was sent to several state senators, and president-elect
Joe Biden, urging them to listen. This comes as thousands of people
are going unpaid for months with cries for help un-answered

In a closed session, the Kansas Department of Labor met with
lawmakers, to address the numerous unemployment problems and fraud
claims plaguing the state.   

Among their plans, a preliminary timeline on the department's I.T.
modernization project to update their outdated computer system.
But, the plan doesn't go into action until 2023, expanding into
2024.  

And lawmakers say the department has a long way to go to get back
on track paying out benefits to struggling Kansans.   

"Getting that backlog taken care of is huge because they've been
working on it now . . . For, I can't remember how long now," said
Rep. Kyle Hoffman, R-Coldwater

Now, department officials are fighting fraud, identity theft, and a
growing pile of unemployment claims.  

According to Gov. Laura Kelly, the department is a step up from
where they were a few months ago.  

"Most people are being taken care of. They've gotten their
benefits," Gov. Kelly said during her weekly coronavirus update.  

The governor also spoke about the progress the department has made
on their backlog of regular unemployment insurance claims, reducing
it to about 5,300, down from about 25,000 in the summer.

But, right now, the department is averaging about 2300 incoming
fraud claims a day in their Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, PUA,
program.

The estimated backlog for PUA stands at 25,000 claimants that are
not being paid.  

While lawmakers are getting details on the department's plans,
thousands of Kansans are left waiting for help and getting no
answers.  And, some are outraged that they're getting no money and
no response.   

Heather Depriest, mother of three, says she called for several days
straight to get a hold of someone about her claim. But, when she
finally got an answer, it was too late.  

"Almost 100 phone calls later, got someone on the phone to be told
that I was in a new quarter, and I didn't qualify anymore," said
Depriest. "So, now I'm kind of stuck in limbo, figuring out what
I'm supposed to do."  

We asked the state's department of labor about the long wait for
calls. In an email, a spokesperson for the department responded,
"No one is on the phone waiting on hold for hours."   

However, first-hand accounts from Kansans trying to get help from
the department suggest otherwise.   

And when they do get through to a representative, there's more
frustration.   

"They did guide me to a different type of pandemic relief, but I
still haven't heard anything . . . That was a few weeks ago,"
Depriest said.

Comments on the department's Facebook page show frustrated
claimants, voicing concerns about the phone lines, saying things
like "phone lines are always busy" and it's "impossible" to get
through.   

One even calls for the firing of the department's labor secretary,
Ryan Wright, after calling 109 times with no response.  

That's after the previous labor secretary resigned in June.  

Some of these programs are marked to end soon. So, we asked labor
officials what will happen for Kansans that aren't getting paid.
They said those payments will go through, even if the program has
ended. But, no answer on when that will be. [GN]


KINGSTONE COS: Considers Woolgar Putative Class Suit Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kingstone Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
considers the putative class action captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone
Companies et al., 19 cv 05500 (S.D.N.Y.), to be closed.

On June 12, 2019, Phillip Woolgar filed a suit naming the Company
and certain present or former officers and directors as defendants
in a putative class action captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies
et al., 19 cv 05500 (S.D.N.Y.), asserting claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Kingstone securities between March 14, 2018, and April
29, 2019, and alleged violations of the federal securities law in
connection with the Company's April 29, 2019 announcement regarding
losses related to winter catastrophe events.  

The lawsuit alleged that the Company failed to disclose that it did
not adequately follow industry best practices related to claims
handling and thus did not record sufficient claim reserves, and
that as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects misled investors.

Plaintiff sought, among other things, an undetermined amount of
money damages.   

On August 10, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the suit. The court permitted
plaintiff to amend the complaint to attempt to cure the
deficiencies identified by the court in its opinion (to the extent
plaintiff had a good faith basis to do so).

The outside date to file the amended complaint, was September 11,
2020 Since the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by such
date (or thereafter), the Company considers this matter to be
closed.

Kingstone Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Kingstone
Insurance Company, underwrites property and casualty insurance
products to small businesses and individuals in New York. The
company was formerly known as DCAP Group, Inc. and changed its name
to Kingstone Companies, Inc. in July 2009. Kingstone Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Kingston, New
York.

KURT S. ADLER INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Kurt S. Adler, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Eugene Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kurt S. Adler, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06000 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

Kurt S. Adler, Inc. wholesales and distributes holiday decoration
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com



KUSHAGRAM INC: Faces Nieman Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KUSHAGRAM, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11221
(C.D. Cal., December 10, 2020) brings this class action complaint
against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that he received an unsolicited text messages
from the Defendant's phone number (833) 418-9390 on his cellular
telephone number ending -2427 in or about April 29, 2020 and on
July 17, 2020. The Defendant allegedly used SMS Blasting Platform,
which is an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS), in sending
the Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers without
obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive
unsolicited text messages via ATDS. Moreover, the Defendant was
never a customer of the Defendant's and never provided his cellular
telephone number to the Defendant for any reason whatsoever.

Due to the Defendant's unlawful act, the Plaintiff and members of
the Class were harmed and damaged causing them to incur certain
cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for
which they previously paid and invading their privacy. Thus, the
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting
such conduct in the future, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.

Kushagram, Inc. is a cannabis delivery service serving the Newport
Beach, California area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses May Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that the Court in May v.
KushCo Holdings, Inc., et al., entered judgment in favor of the
defendants, dismissing the action with prejudice.

May v. KushCo Holdings, Inc., et al., filed April 30, 2019, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers of the Company alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13, 2017 and
April 9, 2019, inclusive.

In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint was filed in November 2019.

In February 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In September 2020, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

On November 2, 2020, after the lead plaintiffs' failed to file an
amended complaint, the Court entered judgment in favor of the
defendants, dismissing the action with prejudice.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Facing Choate Putative Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
derivative action and putative class action complaint entitled,
Choate v. Kovacevich, et al., filed October 1, 2020, Case No.
8:20-cv-01904-JLS-KES.

In October 2020, a purported Company shareholder filed a
shareholder derivative action and putative class action complaint
(Choate v. Kovacevich, et al., filed October 1, 2020, Case No.
8:20-cv-01904-JLS-KES, U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California) against certain current Company directors.

The suit alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty with
respect to the administration of the Company's 2016 Stock Incentive
Plan.

The Company is named as a nominal defendant.

The suit seeks declaratory relief and, from the director
defendants, unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child-resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.

LA JOLLA BEACH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Staff, Fuentes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX DE LA ROSA FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA JOLLA BEACH AND TENNIS CLUB
PARTNERS L.P.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2020-00045980-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Dec.
15, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Fuentes was employed by the Defendants as staff.

La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club Partners L.P. is engaged in the
hospitality and hotel industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          Romina Tamiry, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
                  rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com

               -and-

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


LAKES VENTURE: Marcum's Conditional Class Status Bid Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA MARCUM, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. LAKES VENTURE, LLC
d/b/a Fresh Thyme Farmers Market, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00231-GNS-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg N. Stevers
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification of:

      "hourly employees of the Defendant employed in the past
      three years who were denied payment for overtime hours;"

   2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing and the
      Defendant's Motions for Leave.

   3. adopting the proposed notice form with modifications, and
      adopting the proposed consent form.

The Court has previously certified a class where the employees' job
duties and their titles differed substantially. See Bassett v.
Tenn. Valley Auth., No. 5:09-CV-39, 2013 WL 665068, at 2-9 (W.D.
Ky. Feb. 22, 2013) (certifying a class that included heavy
equipment operators, a construction foreman, contracted laborers, a
regional manager, a dual-rate foreman, and a crane and bulldozer
operator). The Plaintiff is only obligated to show that the
potential class of employees is similar, not identical. See Green
v. Platinum Rests. Mid-Am., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-439-GNS, 2015 WL
6454856, at (W.D. Ky. Oct. 26, 2015) (citing Bassett, 2013 WL
665068). The Plaintiff has done enough here, at the conditional
certification stage, to show a group of similarly situated
employees subject to the same general corporate policies, the Court
says.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has not shown a
widespread discriminatory plan by failing to provide evidence of
deviations from outside the Plaintiff's store or department. The
Defendant owns and operates several stores that undoubtedly may
have different departments with employees performing discrete
functions.

The Plaintiff contends the class is similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) because all hourly employees suffered from
the Defendant's "companywide Meal Deduction Policy" requiring them
all to clock out for a 30-minute lunch break but continue working.

This action is brought as a collective action to recover unpaid
compensation allegedly owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Plaintiff Donna Marcum brings this claim
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The Defendant Lakes Venture, LLC conducts business as Fresh Thyme
Farmers Market, LLC.

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Nov. 24,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lSPxUT
at no extra charge.[CC]

LEGAL LEADS: Faces Sloatman Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LALA SLOATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LEGAL LEADS, INC., EXPRESS
MARKETING SOLUTION, INC., LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. NOURMAND –
NOURMAND LEGAL, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11193 (C.D. Cal., December 10, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants placed numerous calls on
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -7696 beginning
in or around November 2020 specifically in an attempt to solicit
the Plaintiff to act as a plaintiff in ongoing litigation relating
to widescale class actions on behalf of consumers of Zantac ad Talc
Powder for these products allegedly causing cancer. Allegedly,
Defendant Legal Leads was hired by the Defendant Nourmand and its
principal Joseph S. Nourmand to generate clients for his law firm
and then refer them to high profile consumer law firm Morgan &
Morgan for a considerable referral fee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing their calls to
consumers, including her, without their "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice
on their cellular telephone. Moreover, the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending I -7696 was registered to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about December 3, 2019.

Because the Defendants illegally contacted the Plaintiff and ATDS
Class members, they were harmed and damaged causing them to incur
certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone
time for which they previously paid and invading their privacy.

The Legal Leads, Inc. and Express Marketing Solution, Inc. are
attorney lead generation companies for law firms which provide
client referrals in exchange of a fee. Law Offices of Joseph
Nourmand – Nourmand Legal is a legal services law firm based in
Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Gaviria Files Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln Educational
Services Corporation. The case is styled as John Gaviria, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lincoln
Educational Services Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-18552
(D. N.J., Dec. 9, 2020).

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

Lincoln Educational Services Corporation provides career-oriented
post-secondary education services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Lipari, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group P.C.
   270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (917) 444-1960
   Fax: (888) 749-7747
   Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate
Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150.

The said case is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the motion for leave to amend the complaint in Glover v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company, is still pending.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all
such policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  

In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which we have opposed.

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in
Pennsylvania entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).


Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC)
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Hanks v. Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company.

Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.  

In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the defense of this case.  

On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary
judgment.  

Lincoln National said, "The court has not yet set a trial date, and
we continue to vigorously defend this action."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit vs. LLANY Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY)
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Andrew Nitkewicz.

Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed
on August 24, 2020.  

Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's
death.  

Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and
pre-judgment interest on behalf of the various classes and
sub-class.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Solomon Abady v.
Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW, remains pending.

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the company's
filing of the new drug application (NDA) for TLANDO to the Food and
Drug Administration contained deficiencies and as a result the
defendants' statements about the company's business and operations
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in
violation of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action (for a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 27, 2019
through November 8, 2019), compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company has insurance that covers claims of this nature. The
retention amount payable by the Company under our policy is $1.25
million.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on
July 24, 2020. In response, the plaintiff's filed their response to
the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on September 22,
2020.

Further, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its
current and former officers and directors against these allegations
and has not recorded a liability related to this shareholder class
action lawsuit as the outcome is not probable nor can an estimate
be made of loss, if any.

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.
The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Loop stock
or options between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here:www.faruqilaw.com/LOOP or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against Loop Industries, Inc. ("Loop" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:LOOP) and reminds investors of the December 14, 2020
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities
class action that has been filed against the Company.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that
Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of
Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (2) that Loop did not have
the technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a
recovery rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's announced
partnerships with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Specifically, on October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a
report alleging, among other things, that "[a] former Loop employee
told us that Loop's scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel
Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the
company's process internally. We have obtained internal documents
and photographs to support their claims."

Moreover, the report alleged that "Executives from a division of
key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance
agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on
'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and
complexities of its process."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to
close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Loop's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/70035 [GN]


MAGFORMERS LLC: Duncan Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
Magformers, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Magformers, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05974-EK-RER (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

Magformers is a manufacturer of magnetic building toys for
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and
RUTH PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC., and CNTP MCB,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules Civil Procedure with respect to their claims
under New York Law, together with such other and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper. The class is defined as:

   "all persons who purchased sperm from Manhattan Cryobank,
   Inc. after November 1, 2014 but before June 5, 2018 that was
   donated to Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. prior to November 1,
   2014."

The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any
Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their
families; (2) Defendants, their subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or its parents
have a controlling interest and their current or former employees,
officers and directors; (3) Plaintiffs' attorneys; (4) persons who
properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the
Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any
such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against
Defendants have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or
released.

As alleged in the Complaint -- which has not been disputed by the
Defendants -- Defendant MCB's screening was neither complete nor
thorough. The Plaintiffs' allegations present a clear and present
danger to members of the public using sperm purchased from MCB that
was donated prior to November 1, 2014, that may contain life
threatening and deadly genetic diseases, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3qUzgCG at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs & Putative Class, are:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
          STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Rd. Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com
                  krogers@swclaw.com

MARY JANE: Jennings Files FDCPA Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Jane M. Elliot
P.C. The case is styled as Jessica Jennings, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mary Jane M.
Elliot P.C., Midland Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01182 (W.D. Mich., Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Mary Jane M. Elliott PC is a law firm specializing in debt
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic St.
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: ysaks@SteinSaksLegal.com



MASK POT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ding Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
AI MIN DING; and JUN LI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE MASK POT INC. d/b/a Xiang Hot
Pot; BK SPICE WORLD INC. d/b/a Xiang Hot Pot; HUI FANG a/k/a Howard
Fang; YUNFU YANG a/k/a Yun Fu Yang; JIN WANG; JIAN LIU; "JOHN" JIN;
and WEI ZHAO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06076-LDH-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 14, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as food preparers.

The Mask Pot Inc. d/b/a Xiang Hot Pot is engaged in the restaurant
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Bodovinac Files FDCPA Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Bodovinac, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., Crown Asset Management, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02211-JAD-EJY (D.
Nev., Dec. 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is one of the premier collection
agencies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert M Tzall, Esq.
   Law Offices of Robert M. Tzall
   1481 Warm Springs Rd, Suite 135
   Henderson, NV 89014
   Tel: (702) 666-0233
   Email: office@tzalllegal.com



MCCARTHY BURGESS: Martin Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc. The case is styled as Annette Martin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McCarthy,
Burgess & Wolff, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01382 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 8, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is one of the premier collection
agencies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com




MENARD INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Earls' Consumer-Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARRY EARLS, THOMAS FETSCH, DAVID KIEL, TRENT SHORES,
STEVE SCHUSSLER, CASSIE LIETAERT, and CHRIS JESSE, individually and
on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs
v. MENARD, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-107-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied
Menard's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims.

The proposed class action concerns promotional vouchers offered by
Defendant Menard, which owns Menards home improvement stores.  The
Plaintiffs are Menards customers who say that Menards promised them
vouchers for use on future purchases, but then either gave them
smaller vouchers than promised or no vouchers at all.  They assert
claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, as well as claims
under the consumer-fraud laws of the four states in which they
live.

The Court granted Menards' motion to dismiss the consumer-fraud
claims in the Plaintiffs' original complaint on the ground that the
Plaintiffs failed to satisfy federal pleading standards.  The
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as permitted by the Court,
and now Menards again moves to dismiss the consumer-fraud claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending
that the Plaintiffs still haven't adequately pleaded the claims.

Menards contends that the Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims should
be dismissed for two reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs' allegations that
Menards' alleged misrepresentations "factored into" their decisions
to purchase goods from Menards are inadequate under the state
statutes' causation standards; and (2) the claims aren't distinct
from the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims because they haven't
alleged that Menards engaged in any misconduct beyond the
underlying alleged breaches.

On Menards' motion to dismiss, Judge Peterson must accept all of
the Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in their favor.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Menards' advertisements factored into their purchasing decisions.
At the pleading stage, Judge Peterson says, it is reasonable to
infer from these allegations that the advertisements materially
induced or proximately caused the Plaintiffs to make their
purchases.  The Plaintiffs will bear a higher burden at summary
judgment, but Menards identifies no authority under any state's law
that requires, at the pleading stage, more than what the Plaintiffs
have alleged.  So the argument doesn't require dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims.

Menards then contends, as it did in its first motion to dismiss,
that the Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims are nothing more than
repackaged breach-of-contract claims.  The Court rejected the
argument the first time that Menards raised it, and the argument
fails the second time around as well.  As the Court explained
previously, even assuming that Greenberger v. GEICO General
Insurance Co., (7th Cir. 2011)'s principles apply to all of the
Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims and not just their claims under
Illinois law, the Plaintiffs have satisfied its requirements by
alleging that Menards falsely advertises that customers will
receive certain rebates but systematically and routinely denies or
substantially underpays promised rebates and takes steps to further
drive down the redemption rate.

Menards further contends that the Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud
allegations are facially implausible because Menards wouldn't risk
damaging its reputation by acting in this way, particularly with a
promotion that is designed to induce customers to return to the
store to spend their vouchers.  Rule 8 requires the Court to
consider whether the allegations are plausible, not whether they
are probable.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
at least plausible, so he will not dismiss their consumer-fraud
claims for that reason.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Menards uses certain practices to
drive down the redemption rate.  Menards contends that these
practices are not illegal, but merely conditions that Menards
imposes on participants in its voucher program.  Menards also
contends that in considering whether the Plaintiffs have alleged
affirmative acts of misrepresentation, the Court should disregard
quotations that the Plaintiffs included in their complaint from
anonymous internet users who criticized Menards' voucher program.
But the Plaintiffs didn't need the challenged allegations to allege
affirmative acts of misrepresentation, as the Court didn't consider
any of these allegations in rejecting Menards' argument the first
time.  So Menards' arguments regarding these issues don't warrant
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims, either, Judge
Peterson opines.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Peterson denied Menard's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5zvddr from Leagle.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Atkins Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
court in Atkins et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al., granted the
parties' stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action without
prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all
persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not
receive the entire amount to which they were entitled.

Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, and conversion based on allegations
that the defendants failed to timely pay annuity benefits to
certain group annuitants.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

On October 19, 2020, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Dismissal of Miller Putative Class Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
action entitled, Miller, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y., filed January 4, 2019)

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in this putative class
action, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company allegedly charged smoker rates
for certain non-smokers.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On September 17, 2019, the court granted Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, and on October 29, 2020, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.

MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Bernstein Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. ("Minerva" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
NERV) from May 15, 2017 through November 30, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Minerva securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Minerva Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the truth about the feedback received from the FDA
concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b study
did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and was
conducted solely outside of the United States; (iii) the failure of
the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary endpoints
rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial evidence of
effectiveness; (iv) the Company's plan to use the combination of
the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be "highly unlikely" to
support the submission of an NDA; (v) reliance on these two trials
in the submission of an NDA would lead to "substantial review
issues" because the trials were inadequate and not well-controlled;
and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 1, 2020, Minerva issued a press release in which the
Company announced the outcome of tis Type C Meeting with the FDA
concerning roluperidone. In the announcement, Minerva stated that
it had "received official meeting minutes from the November 10,
2020 Type C meeting with the" FDA. In this release, Minerva
disclosed for the first time that the ""FDA advised that the Phase
2b study is problematic because it did not use the commercial
formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the
United States. In addition, FDA commented that the Phase 3 study
does not appear to be capable of supporting substantial evidence of
effectiveness . . . ." Indeed, the "FDA cautioned that an NDA
submission based on the current data from the Phase 2b and Phase 3
studies would be highly unlikely to be filed and that at a minimum,
there would be substantial review issues due to the lack of two
adequate and well-controlled trials to support efficacy claims for
this indication."

On this news, Minerva's stock price fell from its November 30, 2020
closing price of $3.89 per share to a December 1, 2020 closing
price of $2.89 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Minerva securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/minervaneurosciencesinc-nerv-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-342/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. shareholders.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

NERV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11479&wire=1

Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV)

NERV Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 15, 2017 -
November 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 8, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11479&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Minerva
Neurosciences, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the truth about the
feedback received from the FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2"
meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b study did not use the commercial
formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the
United States; (iii) the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its
primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable
of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the
Company's plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3
studies would be "highly unlikely" to support the submission of an
NDA; (v) reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA
would lead to "substantial review issues" because the trials were
inadequate and not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

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


MINNESOTA: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Prisoners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed
against officials of the Federal Correctional Institution in
Minnesota.  The case is captioned Aaryana Malcolm, Lavell Williams,
Shelle Brooks, Kristina Bohnenkamp, Carrie Casarez, Noelle Dubray,
Pauline Hemicker, Kimberly Inabnit, Cassandra Kasowski, Kristen
Martin, Joy Ramos, Kelly Sorenson Rafai, Katherine Reed and
Chasstady Walker, on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly-situated individuals, Petitioners v. M. Starr, in her
official capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional
Institution, Waseca and Michael Carvajal, in his official capacity
as Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Respondents, Case No.
2:20-cv-18552 (D. Minn, Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Habeas Corpus
(General).

The Respondents are government representatives.

The Petitioners are represented by:

   Clare A. Diegel, Esq.
   ACLU of MN
   P.O. Box 14720
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 670-5030
   Email: cdiegel@aclu-mn.org

     - and -

   Ian Bratlie, Esq.
   ACLU of MN
   709 S Front St Suite 1B
   Mankato, MN 56001
   Tel: (507) 995-6575
   Email: ibratlie@aclu-mn.org

     - and -

   Isabella Salomao Nascimento, Esq.
   ACLU of Minnesota
   PO Box 14720
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 383-2212
   Email: inascimento@aclu-mn.org

     - and -

   Jonathan M Bye, Esq.
   Ballard Spahr
   80 S 8th St, Ste 2000
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 371-3259
   Email: byej@ballardspahr.com

     - and -

   Mary Andreleita Walker, Esq.
   Ballard Spahr LLP
   80 S. 8th St., Ste 2000
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel:(612) 371-6222
   Fax: (612) 371-3207
   Email: walkerl@ballardspahr.com

     - and -

   Wallace G Hilke, Esq.
   Ballard Spahr LLP
   80 S 8th St, Ste 2000
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 371-3298
   Fax: (612) 371-3207
   Email: hilkew@ballardspahr.com

     - and -

   Teresa J Nelson, Esq.
   ACLU of Minnesota
   P.O. Box 14720
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (651) 529-1692
   Email: tnelson@aclu-mn.org



MOBILELINK LOUISIANA: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Scott et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
COREY D. SCOTT, RASHAD WILLIAMS, and STEVEN WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MOBILELINK LOUISIANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00826-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., December 9, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
illegal payroll scheme in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as sales personnel to
perform sales and other related duties.

The Plaintiffs assert that they routinely worked 60 or more hours
in a workweek and work significant hours off of the clock as per
the Defendant's demands. However, the Defendant failed to properly
compensate them because it miscalculated the Plaintiff and other
sales personnel's regular rate of pay by failing to include their
earned commissions in determining their regular rate. As a result,
the Defendant failed to sufficiently pay their overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the
FLSA.

Mobilelink Louisiana, LLC provides wireless services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          Brian F. Blackwell, Esq.
          BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC
          8322 One Calais Ave.,
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 769-2462
          Fax: (225) 769-2463
          E-mail: james@blackwell-bullman.com


MODERNIZING MEDICINE: AIPD Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, ADVANCED INTERVENTIONAL PAIN & DIAGNOSTICS OF WESTERN
ARKANSAS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MODERNIZING MEDICINE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 9:20-cv-82238-DMM (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2020) challenges the
Defendant's unlawful policy and practice of faxing unsolicited
advertisement in violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent an unsolicited
advertisement to its facsimile machine located at its office in
Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas on or around June 18, 2018.
The fax is allegedly the Defendant's way of advertising the like,
kind, and quality of its product "modmed EMA" and includes a cover
page from the Defendant's employee Anthony Kim sending the fax to
"Dear Staff and Members of AIPD". The Plaintiff did not provide its
prior express invitation or permission to the Defendant to send fax
advertisement to the Plaintiff's fax machine.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members
have suffered actual damage due to the Defendant's actions. Thus,
they seek statutory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
under the TCPA.

The Plaintiff is an interventional pain medicine clinic that
provides pain management for patients in northwest Arkansas.

Modernizing Medicine, Inc. provides electronic medical record
systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
          18501 Pines Blvd., Suite 209-A
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
          Tel: (305) 891-1322
          Fax: (954) 686-3976
          E-mail: louis@kumussman.com
                  brian@kumussman.com

                - and –

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Tel: (501) 312-8500
          Fax: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Enderle Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE ENDERLE, Plaintiff v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC.; AARON JASPER;
MITCHELL VOSS; RYAN SABOL; NICHOLAS DAMIANI; JULIE COHEN; THOMAS
BOCK; MARY EVANS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03659 (D. Colo.,
December 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, fraud by
misrepresentation and omission, failure to supervise and control,
and violations of federal and state securities laws, including but
not limited to Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to follow the
Plaintiff's written instructions on how to manage her assets and
instead implemented a systematic one size fits all investment
strategy which consisted of uniformly investing her assets in high
risk and wildly speculative foreign mining over-the-counter (OTC)
stocks. The Defendants also failed to make adjustments to their
clients' portfolios, including the Plaintiff's portfolio, to
reflect current market conditions, and failed to disclose that they
were self-dealing in these same securities. As a result, their
clients' portfolios suffered losses year, after year, after year,
until decimated.

On July 21, 2015, Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. (MSI) faced a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California, entitled Milliner v. Mutual Securities,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0335, brought by Plaintiffs Charlotte Milliner
and Joanne Brem, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, who fell victim to the false written promises
and one size fits all investment approach of MSI and its registered
representatives.

Mutual Securities, Inc. is a company that provides brokerage and
financial advisory services, with its main office located in
Camarillo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA
         1100 Moraga Way, Suite 208
         Moraga, CA 94556
         Telephone: (925) 235-7290
         E-mail: dsglaw@comcast.net

MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Myriad
Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB).

On September 27, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
against the Company, its former President and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee.

On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which added the Company's Executive Vice President of
Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional
Defendant.

This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business, operations, and acquisitions.

The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained
by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other
costs and fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Myriad said, "Due to the nature of this matter and inherent
uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss, if any."

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

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.

N&C CLAIMS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Amoko Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANESSIA AMOKO individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. N&C CLAIMS SERVICE, INC.; NICHOLAS F.
IERULLI; PAM IERULLI; and SEIBELS SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04346-SAL (D.S.C., Dec. 16, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Amoko was employed by the Defendants as insurance
claims adjuster.

N&C Claims Service, Inc. provides insurance adjustment services to
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blaney A. Coskrey, III, Esq.
          COSKREY LAW OFFICE
          1201 Main Street, Suite 1980
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 748-1202
          Facsimile: (803) 748-1302
          E-mail: coskrey@coskreylaw.com

               -and-

          Meagan M. Rafferty, Esq.
          Rebecca King, Esq.
          Matt Dunn, Esq.
          GETMAN SWEENEY& DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: mrafferty@getmansweeney.com


NATIONAL ELITE: Faces Barnes Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIRSTEN BARNES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v NATIONAL ELITE GYMNASTICS, INC.,
and MARK ENGLAND, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01205 (W.D. Tex.,
December 9, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful corporate policy
of not paying its employees overtime wages in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked with the Defendants as a gymnastics
instructor from December 2019 until June 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants wrongfully misclassified
her as an exempt salaried employee. Despite she regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay her
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable overtime
rate required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation, lost wages,
liquidated damages, and all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

National Elite Gymnastics, Inc. is a company that operates gym and
offers gymnastics services. It is owned and operated by Mark
England [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Melton, Esq.
          THE MELTON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          925 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite B225
          Austin, TX 78746
          Tel: (512) 330-0017
          Fax: (512) 330-0067
          E-mail: jmelton@jfmeltonlaw.com


NESTLE WATERS: Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE PABLO JIMENEZ, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-20-102561, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on December 14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-01023 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, failure to timely pay wages, non-compliant
wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is a company that provides
non-alcoholic beverages, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
         Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com

NEW JERSEY: District Court Dismisses Greco Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID M. GRECO, Plaintiff v. GURBIR S. GREWAL, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-19145 (BRM) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge
Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and (ii)
denied the Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

The Plaintiff filed a three-count class action Complaint in the
Court on Oct. 21, 2019, challenging the constitutionality of the
Extreme Risk Protection Order ("EPRO") Act, alleging a cause of
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of the
First, Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and moving for
preliminary injunctive relief.

On Nov. 8, 2019, the State and County Defendants jointly opposed
the Plaintiff's motion.  On the same day, the Township Defendants
filed correspondence joining and adopting the legal arguments
advanced by State and County Defendants but declining to provide
any additional briefing of their own.

The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on Nov. 20, 2019.  Per
the Court's Order, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on the
issue of standing.  On Feb. 21, 2020, the Court denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The Plaintiff then
filed a Second Motion for Class Certification on Feb. 24, 2020,
which the Court denied on Sept. 29, 2020.

On May 11, 2020, the Township Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Greco's Complaint.  Also on May 11, 2020, the State and County
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Greco's Complaint. On June 1,
2020, the Plaintiff filed a Cross Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.  The State and County Defendants filed their Reply on
July 6, 2020.

The Defendants do not challenge the facts in Greco's complaint, so
Judge Martinotti finds the Defendants are making a facial 12(b)(1)
challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  Therefore,
Judge Martinotti considers the facial 12(b)(1) challenge before
reaching the merits of the pending motions and considers the
allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.

Judge Martinotti notes that there are two components to the Younger
v. Harris (1971) analysis: (1) the Defendants' argument in favor of
abstention and (2) Greco's argument in favor of the Court's
application of the law-of-the-case doctrine.

The State and the County Defendants argue the Court should abstain
from the action under Younger because there is an ongoing state
proceeding.  The Township Defendants "repeat and incorporate" the
State and the County Defendants' abstention argument.  Greco argues
the issue of Younger abstention was already decided in his favor,
and re-litigation of that issue is barred by the law-of-the-case
doctrine.

The Court abstains under Younger.  The Judge finds that (i) the
TERPO proceeding was initiated by New Jersey in its sovereign
capacity, for the purposes of Younger; (ii) because the removal of
firearms was "imposed to punish" Greco for the "wrongful act" of
posing an immediate and present danger to himself or others, the
proceedings against Greco were quasi-criminal in nature; (iii)
because the Act furthers the state's "interest in its citizens'
safety," the Act's proceedings implicate important state interests;
and (iv) not only would Greco be able to raise his constitutional
claims in state court, but the ERPO Act allows the Plaintiff to
seek the return of his property at a FERPO hearing where he would
be permitted to raise constitutional arguments.

Greco states he is specifically relying upon the earlier ruling
made by this Court at an earlier stage--the preliminary injunction
stage--of the very same litigation.  Because the Court decided to
hear--and ultimately deny--Greco's prior Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, Greco argues the Court has already chosen not to
abstain and is bound by that decision.  In their Reply, the
Defendants highlight findings at the preliminary relief stage
should have binding effect only if circumstances make it likely
that the findings are "sufficiently firm" to persuade the court
that there is no compelling reason for permitting them to be
litigated again.

The Judge is not persuaded by Greco's argument that the
law-of-the-case doctrine applies.  Greco's reliance on the
law-of-the-case doctrine is improper because while the law of the
case doctrine bars courts from reconsidering matters actually
decided, it does not prohibit courts from revisiting matters that
are avowedly preliminary or tentative.  As a result of abstention,
the Judge also denies Greco's Cross Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti granted the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.  He dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiff's Complaint, and denied the Plaintiff's Cross Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y8a8mfz7 from Leagle.com.


NOODLE TO NOODLE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Angel Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ANGEL and ADELAIDO ANGEL, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. NOODLE TO NOODLE, as successor in interest to KAZUMI
73 INC d/b/a KAZUMI SUSHI KINGDOM, and WEI HUI LIN a/k/a STEVEN
LIN, individually, and BRENDA ONG a/k/a BRENDA LIN, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-18790 (D.N.J., December 11, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and Class
members appropriate minimum wages and overtime compensation.

Plaintiffs Adrian Angel and Adelaido Angel worked for the
Defendants as non-managerial kitchen staff employees from mid-March
2016 through October 24, 2019 and from October 2018 through October
24, 2019, respectively.

Noodle to Noodle, as successor in interest to Kazumi 73 Inc. d/b/a
Kazumi Sushi Kingdom, is a Japanese restaurant located in New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
         BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
         910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 248-5550
         Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 651830/2020.

On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City
of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 (City of
Sterling), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.


The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), based on
alleged misstatements in the Securities Act filings, including the
registration statement filed in connection with the Anadarko
Acquisition and Occidental's related issuance of common stock and
debt securities offerings that took place in August 2019.

The lawsuit was filed against Occidental, certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the debt
securities offerings, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
plus attorneys' fees and expenses.

Two additional putative class actions were filed in the same court
(together with City of Sterling, the State Cases) and the State
Cases were consolidated into In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects in
regard to the State Cases.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum
Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and
production.

OJ SMITH: FLSA/NCWHA Collective, Classes Certified in Gonzalez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ,
ISAAC GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, VICTORINO FELIX ANTONIO, JUAN JAVIER
VARELA CUELLAR, RUBEN DOMINGUEZ ANTONIO, RIGOBERTO CARTERAS JARDON,
JORGE BAUTISTA SABINO, EMMANUEL CRUZ RIVERA, CELSO GONZALEZ TREJO,
ERIC JACINTO WENCES VASQUEZ, MARTIN NELSON WENCES VASQUEZ, PORFIRIO
BAUTISTA CRUZ, ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, JOSE ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ
CRUZ, SIXTO HERNANDEZ BUENO, VIRGINIO ANGELES GONZALEZ, TIBURCIO
ANTONIO MANUEL, and HUMBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. O.J. SMITH
FARMS, INC., BOSEMAN FARMS, INC., GREENLEAF NURSERY CO., SBHLP,
INC., JOEL M. BOSEMAN, JEAN J. BOSEMAN, PEYTON G. MCDANIEL, SANDRA
W. MCDANIEL, and SALVADOR BARAJAS,, Case No. 5:20-cv-00086-FL
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise W. Flanagan entered an order:

   1. certifying the combined North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
      ("NCWHA") class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      collective action represented by Plaintiffs Victorino
      Felix Antonio defined as follows:

      "all H-2A visa workers who were allegedly jointly employed
      by SBHLP, Inc. and/or Salvador Barajas on one hand and by
      Greenleaf Nursery Co. on the other who were not paid all
      wages when due at the wage rate required by the FLSA on
      their first or last regular paydays at any time in 2018
      and/or 2019 due to de facto wage deductions for travel and
      other inbound and outbound expenses"; and

   2. certifying the NCWHA class represented by Plaintiffs
      Victorino Felix Antonio, Humberto Antonio Hernandez, and
      Tiburcio Antonio Manuel, defined as follows:

      "all H-2A visa workers who were allegedly jointly employed
      by SBHLP, Inc. and/or Salvador Barajas on one hand and by
      the defendant Greenleaf Nursery Co. on the other who were
      not paid all wages when due on their regular payday at any
      time in 2018 due to de facto wage deductions for
      overpriced food."

The Court said, "The proposed combined FLSA/NCWHA Collective and
Class and the second NCWHA Class both satisfy the requirements of
Federal Rule 23(b)(3). Based on the allegations in the Complaint,
certification of the FLSA/NCHWA Collective and Class Action and the
NCWHA Class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). The legal and
factual issues of the Complaint predominate over any individual
issues of law and fact for any class member. Class treatment of the
legal issues identified in this case would also be superior to
other procedures for the handling of the claims in question for a
number of reasons. No member of the FLSA/NCWHA Collective and Class
Action or the NCWHA Class has any necessary interest in
individually controlling the prosecution of the claims at issue in
this litigation. Additionally, because of the relatively small
amount of the wage claims in this case, no individual class member
could have any reasonable financial capability to pursue this
litigation on an individual basis."

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2P44v at no extra charge.[CC]

OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Class Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit in
New Jersey.

On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a
complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica
Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County No. SOM-L-000540-19.

On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as
the Shumacher action.  

The complaints name Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its
directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public
offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement
and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of
ordinary shares.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled
allegations and adding an additional individual defendant.  

Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on October 13,
2020, and the parties have exchanged discovery requests.  

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends
to vigorously defend against the action.

Osmotica said, "However, this litigation matter is still in an
early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in
our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action,
which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations
and financial condition. At this time there is no loss that is
probable or reasonably estimatable."

Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Argentina, and
Hungary. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in
Bridgewater, New Jersey.

OTTAWA, MI: Grainger Seeks to Certify Class of Real Property Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR,
for himself and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF OTTAWA,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00501-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(a) and 23(b)(3) defined as:

      "all persons and entities that owned real property in the
      following counties, whose real property, during the
      relevant time period, was seized through a real property
      tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at
      tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and
      were not refunded the value of the property in excess of
      the delinquent taxes owed: Alger, Allegan, Antrim, Baraga,
      Barry, Benzie, Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, Chippewa, Delta,
      Dickinson, Eaton, Emmet, Gogebic, Grand Traverse,
      Hillsdale, Houghton, Ingham, Ionia, Iron, Kalamazoo,
      Kalkaska, Kent, Lake, Leelanau, Mackinac, Manistee,
      Marquette, Mason, Menominee, Missaukee, Montcalm,
      Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Ontonagon, Osceola, Ottawa,
      Schoolcraft, St Joseph, Van Buren, and Wexford";

   2. appointing E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm PC and
      Philip L Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC as Co-Lead
      Class Counsel; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff Frederick Grainger, Jr. as class
      representative.

Ottawa County is a county located in the U.S. state of Michigan.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nBu8kR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Christopher D. Kaye, Esq.
          Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W University Drive, Ste 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  cdk@millerlawpc.com
                  gam@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
          PO Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055
          E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
          PO Box 70
          St. Charles, MI 48655
          Telephone: (989) 249-0350
          E-mail: matthewgronda@gmail.com

PACIFICORP: James Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Jeanyne James et. al.
vs. PacifiCorp.

On September 30, 2020, a putative class action complaint against
PacifiCorp was filed, captioned Jeanyne James et. al. vs.
PacifiCorp, Case No. 20cv33885, Circuit Court, Multnomah County,
Oregon.

The complaint was filed on behalf of certain named Oregon residents
and businesses and all Oregon citizens and entities whose real or
personal property was harmed by wildfires in Oregon beginning on or
after September 7, 2020.

The complaint alleges that PacifiCorp's assets contributed to the
Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020 and that
PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things. The
complaint was amended November 2, 2020 to seek the following
damages: (i) damages for real and personal property and other
economic losses in excess of $600 million; (ii) double the amount
of property and economic damages based on alleged gross negligence;
(iii) treble damages for specific costs associated with loss of
timber, trees and shrubbery; (iv) double the damages for the costs
of litigation and reforestation; and (v) prejudgment interest.

The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have reserved their right
to amend the complaint to allege claims for punitive damages.

PacifiCorp said, "Other individual lawsuits alleging similar claims
have been filed in Oregon related to the 2020 wildfires.
Investigations as to the cause and origin of the wildfires are
ongoing."

Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and
its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically
integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers,
including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers
in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington,
Idaho and California.

PAIGELAUREN ENTERPRISES: Nisbett Seeks Blind's Full Website Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAIGELAUREN ENTERPRISES LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10569-AJN (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.paigelauren.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to:
lack of alt-text for images, documents do not have a title,
Webpages have duplicate titles which cause problems in screen
readers, form controls have no labels, tables are not properly
labeled with row and column headers, and headings are empty.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that their Website will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Paigelauren Enterprises LLC is a retailer of children's apparel
that does business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
         Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10017-6705
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com

PAPER CULTURE LLC: Duncan Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Paper Culture LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Eugene Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paper Culture LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06002 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9, 2020).

Paper Culture is an e-commerce platform delivering eco-friendly
products such as invitations, announcements and stationery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


PERKINS COIE: Dam Sues Over Cryptocurrency Investment Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
JUN DAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERKINS COIE, LLP; PERKINS COIE I, P.C.;
PERKINS COIE CALIFORNIA, P.C.; PERKINS COIE CALIFORNIA II, P.C.;
and LOWELL NESS, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00464 (E.D. Wash.,
Dec. 16, 2020) is a class action seeks monetary relief to remedy
the Defendants' misappropriation of money that they agreed to hold
in escrow and distribute in accordance with solicitation documents
for an initial token offering in the cryptocurrency market.

According to the complaint, to profit off the cryptocurrency mining
demand for infrastructure and power, a Singaporean business entity,
GigaWatt Pte., Ltd. ("GW Singapore), and its affiliate Giga Watt,
Inc., a Washington corporation headquartered in Wenatchee,
Washington (GW Washington) (hereafter GW Washington and GW
Singapore will collectively be referred to as the "GW Entities"),
proposed to create a cryptocurrency mining facility in this
District (the "Giga Watt Project").

To finance and create the Giga Watt Project, the GW Entities
solicited investors, including cryptocurrency miners, to
prepurchase a "Token" that represented the right to access and use
1 watt of power and related infrastructure to conduct
cryptocurrency mining operations in the Giga Watt Project that the
GW Entities proposed to create and make operational.

As of August 4, 2017, four days after the Initial Token Offering
("ITO") closed, the Defendants held $22,351,957.58 in Token
investment proceeds, representing 20,154,783 Tokens presold to the
public, for the benefit of the Token Holders and the GW Entities
related to the Giga Watt Project. After making certain refunds to
various Token Holders, one or more of the Perkins Defendants
eventually distributed all the Token investment proceeds to one or
more of the GW Entities even though the Giga Watt Project had not
been completed. Specifically, one or more of the Perkins Defendants
distributed four payments to GW Singapore totaling $10.8 million
and four payments to GW Washington totaling $10,865,757.31.

As of approximately January 2018, the Giga Watt Project was
approximately 50% complete. The GW Entities then stopped
constructing the Giga Watt Project and no higher percentage of
completion was ever obtained. The Plaintiff and the other Token
Holders never discovered and could not have reasonable discovered
that Perkins and Ness improperly distributed the Token investment
proceeds until much later than February 2018, if at all.

Perkins Coie LLP is an international law firm, which was founded in
1912. The firm represents clients that include start-up ventures as
well as Fortune 500 companies. Perkins Coie provides legal services
in areas that include antitrust, trade regulation, class actions,
contract and commercial, e-commerce, construction, environmental,
intellectual property, and labor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis J. McGlothin, Esq.
          THE WESTERN WASHINGTON LAW GROUP, PLLP
          Snohomish, WA 98291
          Telephone: (425) 728-7296
          E-mail: dennis@westwalaw.com

               -and-

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com


PHH MORTGAGE: Culver Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIRK CULVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a NEWREZ,
Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-02292 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 16, 2020) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

PHH Mortgage Corporation d/b/a Newrez provides mortgage financing
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          Zachary D. Ludens, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com;
                  kslaven@zpllp.com
                  zludens@zpllp.com

               -and-

          J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          METHVIN TERRELL YANCEY
          STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com

               -and-

          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          NEWHART LEGAL, P.A.
          14611Southern Blvd. Suite 1351
          Loxahatchee, FL 33470
          Telephone: (561) 331-1806
          Facsimile: (561) 473-2946
          E-mail: darren@newhartlegal.com


PHI AIR: Marshall Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACQUELINE MARSHALL, LANCE PHILLIPS, KRISTEN
KNOWLES, CHRIS ANDERSON, KAYVAN MARSHALL, KANE EDWARDS, JORDAN
MOSER, KYLE EVANS, JENNA DIAZ, TERRI MAURICIO, ERIK RUBALCAVA,
JOANN LEE, TEISLEYE SMITH, JOSEPH LOEHNER, LAUREN YOUNG, KELLI
ROSSETTO-SCHRADER, BRITNEY EWERS, TRACIE STIERS, MARISSA JOHANSON,
HEATHER IMHOF, CAROLE COVEY, OLSA HAHN, STEPHANIE SWISHER, JOHN
SICKMAN, LAUREN SCHINDLER AND MARK HARMON, individuals, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. PHI AIR MEDICAL, LLC; PHI HEALTH,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 62973, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Lassen to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on December 14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-at-01242 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide required meal
periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide wages
when due.

PHI Air Medical, LLC is an air ambulance provider based in
Lafayette, Louisiana.

PHI Health, LLC is a company that offers ambulance services located
in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         James C. Fessenden, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 597-9600
         Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
         E-mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com

POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Golden v.
Popular, Inc., is pending.

Popular has been named as a defendant on a putative class action
complaint captioned Golden v. Popular, Inc. filed on March 25, 2020
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violation of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of New
York consumer protection law due to Popular's purported practice of
charging OD Fees on transactions that, under plaintiffs' theory, do
not overdraw the account.

Plaintiff describes Popular's purported practice of charging
overdraft fees (OD Fees) as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle
Negative Transactions" (APPSN) and states that Popular assesses OD
Fees over authorized transactions for which sufficient funds are
held for settlement.

On August 14, 2020, Popular filed a Motion to Dismiss on several
grounds, including failure to state a claim against Popular, Inc.
and improper venue.

On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and, on that same date, filed an identical complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands
against Popular, Inc., Popular Bank and BPPR.

On October 27, 2020, a Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of
Popular, Inc. and Popular Bank, arguing failure to state a claim
and lack of minimum contacts of such parties with the U.S.V.I.
district court jurisdiction.

BPPR has not been served in connection with this new complaint.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.

POPULAR INC: Bid to Junk Soto-Melendez Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled,
Soto-Melendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, is pending.

On February 7, 2020, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) was served
with a putative class action complaint captioned Soto-Melendez v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, filed before the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The complaint
alleges breach of contract due to BPPR's purported practice of (a)
assessing more than one insufficient funds fee (NSF Fees) on the
same "item" or transaction and (b) charging both NSF Fees and
overdraft fees (OD Fees) on the same item or transaction, and is
filed on behalf of all persons who during the applicable statute of
limitations period were charged NSF Fees and/or OD Fees pursuant to
this purported practices.

On April 10, 2020, BPPR filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case,
which is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Dismissal of Maura Class Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., is pending.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in
another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action referenced above, on behalf of residential
customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to
illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their
mortgage servicers.

As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other
consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not
include a specific amount of damages in their complaint.

After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez
Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR
further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the
Court granted in September 2018.

In April 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration in April
2019, which Popular timely opposed.

In September 2019, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the
reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing
final judgment.

In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which was denied in December
2019. On January 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiffs filed
their appeal brief on July 8, 2020 and Appellees filed their brief
on September 21, 2020.

The appeal is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.

POPULAR INC: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that expert discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Perez Diaz v. Popular,
Inc., et al.

Popular, Inc.,  Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular
Insurance, LLC, have been named defendants in a class action
complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint
seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on
behalf of the class against the Popular Defendants, as well as
Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies.

They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an
estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good
experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance
Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive
relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from
paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering
them to pay those fees directly to the insured.

A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by the Defendant
Insurance Companies was denied with a right to replead following
limited targeted discovery.

Each of the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court denied the Popular Defendants' request to review the
lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss.

In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint, and, in January
2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, in October
2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the
class, after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari
petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the
class certification, which the Court declined to entertain.

In November 2018 and in January 2019, plaintiffs filed voluntary
dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and
Antilles Insurance Company, respectively, leaving the Popular
Defendants as the sole remaining defendants in the action.

In April 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit it
to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to a
mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies
with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular
Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims
against said policies during their effective term.

The Court approved on September 24, 2020 the notice to the class,
which is expected to be published in the next few weeks, and set
the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions for May 2021,
the Pre-Trial hearing for August 2021 and several dates for trial
between the end of August and the beginning of October 2021.

Expert discovery remains ongoing.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.

POPULAR INC: Petition for Rehearing in Camacho Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Appellants in
Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al.,
filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, which are
pending resolution.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.

Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking).

Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP), the Home Affordable Refinance Program
(HARP) and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as
well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that
all defendants (over 20, including all local banks) be held jointly
and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million.

BPPR filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most
co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by
the District Court, on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On July 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing the complaint.

On September 4, 2020, the Appellants filed a petition for rehearing
and for rehearing en banc, which are pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Danford Files Suit Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates. The case is styled as Jacqueline Danford, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00371-LG-RPM (S.D.
Miss., Dec. 9, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates acquires and collects nonperforming
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
   SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC - Ocean Springs
   429 Porter Avenue
   Ocean Springs, MS 39564
   Tel: (228) 875-0572
   Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com


QIWI PLC: Faces Ochakof Suit Over 20.6% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
DALE H. OCHAKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QIWI PLC, BORIS KIM, SERGEY SOLONIN,
ALEXANDER KARAVAEV and VARVARA KISELEVA, Case No. 1:20-cv-06054
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to recover compensable damages
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting
to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons
and entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of Qiwi
between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020, both dates inclusive.

On March 28, 2019, the Company filed a Form 20-F the year ended
December 31, 2018 with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which provided the Company's 2018 financial statements and
position. The 2018 20-F was signed by Defendant Solonin. The 2018
20-F contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 by Defendants Solonin and Karavaev attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statements in the Company's annual
reports were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining
to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which
were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls
related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2)
consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary
fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's
ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to
pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi filed a Form 6-K
with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of Russia had
imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for deficient
record-keeping and reporting, and suspended the Company's conduct
most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to
pre-paid cards from corporate accounts.

On this news, Qiwi's ADS price fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%, to
close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020, damaging investors,
the suit says.

Qiwi PLC is a publicly traded Russian payment service provider
headquartered in Nicosia, that operates electronic online payment
systems primarily in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Belarus,
Romania, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.   
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company
(NYSE:RTX, RTN) ("Raytheon") on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Raytheon securities between February 10, 2016
and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Raytheon investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Raytheon
securities during the Class Period may, no later than December 29,
2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation, please click
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/raytheon-technologies-corporation?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=raytheon.

According to the complaint, Raytheon is an aerospace and defense
company providing advanced systems and services for commercial,
military, and government customers worldwide. On April 3, 2020,
United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Company completed a
merger and changed "Raytheon Company" to "Raytheon Technologies
Corporation."

The Class Period commences on February 10, 2016, when Raytheon
Company published its annual report on a Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2015, which stated in relevant part, "we
maintain a system of internal control over financial reporting to
provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and that
transactions are properly executed and recorded. The system
includes policies and procedures, internal audits, and our
officers' reviews."

Concerns regarding Raytheon's financial accounting and internal
controls over financial reporting were revealed after market hours
on October 27, 2020, when Raytheon filed its quarterly report on a
Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020.
The Form 10-Q reported that "[o]n October 8, 2020, [Raytheon]
received a criminal subpoena from the [U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ")] seeking information and documents in connection with an
investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls
over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon
Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009."

Following this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per
share, or 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon
misreported its costs regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles &
Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from the government; (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal
investigation by the DOJ; and (6) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll-free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Raytheon investors may, no later than December 29, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties, and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers, and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Norris Sues Over 7% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Norris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon
Company, Thomas A. Kennedy, Anthony F. O'Brien and Michael J. Wood,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00543-RM (D. Ariz., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to
recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Raytheon securities between February 10, 2016 and October
27, 2020, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statements from a series of
disclosures involving the Company's annual reports were materially
false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operational and financial results, which were known to the
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii)
Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (iii) as a result,
Raytheon misreported its costs regarding Raytheon Company's
Missiles & Defense business since 2009; (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from the
government; (v) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a
criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice; and (vi)
as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On October 27, 2020, during after-market hours, Raytheon filed its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The report
announced an investigation by the DOJ into the Company, stating, in
pertinent part: "On October 8, 2020, the Company received a
criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking information and documents in
connection with an investigation relating to financial accounting,
internal controls over financial reporting, and cost reporting
regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles & Defense business since
2009. We are cooperating fully with the DOJ's investigation. At
this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the
investigation. Based on the information available to date, however,
we do not believe the results of this inquiry will have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity."

On this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per share, or
approximately 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors, the suit
says.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation purports to be an aerospace and
defense company providing advanced systems and services for
commercial, military, and government customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 248-0088
          Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
          E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

RCN TELECOM: Reid Seeks to Certify Customers Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN REID, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RCN TELECOM
SERVICES, LLC; RCN RCN TELECOM SERVICES (LEHIGH), LLC; and PATRIOT
MEDIA CONSULTING, LLC;, Case No. 3:20-cv-12571-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class under Fed. Rule 23(b)(3) defined as:

      "all current and former RCN customers in the United States
      who received internet services from RCN and who paid a
      $15.00 "Data Late Fee" between January 1, 2020 and
      December 21, 2020;"

   2. certifying a sub-class under Fed. Rule 23(b)(3) defined
      as:

      "all current and former RCN customers who paid a $15.00
      "Data Late Fee" between January 1, 2020 and December 21,
      2020 where the RCN bill imposing the fee stated: "All
      services, including telecommunications services, are
      provided by RCN Telecom Services (Lehigh) LLC;" and

   3. appointing Stephen P. DeNittis and Joseph A. Osefchen of
      the law firm of DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C. and Daniel
      Hattis of Hattis & Lukas as counsel to the class and sub-
      class.

RCN Telecom provides telecommunication services. The Company offers
broadband Internet, digital cable television, fixed line telephony,
and mobile telephony services. RCN serves commercial and
residential customers throughout the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's proposed order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mCJioK at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
         DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
         525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Telephone: (856) 797-9951
         E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

              - and -

         Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
         Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
         HATTIS & LUKACS
         400 108 th Ave NE, Suite 500
         Bellevue, WA 98004
         Telephone: (425) 233-8650
         E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

         Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
         David E. Sellinger, Esq.
         Todd L. Schleifstein, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
         Florham Park, NJ 07932

READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc. (RDI) said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company still defends itself against the class suits initiated by
Taylor Brown and Peter M. Wagner.

The Company is currently involved in two California employment
matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour
claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al.
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern,
Case No. BCV-19-1000390  and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual,
vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO.
37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL.

Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual
action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but
not served until June 24, 2019.  

These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to
alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal
periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay
upon termination and wage statements violations.  

Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit
in June 2019.  The following month, in July 2019, a notice was
served on the company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the
California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code
Section 2698, et seq) purportedly asserting in a representational
capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial
part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action
Complaint.

On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering
basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class
Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading
International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL. Neither plaintiff
has specified the amount of damages sought.

The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the
allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner
Individual Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class
Action Complaint.

In addition, the company had denied that a PAGA representative
action is appropriate. These matters are in their early stages, and
the putative class actions have not been certified.  

Reading International said, "As these cases are in early stages,
our Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or
the range of potential loss, if any; however, our Company believes
that its potential liability with respect to such matters is not
material to its overall financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.  Accordingly, our Company has not established a
reserve for loss in connection with these matters."

Reading International, Inc. (RDI), is focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI
operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate.
The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's
real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental
of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based
in Culver City, California.

REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Marin County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before
the Marin County Superior Court.

On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Mateo.

Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.

The San Mateo case was voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin
County Superior Court and consolidated with the cases there.  

On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs in the San Francisco
Superior Court case have filed a request for dismissal. Separately
an additional purported class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
25, 2019.

On February 12, 2020, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the federal
action and an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31,
2020. Defendants' filed a demurrer and motion to strike in the
state court action on March 13, 2020 and filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in favor of the federal action on May 1, 2020.   

On August 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the
state court action and deferred ruling on the demurrer and motion
to strike pending the outcome of the federal court action. A motion
to dismiss the federal court action was filed on May 15, 2020,
which motion remains pending.   

The state and federal complaints each allege claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class of
shareholders who acquired the Company's stock pursuant to or
traceable to the registration statement for the Company's IPO. The
federal complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Exchange
Act 's stock from June 27, 2019 through November 20, 2019.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements in the registration statement regarding certain of the
Company's key financial and operating metrics, and related to the
Company's authentication processes.  

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

On September 10, 2020, a purported shareholder filed a putative
derivative action in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. The derivative complaint alleges factual
allegations largely tracking the above-referenced lawsuits. The
derivative case has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to
dismiss in the federal securities case.  

RealReal said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the litigation described above, the cases are at a very
early stage and there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense. For this same reason, the Company cannot
currently estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may
experience in connection with this litigation."

The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.

REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gavric Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPASO GAVRIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. f/k/a REGAL
PONTIAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-2978 (M.D. Fla., Dec.
15, 2020) is an action against the Defendant for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, and minimum wages.

The Plaintiff Gavric was employed by the Defendant as salesman.

Regal Automotive Group, Inc. f/k/a Regal Pontiac, Inc. operates as
an automobile dealership. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
          YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW
          9990 Coconut Road
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Telephone: (239) 985-9691
          Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
          E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com

               -and-

          D. Michael Campbell, Esq.
          Daniel D. Moody, Esq.
          MOODY LAW
          575 North Broadway
          Bartow, FL 33830
          Telephone: (863) 733-9090
          Facsimile: (863) 534-1001
          E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com


REWALK ROBOTICS: IPO Related Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit related to the
company's initial public offering (IPO).

Between September 2016 and January 2017, eight putative class
actions on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or
acquired the Company ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to
its registration statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-197344) used
in connection with the initial public offering, or the Company's
IPO, were commenced in the following courts: (i) the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo; (ii) the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County; (iii)
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California; and (iv) the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. As of March 31, 2020, all complaints
have been dismissed, with one dismissal affirmed on appeal.

The actions involved or involve claims under various sections of
the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, against the
Company, certain of its current and former directors and officers,
the underwriters of the Company's IPO and certain other
defendants.

The four actions commenced in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo were dismissed in January 2017 for
lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California was voluntarily dismissed in March 2017.

Additionally, the two actions commenced in the Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, or the Superior
Court, were consolidated in December 2017, and voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice in November 2018, after the District Court
for the District of Massachusetts partially dismissed the related
claims in that court and the parties in the Superior Court entered
a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

The action commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, was partially dismissed on August 23, 2018.

In particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that
the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in
the IPO registration statement.

The District Court did not address the claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because, as a result of the dismissal
of the claims under the Securities Act, the lead plaintiff lacked
standing to pursue those claims.

Because the action in the District Court was styled as a class
action, the District Court permitted the plaintiff to file a
supplemental memorandum concerning standing or a motion to appoint
a substitute or supplemental plaintiff. On September 10, 2018, the
plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add a new
plaintiff that purportedly has standing to pursue Exchange Act
claims, and the Company opposed the motion to amend on September
24, 2018.

On May 16, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend
and the complaint was dismissed.

Thereafter, the plaintiff timely appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal was fully
briefed in January 2020 and the court held oral arguments on March
2, 2020.

On August 25, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal and the
denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend. The plaintiff's deadline
to file a petition for certiorari for appeal of the case to the
Supreme Court of the United States is November 24, 2020.

ReWalk Robotics Ltd., a medical device company, designs, develops,
and commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals
with mobility impairments or other medical conditions. The company
was formerly known as Argo Medical Technologies Ltd. ReWalk
Robotics Ltd. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Yokne'am
Illit, Israel.

ROI SOLUTIONS: Stenulson Seeks to Certify Call-Center Agents Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA STENULSON and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROI SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00614-DBB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action for purposes of
      notice and discovery under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA):

      "all Hourly Call-Center Employees Who Were Employed by ROI
      Solutions, LLC, Anywhere In The United States, At Any Time
      From September 2, 2017 Through the Final Disposition of
      This Matter (Putative Class Members);"

   2. allowing judicial-approved notice be sent to all
      Putative Class Members;

   3. approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed
      judicial notice and reminder notice;

   4. directing ROI to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the
      contact information (including the names, address,
      telephone number and e-mail address) for each Putative
      Class Member in a usable electronic format;

   5. authorizing a 90-day notice period for Putative Class
      Members to join the case; and

   6. authorizing notice to be disseminated via First Class
      mail, e-mail, posting and text-message to the Putative
      Class Members.

The Putative Class Members that Plaintiff seeks to represent
performed similar (if not identical) job duties, were subject to
the same company-wide policy, and suffered a common injury. The
Plaintiff has met the lenient standard for conditional
certification and ask the Court to conditionally certify the case
as a collective action and authorize notice to be sent to the
Putative Class Members, says the complaint.

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff Veronica Stenulson commenced this
collective/class action against ROI, alleging that the company
failed to pay its Hourly Call-Center Employees for all hours
worked, including the correct amount of overtime compensation.
Stenulson asserted her FLSA claim as a collective action under
Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and Montana
state law claim as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs collectively worked for ROI
from home and at ROI's call centers in and throughout the United
States.

ROI Solutions, LLC offers professional call center services
providing inbound, outbound, and internet chat services for its
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Dec. 14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/2WgZm4Tat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Starvos, Esq.
          Austin B. Egan, Esq.
          STARVOS LAW P.C.
          8915 South 700 East, Suite 202
          Sandy, Utah 84070
          Telephone: (801) 758-7604
          Facsimile: (801) 893-3573
          E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com
                  austin@stavroslaw.com

RTS PACKAGING: Oregel Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTS Packaging, LLC.
The case is styled as Claudia Oregel, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff v. RTS Packaging, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010526 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Dec. 15, 2020).

The type of the case is stated as Unlimited Civil Other
Employment.

RTS Packaging, LLC is one of the world's largest partition
producers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Roman Otkupman, Esq.
   Otkupman Law Firm, ALC
   28632 Roadside Dr
   Ste 203, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
   Tel: (818) 293-5623
   Fax: (888) 850-1310
   Email: roman@OLFLA.com


SAFELITE GROUP: Elliott Seeks Unpaid OT for Repair Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TOBY ELLIOTT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01398 (W.D. Tex., December 9, 2020) arises from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated technicians consistently worked overtime as a result of
accomplishing as many service tickets as possible to earn a
commission. Although they were aid an hourly rate, the Defendant
allegedly had a policy of refusing to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees lawfully earned overtime wages at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendant
shaved overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff and the class in an
attempt to reduce and/or eliminate its overtime exposure.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a repair
technician, brings this complaint as a collective action to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
litigation costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest under the provisions of the FLSA of 1938.

Safelite Group, Inc. provides automobile maintenance services to
customers across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberly, TX 78676
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com


SAINT ELIZABETH: Walkinshaw Wins Collective Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLE WALKINSHAW, et
al., v. SAINT ELIZABETH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COMMONSPIRIT
HEALTH f/k/a CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES, and CHI NEBRASKA f/k/a
CHI HEALTH,, Case No. 4:19-cv-03012-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Brian C. Buescher entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant CommonSpirit Health's Motion to
      Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2);

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
      Action Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
      on behalf of:

      "all persons who are or were jointly or severally employed
      by CommonSpirit and/or by its predecessor Catholic Health
      Initiatives, CHI Health, and/or SERMC (i.e., Saint
      Elizabeth Regional Medical Center), as medical nurses, who
      were paid an hourly wage, and who were subject to the On-
      Call Policy respecting compensation for On-Call Work, from
      the date of the Court's order granting conditional
      certification through the present,  at the following
      locations: CHI Health Laboratory in Omaha, Nebraska;
      Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska;
      Good Samaritan Hospital in Kearney, Nebraska; Immanuel
      Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska; Lakeside Hospital in Omaha,
      Nebraska; CHI Health-Mercy in Corning, Iowa; Mercy
      Hospital in Council Bluffs, Iowa; Midlands Hospital in
      Papillion, Nebraska; CHI Health Missouri Valley in
      Harrison County, Iowa; CHI Health - Nebraska Heart in
      Lincoln, Nebraska; CHI Health - Plainview in Plainview,
      Nebraska; CHI Health in Schuyler, Nebraska; Saint
      Elizabeth Medical Center in Lincoln, NE; Saint Francis
      Hospital in Grand Island, Nebraska; and CHI Health - Saint
      Mary’s in Otoe, Nebraska (collectively "the Locations").

   3. directing the Defendants, within seven business days, to
      produce to the Plaintiffs the list of those persons in its
      employ within the definition of the conditionally
      certified class, along with their mailing addresses and
      email addresses, in a workable electronic format;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiffs' Amended Proposed Notice and
      Amended Consent Form for mailing and emailing to all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs as;

   5. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude or Limit the Use
      of the Testimony of Aaron Austin; and

   6. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sur-Surreply.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs submitted evidence that nurses
other than the named Plaintiffs were potentially being improperly
paid for remote on-call work and thus might be opt-in plaintiffs to
this lawsuit. The Court examines the evidence to determine whether
the Plaintiffs have met their burden for conditional certification,
not to resolve conflicting evidence or make credibility
determinations. Thus, even considering Austin's declaration,
conditional collective-action certification is warranted. The
motion to exclude Austin's declaration is therefore denied. The
Court orders the Defendants to comply with all discovery rules and
orders moving forward and cautions that a failure to do so is
likely to result in the exclusion of evidence at later stages of
this case or other sanctions."

This case involves the Plaintiffs, nurses employed by the
Defendants, claiming they have been improperly compensated under
federal and state labor laws.

The seven named plaintiffs, Nicole Walkinshaw, Tysha Bryant, April
Endicott, Heather Nabity, Meghan Martin, Alandrea Ellwanger, and
Troy Stauffer, all worked for SERMC at various points from 2015 to
2019. Since approximately 2015, the Defendants have followed the
"On-Call Policy" which governs nurses' compensation for time spent
on call.

St. Elizabeth's Regional Medical Center is a hospital located at
555 South 70th Street in Lincoln, Nebraska.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2J8ciqO at no extra charge.[CC]

SAPUTO DAIRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reed Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA REED, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01531-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y., December 10,
2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Fill Room Operator
at the Defendant's location in Delhi, New York from approximately
March 22, 2019 through July 17, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendant failed to pay him and other similarly
situated employees for all hours they worked and overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 per week;

     -- The Defendant failed to monitor and/or record all of the
actual hours worked by its employees; and

     -- The Defendant failed to provide proper wage notices.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by the Defendant
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by the
Defendant to recover all unpaid wages and overtime plus liquidated
damages in the amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the FLSA.

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC manufacture dairy products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 E. Genesee St.
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Tel: (315) 314-8000
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

                - and –

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St., 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Tel: (212) 943-9080
          Fax: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com


SEIDLER OIL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEIDLER OIL & GAS, LP, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-11246 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 11, 2020) arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

On or about October 18, 2018, the Defendants contacted Plaintiff in
an attempt to solicit him to purchase investment opportunities with
the Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system. During
all relevant times, the Defendants did not possess Plaintiff's
"prior express consent" to receive calls using an ATDS on his
cellular telephone.

The Defendants' unlawful conduct has caused Plaintiff and the Class
members to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for
which Plaintiff and the Class members had previously paid as well
as invaded their privacy, the suit says.

Seidler Oil & Gas, LP is a fully-integrated international
exploration and production company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation
(OTC: SMICY) between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for SMIC investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the SMIC class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there was an "unacceptable risk" that equipment supplied
to SMIC would be used for military purposes; (2) SMIC was
foreseeably at risk of facing U.S. restrictions; (3) as a result of
restrictions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC's
suppliers would need "difficult-to-obtain" individual export
licenses; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

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



SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Schall Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation ("SMIC" or
"the Company") (OTC: SMICY) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 23,
2020 and September 26, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 8, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. SMIC suffered from an increased chance of
U.S. sanctions due to an "unacceptable risk" that equipment
supplied to the Company would be used for military applications.
Due to these restrictions, the Company's suppliers would require
"difficult-to-obtain" individual export licenses. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading. When the market learned the truth about SMIC, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Bid to Nix Illinois Combined Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
before the Northern District of Illinois court, has been denied.

The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company following published reports of
the Department of Justice investigation into the exchange of pacing
data within the industry.

On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.

The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other
broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on
broadcast television stations throughout the United States and
engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or
plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs
have alleged.

Defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action, but that motion was denied.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.

SKIDATA INC: Hyoguchi Torts Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PETER HYOGUCHI, NABEEL KORT and JOHN NGUYEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WESTFIELD, LLC; ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC; INDECT USA CORP.; LAZ
PARKING CALIFORNIA, LLC; and SKIDATA, INC., Case No. 20STCV42903,
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 December 12, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-11274 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged use of license plate
images captured in parking structures at California shopping
malls.

Westfield, LLC is a company that owns and operates shopping
centers, headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

ABM Industry Groups, LLC is a provider of custom facility solutions
in urban, suburban and rural areas, headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.

Indect USA Corp. is a company that designs and manufactures parking
guidance systems, headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

Laz Parking California, LLC is a company that offers parking asset
management services, headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

Skidata, Inc. is a provider of professional access and entry
management solutions, with its principal place of business located
in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Eric J. Bakewell, Esq.
         Sarah E. Diamond, Esq.
         VENABLE LLP
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 229-9900
         Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
         E-mail: EJBakewell@Venable.com
                 SEDiamond@Venable.com

SKIMS BODY INC: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Skims Body, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Skims Body, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05976 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020).

SKIMS is the new, solution focused approach to shape enhancing
undergarments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com



SLEEPY'S LLC: Gundell Seeks to Certify New Jersey Consumers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GUNDELL, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. SLEEPY'S, LLC,
MATTRESS FIRM, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SLEEPY'S, LLC AND
MATTRESS FIRM, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-07365-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class, consisting of:

      "all consumers who were residents of New Jersey on
      September 1, 2015, and who purchased household furniture
      or furnishings for future delivery to an address in New
      Jersey at any time on or after September 1, 2009 who
      received the same or similar sales documents as those
      received by Plaintiff in February 2013 and May 2015;"

   2. designating himself as class representatives for the
      class; and

   3. appointing Andrew R. Wolf and Bharati O. Sharma of The
      Wolf Law Firm, LLC as lass counsel for the class.

Sleepy's was a retail mattress chain with over 1,000 stores,
primarily situated in the northeastern United States. The company
was founded in New York City in 1931. Sleepy's was acquired by
Mattress Firm in December 2015 and all stores were rebranded under
the Mattress Firm name on January 1, 2017, but the website
continued as an online retailer until 2018. Mattress Firm now uses
the Sleepy's name for their private label mattresses.

A copy of the Plaintiff's proposed order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3reUQlyat no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: bsharma@wolflawfirm.net

SMOKY MOUNTAIN KNIFE: Duncan Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smoky Mountain Knife Works, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Eugene Duncan for himself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Smoky Mountain Knife
Works, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06004 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 9,
2020).

Smoky Mountain Knife Works, Inc. is a Knife store in Sevierville,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com



SMS TRANSPORTATION: Hundley Sues Over Retaliation & Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA HUNDLEY, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. SMS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV47961 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 15, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
including retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to provide
meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, continuing wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide adequate pay
stubs, and failure to maintain accurate records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver on or
around April 21, 2018 until her termination in November 2019.

SMS Transportation Services, Inc. is a company specializing in
non-emergency medical transportation, paratransit and fixed-route
shuttle services based in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
         S. Sean Shahabi, Esq.
         Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq.
         Stephen C. Young, Esq.
         JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
         300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
         Glendale, CA 91202
         Telephone: (818) 630-7280
         Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
         E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
                 sean@jlglawyers.com
                 ryan@jlglawyers.com
                 steve@jlglawyers.com

SOLACE ORAL: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Sedaghatfar Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZA SEDAGHATFAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLACE ORAL SURGERY, P.C., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-11326 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent text messages to
the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system in
an attempt to advertise and promote its services without obtaining
prior written express consent. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by causing
them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular
telephone time for which they previously paid and invading their
privacy.

Solace Oral Surgery, P.C. is a provider of oral surgery services
based in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Meghan E. George, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

SOLIANT HEALTH: Johnson Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PHILLIP JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SOLIANT HEALTH, INC.; SOLIANT PHYSICIAN
STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-VOE-2020-0004388, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on December
14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-at-01241 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to authorize and/or
permit meal breaks, failure to authorize and/or permit rest breaks,
waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices.

Soliant Health, Inc. is a provider of healthcare jobs and staffing
services based in Georgia.

Soliant Physician Staffing, LLC is a company that provides help
supply and personnel supply services, headquartered in Tucker,
Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Patrick J. Cain, Esq.
         Theodore H. Dokko, Esq.
         SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
         444 South Flower Street Suite 1700
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 358-7200
         Facsimile: (213) 358-7300
         E-mail: pcain@sgrlaw.com
                 tdokko@sgrlaw.com

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defends Wasa Medical Holdings & Calvo Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
defendant in two putative securities class action suits initiated
by Wasa Medical Holdings and Jeannette Calvo.

On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the
Company, its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Henry Ji, Ph.D., and its SVP of Regulatory
Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D.

The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made
materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing
public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements
regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus
infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations
of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

n June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the
same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same
relief.

It is anticipated that these cases will be consolidated as part of
the lead plaintiff and counsel appointment process under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The Company is defending these matters vigorously.

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and
commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to
transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable
disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other
indications, including immunology and infectious diseases. The
company is based in San Diego, California.

SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Harding Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN HARDING; PATRICIA GIRAMMA; RONALD WELCH; and LISA
HARBOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, INC.; THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, INC.; THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE OF SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP; and JOHN DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-12216 (D. Mass., Dec. 14, 2020)
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants breached
the duties they owed to the Southcoast Health System Partnership
Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan
by (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; (2) maintaining certain funds
in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping
costs.

The Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for
many of the mutual funds within the Plan despite their lower fees.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence.

Southcoast Hospitals Group, Inc. provides health care services. The
Hospital offers neurosurgery, cardiology, occupational therapy,
vaccination, respiratory, urine testing, and general surgery
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Hellman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC
          195 Church Street, 10th Floor
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 691-8762
          Facsimile: (203) 823-4401
          E-mail: jeff@jeffhallmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

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


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Shea's Bid to Certify Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shea v. Specialized Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01935 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
James S Moody, Jr. entered an order denying, without prejudice, the
Motion to Certify Class in light of the Court's extension of the
deadline to file the motion to certify class.

The case involves restrictions of use of telephone equipment.

Specialized Loan operates as a financial company. The company
offers residential mortgages, as well as provides loan modification
and planning services. SLS serves clients in the State of
Colorado.[CC]

SPEEDY CASH: Faces Caldera Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCINA CALDERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPEEDY CASH; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11327 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 15,
2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Speedy Cash is an online financial services company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


SPLUNK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
those who acquired Splunk Inc. ("Splunk" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
SPLK) securities during the period from October 21, 2020 through
December 2, 2020 (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Splunk Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Splunk Inc., you may,
no later than February 2, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Splunk Inc.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN CASE [https://bit.ly/3mHgMlH]

On December 2, 2020, after the market closed, Splunk announced its
third quarter 2021 financial results in a press release. The
Company reported total revenue of $559 million, well below prior
guidance expecting between $600 and $630 million. Splunk attributed
the shortfall to "uncertainty and volatility for macro factors"
that "cause[d] customers to delay spending commitments,
particularly for high-value contracts."

Analysts at BTIG wrote that this explanation "is fairly confusing
given that most peers in the software space (and particularly in
security software) saw relatively strong trends." Additionally,
analysts at JPMorgan were "blindsided by the magnitude of too many
large deals slipping in the final days of October."

On this news, Splunk's  stock price fell by $47.88 per share, or
approximately 23%, to close at $158.03 per share on December 3,
2020.

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

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

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com

Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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


STEPHEN HERETICK: Class Status Bid in Dockery Suit Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY G. DOCKERY, on
behalf of himself an all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
STEPHEN E. HERETICK, et al., Defendants, And NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Nominal Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-04114-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney entered
an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Motion
      for Class Certification;

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification; and

   3. directing the Clerk of Court to remove the gavel.

The Court said, "The Defendants' opposition to the Amended Motion
for Class Certification shall be filed no later than Monday,
January 25, 2021, and any reply brief in support of the Amended
Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than
February 22, 2021."

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mhfUEv at no extra charge.[CC]

SUNRISE SENIOR: Altamirano Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MYRNA ALTAMIRANO and ANGELA SAMSON, on behalf of
themselves, others similarly situated and the general public v.
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC.; SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING
MANAGEMENT, INC.; SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC; SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT,
INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. MSC20-01847, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on December 14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08881 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all hours worked, failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide and authorize meal
periods, failure to provide and authorize rest periods, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and
unfair competition.

Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc. is a company that provides
senior care services based in McLean, Virginia.

Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. is a provider of senior
living services, with its principal place of business located in
McLean, Virginia.

Sunrise Senior Living, LLC is an American operator of retirement
homes and other housing for senior citizens based in McLean,
Virginia.

Sunrise Development, Inc. is a company that offers assisted living,
skilled nursing, respite, hospice, and dementia care services.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
         Ashley Allyn, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         3161 Michelson Drive
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Telephone: (949) 451-3800
         Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
         E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
                 aallyn@gibsondunn.com

SUNRISE SENIOR: Goldberg FMLA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEBRA GOLDBERG, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
BRIGHTON GARDENS OF EDISON and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No.
MID-L-007563-20, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on December 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-18758 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged disability
discrimination, perception of disability discrimination, and
retaliatory termination under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc., doing business as Brighton
Gardens of Edison, is a provider of senior care services, with its
principal place of business located at 1801 Oak Tree Road, Edison,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Ronald V. Sgambati, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         200 Connell Drive, Suite 2000
         Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
         Telephone: (908) 795-5200

SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Burgos Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INES BURGOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. SUNVALLEYTEK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06910-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement, for attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and a class representative enhancement
payment.

Under the RAVPower label, Sunvalleytek manufactures, markets, and
distributes for sale nationwide power banks that consumers use to
charge their personal electronic devices ("PEDs"), such as laptops,
tablets, and cellphones.  The capacity of Power Banks is measured
in milliampere-hours ("mAh").  The Plaintiffs allege that the
products' actual capacities are substantially lower than what
Sunvalleytek represents.

Because the internal circuitry in a Power Bank uses power that
cannot be used to recharge a PED and owing to voltage conversion
losses, the Plaintiffs contend that a Power Bank is incapable of
delivering all of the internal battery capacity.  They also contend
that it is misleading and deceptive to label a Power Bank with a
specific mAh when it is only the internal battery cells that have
that mAh capacity.

Accordingly, on Nov. 14, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the class
action complaint against the Defendant asserting violations of the
California Legal Remedies Act; violations of the False Advertising
Law; violations of the Unfair Competition Law; violations of the
New York General Business Law New York; violations of materially
identical state consumer protection statutes; breach of express
warranty; and unjust enrichment.

Following formal discovery and with the assistance of a mediator,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement.  As part of the
consideration for the Agreement, Sunvalleytek agrees to (i) change
the product label to say the words battery capacity in conjunction
with the mAh number (where the mAh number is the sum of the nominal
rated capacity of the internal battery cells of the Power Bank);
(ii) change the user guide specifications to say the words battery
capacity in conjunction with the mAh number (where the mAh number
is the sum of the nominal rated capacity of the internal battery
cells of the Power Bank); (iii) change the product description in
the Amazon listings to convey that the specified mAh is the sum or
total of the nominal rated capacity of the internal battery cells;
and (iv) change the Amazon listing the bullet points to say xxxx
mAh internal battery capacity or internal battery capacity xxxx mAh
(where xxxx represents the number that is the sum of the nominal
rated capacity of the internal battery cells in the power banks).

There is no notice provided to class members.  There is no opt-out
procedure in the settlement agreement.

The Named Plaintiffs applied for incentive awards of $5,000.  The
Class Counsel will make an application for an award of Attorneys'
Fees for work on the case (not to include any work on any related
cases) not exceeding $315,000.  The Defendant may oppose that
application except that it will not propose to pay an amount less
than $45,000.

At the Aug. 20, 2020 hearing on the motion, the Court ordered the
parties to meet and confer regarding the class definition and class
notice.  The parties then agreed to an amended settlement agreement
with a new class definition and class notice plan.

The Settlement Class is defined as "All consumers who have
purchased any of the Covered Products in the United States."

The proposed notice plan includes a notice posted in a prominent
place on the websites of the Plaintiffs' counsel 60 days before the
Court holds a telephonic fairness hearing regarding approval of the
Settlement Agreement.  The proposed posting includes the date and
subject matter of the upcoming fairness hearing; the settlement
benefits; the requested attorneys' fees and costs; and an
explanation that the proposed settlement does not result in waiver
of any claims members of the proposed class might have.  The
posting also invites the class members to participate in the
hearing and to submit written comments by 15 days before the
hearing date.  The Defendant also agrees to post a banner at the
top of its website with information about the hearing and
opportunity to participate with a link to the notice page of the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have established that each
of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b).  Based on
the alleged mislabeling, he grants certification under Rule
23(b)(2).

Regarding the classwide notice, the Judge finds that the amended
settlement agreement provides for adequate classwide notice under
the circumstances presented (i.e., an injunctive relief only
settlement that does not require the absent class members to waive
any rights).

Regarding the settlement, the Judge finds that (i) to date, no
court has addressed whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived
by mAh representations on Power Bank; (ii) if the litigation were
to proceed, it would have been expensive and time-consuming, and
could have led to the Plaintiff and the class going home
empty-handed; (iii) the parties received, examined, and analyzed
information, documents, and materials sufficient to allow them to
assess the likelihood of success on the merit; and (iv) the
Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in litigating similar consumer
class actions.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each event listed, which will be submitted to
the Court within seven days of the date of the Order: (i) deadline
for implementing classwide notice plan, (ii) deadline for Class
Members to object to settlement and/or application for attorneys'
fees and costs and incentive payment, (iii) filing deadline for
final approval motion, and (iv) final fairness hearing and hearing
on motions.  The parties are further directed to implement the
proposed class notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8yh73yj from Leagle.com.


TEXAS MACULAR: Faces Nieman Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KARLY NIEMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEXAS MACULAR DEGENERATION ASSOCIATES, PLLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-11253
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, in or about July of 2019, the Plaintiff
received an unsolicited text messages from the Defendants on her
cellular telephone, number ending in -8228. During this time, the
Defendants began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the
purpose of sending her spam advertisements and/or promotional
offers, via text messages using an automatic telephone dialing
system. The Plaintiff contends that she was never a customer of the
Defendants and never provided her cellular telephone number for any
reason whatsoever.

Texas Macular Degeneration Associates, PLLC is an eye care
practitioner which conducts business in the State of California and
in the County of Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Can Compel Hansen to Arbitrate Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK HANSEN, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02685-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiff Hansen has filed a class action against Defendants
Ticketmaster and Live Nation Entertainment Co.  Mr. Hansen asserts
that the Defendants violated the law when Ticketmaster, a division
of Live Nation, retroactively changed its refund policy after the
coronavirus pandemic.

In response to the complaint, the Defendants have filed a motion to
compel arbitration.  They contend that the parties' dispute must be
compelled to arbitration because Mr. Hansen agreed to the
Ticketmaster Terms of Use ("TOU") and the TOU contain an
arbitration agreement.  According to the Defendants, Mr. Hansen
agreed to the TOU.

Mr. Hansen purchased the tickets for the two Rage Against the
Machine concerts in February 2020.  In order to purchase the
tickets, Mr. Hansen had to sign into his Ticketmaster account.

The Defendants have provided evidence about how the sign-in page
appeared in February 2020 when Mr. Hansen purchased the tickets.
The TOU that governed when Mr. Hansen signed in and purchased
tickets in February 2020 can be found at Exhibit 12 to the Tobias
Declaration.  Said TOU contains the arbitration provisions.

The Defendants argue that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the
arbitration agreement in the instant case given the express terms
of the agreement.  Mr. Hansen does not expressly disagree but
contends that the provisions of the FAA are largely beside the
point because the question is whether an agreement to arbitrate was
ever formed in the first instance. According to Mr. Hansen, there
was no contract formation because he did not have actual knowledge
of the arbitration agreement, and constructive knowledge cannot
reasonably be inferred.

Judge Chen concludes that Mr. Hansen validly assented to the
Ticketmaster TOU when he clicked the Sign In button, as required
before he could move on to purchase tickets for the Rage concerts.
By assenting to the TOU, Mr. Hansen also assented to the
arbitration agreement contained therein.  Mr. Hansen has not made
any other argument as to why he should not be compelled to
arbitration, consistent with the arbitration agreement.  Therefore,
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted.

The proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the arbitration.
The Order disposes of Docket No. 22.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7e4xzgt from Leagle.com.


ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: MMA Fighters Get OK for Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Eidelson at Bloomberg News reports that a federal judge said
he'll approve class-action status for about 1,200 mixed martial
artists in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit accusing the Ultimate
Fighting Championship of abusing monopoly power.

The lawsuit, filed six years ago by former UFC fighters, claims
that the promotion company's parent "engaged in an illegal scheme
to eliminate competition" that allows it to pay fighters "a
fraction of what they would earn in a competitive marketplace."

U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware in Las Vegas said during a
virtual hearing that he expects to issue an order certifying the
class-action.

The case is one of the most significant efforts in recent decades
to deploy century-old antitrust law to attack "monopsony" power,
the leverage companies can wield by cutting off workers' ability to
find work elsewhere.

But it may still take years to resolve, unless there's a
settlement.

"I am assuming, given the amount that both sides have invested in
this case and the size of it, that whoever doesn't prevail would
seek to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court," Boulware
said at a hearing last year.

If the plaintiffs succeed, experts estimated total damages may be
in the range of $2.5 billion to $5 billion.

"Now that the bout class has been certified, we look forward to
vindicating the rights of the many hundreds of MMA fighter class
members in this important case for the sport of mixed martial
arts," the plaintiffs' attorney Eric Cramer said in an emailed
statement.

A UFC spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The media company Endeavor and private equity firms Silver Lake
Partners LP and KKR & Co. bought UFC's parent company, Zuffa, for
$4 billion in 2016.

The plaintiffs claim that UFC has created a vicious cycle by
hounding rivals to sell their companies, and fighters to
indefinitely sign away their right to work elsewhere: Other
companies can't recruit the workers they would need to credibly
compete, and fighters lack leverage because they have no viable
alternative place to work.

The company has denied the allegations and derided the lawsuit as
baseless and dangerous. Earlier this year, its attorney called the
case "a threat to all companies' ability to grow and succeed."

In court filings, the company has argued that its spending and
savvy are what made mixed martial arts fighting a viable profession
in the first place, attracting competition, not suppressing it.

Companies that take risks as UFC did "should be encouraged, not
villainized," Zuffa's lawyer William Isaacson said. Zuffa has said
it has plenty of competitors, and attracts fighters by offering
them superior pay and opportunities.

The case is Le v. Zuffa, 15-cv-01045, U.S. District Court, District
of Nevada (Las Vegas). [GN]


ULTRA MUSIC: Ticketholders Class Suit Forced Into Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the latest Ultra Music Festival class-action lawsuit update, the
United States District Court in Southern Florida has ordered both
parties to arbitration. An Order dated November 23rd of last month
provides a detailed analysis as to the reason for this judgment.
The notion is considered a win for Ultra since the Court sided
against the ticketholders who sought to avoid arbitration.

The whole fiasco started back in May when ticketholders filed a
lawsuit against Ultra's refund policy. After the festival's
cancellation left many ticketholders in the hole, Ultra opted to
postpone the event to the following year rather than refund
tickets. The general consensus is that was a strategic move to
squeeze out of a technicality which would require Ultra to issue
refunds. Needless to say, some ticketholders weren't able to accept
the policy and thus it was time to lawyer-up.

The ticket holders supported their position against arbitration
with five main arguments - all of which failed to convince the
Court. They alleged the 2019 ticket agreement rather than the 2020
agreement should apply to their situation, and the details about
arbitration were buried within a maze of fine print. They also
insisted the required costs of arbitration were too expensive.

The Court ruled that there is no reason to believe the 2019 ticket
agreement should be applied in place of the 2020 version. The 2020
version states the filing fees for arbitration are capped at $200
for the plaintiff as well. They offered a link to a website
estimating the costs of arbitration to be between $750 to $3,500,
but they had no evidence to support how that applied to their
situation.

Embedded below is the detailed legal document. Feel free to inspect
it and make your own judgments. At the same time, Ultra's lawsuit
against the staging company continues. [GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Dill Sues Over Mislabeled Apparel Products
--------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN DILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06066 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2020) is an action against the
Defendant's sale and manufacture of apparel products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures,
distributes, markets, labels and sells clothes designed to improve
athletic performance under its "Rush" line to consumers from retail
and online stores and from its Website. Defendant's Website
describes its Rush Products as "the Fabric Version of an Infrared
Sauna, Recycling the Body's Energy During Performance."

The Plaintiff used the product but did not receive the effects and
benefits claimed and in no way was he able to recover quicker or
exercise longer relative to other athletic clothes. Even if "far
infrared radiation" (FIR) was capable of the effects claimed, the
FIR generated by the product would not be of sufficient intensity
to achieve the advertised benefit. The Product's composition and
construction does not meaningfully, or at all, increase energy or
recovery time. In fact, numerous scientists have noted the dangers
of far-infrared radiation.

Under Armour, Inc. develops, markets, and distributes branded
performance products for men, women, and youth. The Company designs
and sells a broad offering of apparel and accessories made of
synthetic microfibers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL SCREEN ARTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10464 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2020) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant denied him of a user
experience similar to that of a sighted individual when he recently
visited the Defendant's Website, www.basbleu.com, in December 2020
to browse and potentially make a purchase. The Defendant's Website
allegedly lacked of a variety of features and accommodations which
effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in act of
intentional discrimination because of its failure to comply with
the WCAG2.1 Guidelines by constructing and maintaining a Website
that is inaccessible to visually-impaired individuals. Moreover,
the Defendant allegedly failed to construct and maintain a Website
that is sufficiently intuitive so as to be equally accessible to
visually-impaired individuals, and failed to take actions to
correct these access barriers in the face of substantial harm and
discrimination to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Universal Screen Arts, Inc. is a book company that owns and
operates the Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Ave., Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Tel: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Robins Disputes Debt Allegation
-----------------------------------------------------
Neil Robins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Velocity Investments, LLC and Javitch Block
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-940965 filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Ohio, on December 7, 2020, seeks actual, statutory and/or
punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other
and further relief resulting from invasion of privacy and
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Robins allegedly owed money to an entity called WebBank sometime in
2014 despite claiming that he neither entered into an agreement
with WebBank nor received any money from WebBank and never received
a line of credit from WebBank.

Velocity Investments, LLC and Javitch Block LLC filed a complaint
against Robins in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
under Case No. CV-19-926571.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James S. Wertheim, Esq.
     JAMES S WERTHEIM LLC
     23811 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 330
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Tel: (216) 902-1719
     Email: wertheimjim@gmail.com


VELODYNE LIDAR: Case Management Conference Set for Feb. 3
---------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Court has
scheduled a Case Management Conference for February 3, 2021.

On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed
to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and
other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks.

The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified
and is seeking to certify the action as a class action.

The plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a
claim pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act. The
First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the plaintiff
seeks to recover.

Velodyne's response to the First Amended Complaint is due on
November 16, 2020 and the parties are in the process of beginning
discovery concerning class certification issues.

The Court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for February
3, 2021.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.

VELODYNE LIDAR: Graf Shareholder's Suit in New York Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Graf Industrial
Corp., continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by a purported shareholder.

On August 4, 2020, a purported shareholder of Graf Industrial
Corp., commenced a putative class action against Graf and its
directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Board members, aided and abetted by
Graf, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger
Agreement with Velodyne.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Merger Agreement undervalues Graf,
was the result of an improper process and that Graf's disclosure
concerning the proposed Merger is inadequate.

As a result of these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, the
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of rescissory
damages.

The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.

VELODYNE LIDAR: WARN Act Related Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in the
class action suit related to the company's alleged violation of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN
Act, have reached an agreement to resolve the case and the
plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the case on June 29, 2020
in accordance with the terms of the settlement.

On April 3, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN Act, and
California WARN Act in connection with its termination of the
employment of the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.


The plaintiff seeks to certify the action as a class action and
seeks various other remedies on behalf of himself and others,
including unpaid wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses and other
compensation and benefits that would have accrued during the
following 60 days.

The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the case and the
plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the case on June 29, 2020
in accordance with the terms of the settlement. This case is now
terminated.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.

VISTA DEL MAR: Faces Beltran Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Nurses
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE BELTRAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. VISTA DEL MAR CHILD AND FAMILY
SERVICES and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20SMCV01926 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 11, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including
Failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and
double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned
on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of
hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nurse in
California from November 11, 2019 until March 11, 2020.

Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services is a provider of mental
health services in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Catignani Sues Over Mismanagement of Landfill
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CATIGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF TENNESSEE, Case
No. 20C2744 (Tenn. Cir., Davidson Cty., Dec. 15, 2020) alleges
mismanagement in the operation and maintenance of the Defendant's
landfill.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
adequately collect, capture, and destroy landfill gas generated at
the Defendant's landfill to prevent fugitive emissions and prevent
noxious odors and gases from the landfill from evading the homes
and property of the Plaintiff and the Class.

The Plaintiff and the Class's properties have been and continuously
invaded by noxious odors which originated from the Defendant's
landfill.

Waste Management, Inc. Of Tennessee provides waste management
services including collection, transfer, recycling, resource
recovery, and disposal services, and operates waste-to-energy
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Greer, Esq.
          Baker Yates, Esq.
          BAILEY & GREER, PLLC
          6256 Poplar Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38229
          Telephone: (901) 350-5579

               - and -

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
                  mrobb@ldclassaction.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: New York Dismisses Putative Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2020, Judge William H. Pauley III of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against a weight loss company (the "Company"), certain of
its officers and directors, and its largest shareholder. In re
Weight Watchers Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-2005 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 30, 2020). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and
misleading statements and omissions about its strategic rebranding
initiative. The Court dismissed these claims because plaintiffs
failed to allege falsity, observing that plaintiffs' claims "have
little bearing on disclosure . . . and are [instead] fundamentally
about corporate mismanagement." Although the Court concluded that
plaintiffs' failure to allege an actionable misrepresentation was
sufficient to dismiss the case, the Court addressed the parties'
remaining arguments, including two issues on which the Second
Circuit has yet to weigh in, holding that: (1) the exercise of
stock options can be considered for the purpose of determining
whether an individual's stock sales are sufficient to allege
scienter; and (2) a selling shareholder is not a "statutory seller"
for purposes of Section 12(a)(2) simply because it signed the
registration statement. The Court also held that the selling
shareholder was not a "maker" of the allegedly misleading
statements and thus could not be held liable under Section 10(b).

In early 2018, the Company launched a strategic rebranding
initiative aimed at broadening its appeal and reducing the
seasonality of its business model by positioning itself as a
year-round wellness program rather than a weight loss program. The
Company's previous recruiting strategy depended on getting its
"bread and butter customers" -- middle-aged, white women -- with
lapsed membership subscriptions to renew their memberships. As part
of its rebranding, the Company announced that it would diversify
its customer base by incorporating "a broad-cross section of
diversity: age, gender, race, ethnicity, geography and, life stage"
and "appeal[ing] to a broader audience who may not have considered
. . . the program for them in the past." As part of its new
strategy, the Company departed from its long-standing "formula" of
introducing a "meaningful" program innovation at the end of year to
motivate potential new subscribers to join the program and,
instead, introduced smaller innovations throughout the year. In the
summer of 2018, the Company's largest shareholder sold shares in
two large public offerings that reduced its holdings from 44% to
22%. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to disclose (1)
that its recruiting strategy still relied on recruiting lapsed
customers; and (2) that it would not launch a significant program
innovation at the end of the year.

The Court rejected each of these claims for failure to allege
falsity, explaining that plaintiffs "ignore[d] [the Company's]
disclosures." First, with respect to plaintiffs' allegations that
the Company misled investors about its continued reliance on
recruiting lapsed members, the Court -- pointing to the Company's
repeated statements that it would advertise to "both new and
returning customers" and that it could "attract new and returning
customers efficiently" -- held that the Company had merely stated
that it was expanding its customer base, not abandoning its
existing customer base. Second, with respect to plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company misled investors by failing to
disclose that it would not release a significant program innovation
at the end of the year, the Court found the allegations of falsity
lacking because the Company had previously disclosed this shift in
strategy. According to the Court, plaintiffs' allegation that the
Company's rebranding initiative was ultimately unsuccessful "[wa]s
a complaint about strategy, not disclosures as required by
securities laws."

Although this finding could have ended the Court's inquiry, the
Court considered the parties' remaining arguments for the "sake of
completeness" -- including those involving two areas of unsettled
law in the Second Circuit. First, the Court examined whether
plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter by alleging that the CFO
sold 61% of his holdings in the Company during the class period. In
contrast, defendants-citing the Company's SEC filings -- claimed
that the CFO had not sold any shares, but instead had exercised
stock options and, as such, began and ended the class period
holding the same number of shares in the Company. Defendants argued
that the Court should not consider the exercise of these options
for the purposes of determining scienter. Alternatively, defendants
argued that, if the Court considered the exercise of options, the
Court should also take into account the additional options that
vested at the end of 2018 and were not sold. Under this approach,
the defendants argued that the CFO actually increased his holdings
by 18%. The Court noted that whether the exercise of stock options
should be considered when calculating stock sales as a percentage
of total holdings is an issue on which the Second Circuit has not
yet ruled, but noted that most district courts in New York and
other Courts of Appeals have held that stock options should be
considered in the overall tally. Although the Court appeared
inclined to accept defendants' argument, the Court nevertheless
explained that it must confine itself to the allegations that the
CFO has sold 61% of his holdings and could not rely on the truth of
the Company's SEC filings, where the exercise of these options was
disclosed. Consequently, the Court concluded that plaintiffs
adequately alleged scienter with respect to the CFO.

Second, the Court considered whether the Company's largest
shareholder, by signing the registration statements for the
offerings, qualified as a "statutory seller" for the purposes of
plaintiffs' claims under Section 12(a)(2). Under the Supreme Court
decision in Pinter v. Dahl, a defendant is a "statutory seller" if
it (1) "passed title, or other interest in the security, to the
buyer for value," or (2) "successfully solicit[ed] the purchase [of
a security], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his
own financial interests or those of the securities owner." Because
the Company's largest shareholder had not transferred title, the
focus was whether it had "solicited" the purchase of the
securities. The Court concluded that merely signing a registration
statement does not itself suffice as solicitation: (1) every
Circuit Court considering the issue holds that signing a
registration statement alone is not sufficient to make an
individual a statutory seller; (2) the statutory scheme, which
expressly imposes Section 11 liability on those who sign a
registration statement but makes no mention of Section 12
liability, "suggests a deliberate choice by legislators to decline
to extend Section 12 liability to mere signers of the registration
statement"; and (3) the Supreme Court, in Pinter v. Dahl, explained
that Congress did not intend to impose liability under Section 12
"for mere participation in unlawful sales transactions."

Finally, with respect to the Section 10(b) claim, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company's largest
shareholder was "the maker" of any statement under the Supreme
Court's holding in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative
Traders. The Court concluded that the shareholder lacked the
"ultimate authority" to make the Company's alleged misstatements
because (1) the shareholder had only a minority interest in the
Company; (2) there was no allegation that the shareholder
participated in the preparation of the offering documents; and (3)
the shareholder did not actually sign the registration statement
(the shareholder's CEO signed the registration statement, but in
his capacity as one of the Company's directors).[GN]



WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney to Seek Class Cert. of 401(k) Plan Members
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel
Draney, and Lorenzo Ibarra, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Ezekiel
"Alan" Zwillinger; and Steven Zwillinger, Case No.
2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), will move the Court on Feb. 22,
2021, to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case to proceed as a class action, with
      the class defined as:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Westco
      Chemicals, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) ("Plan") whose Plan
      account had a balance at any time on or after February 25,
      2013 through the present;"

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any Westco
      Chemicals Inc. employees having or exercising fiduciary
      responsibility for the investment of the Plan's assets or
      administration of the Plan's terms; and

   2. appointing Michael C. McKay and Shoham J. Solouki as Class
      Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached fiduciary duties
by failing to provide the Plaintiffs and participants with
statutorily required disclosures about the Plan's terms, holdings,
investments, fees, and performance.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Westco Chemicals, Inc.
Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan, who owe to the Plan and
all participants a broad range of fiduciary duties.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/37saLFm at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
          SOLOUKI SAVOY LLP
          316 West 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          3 Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814-4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
          E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoy.com

               - and -

          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Ste. 300
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
          E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Charles Faucher Esq.
          TRUCKER HUSS, APC
          15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 510
          Encino, CA 91436-2964
          Telephone: (213) 537-1017
          Facsimile: (213) 537-1020
          E-mail: jfaucher@truckerhuss.com
                  bdesch@truckerhuss.com
                  ckang@truckerhuss.com
                  drudolph@truckerhuss.com
                  swarr@truckerhuss.com
                  mfernandez@truckerhuss.com
                  pmahoric@truckerhuss.com
                  docket@truckerhuss.com
                  eruano@truckerhuss.com
                  agarrett@truckerhuss.com
                  bhuss@truckerhuss.com
                  jfaucher@truckerhuss.com
                  mayala@truckerhuss.com
                  soliver@truckerhuss.com
                  bmurray@truckerhuss.com

WILD IRISHMAN: Dominguez Case Seeks Collective Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO DOMINGUEZ on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILD
IRISHMAN TREE & LANDSCAPE, INC. and DUANE J. O'HARA, Case No.
1:20-cv-02789-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case to proceed as a
      "collective action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
      define the collective as:

      "all employees who worked on or after September 15, 2017";

   2. approving the Notice and Consent to Join form;

   3. directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent
      to Join form to all potential collective action members
      via first-class U.S. Mail;

   4. directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to
      Join form, in English and in Spanish, in conspicuous
      places in their place of business for a period of 60 days;

   5. directing the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice
      and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two
      consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective
      action members currently employed by Defendants;

   6. directing the Defendants to produce the names, addresses,
      all known telephone numbers and dates of employment of all
      potential collective members within 14 days of the Court's
      order so that Plaintiff may disseminate the Notice and
      Consent to Join form in a timely fashion; and

   7. allowing the putative collective members to have 60 days
      from the date the Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in
      which to opt-into the action.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants refuse to pay their
landscape employees for all hours worked and refuse to pay them
overtime wages for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff moves the
Court for an order permitting Plaintiff to distribute notice to all
the Defendants' current and former employees who worked on or after
September 15, 2017 to inform them of their right to join this
lawsuit so that they might have the opportunity to recover the
wages and overtime wages they worked for and are due.

Wild Irishman provides landscaping services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective action
certification dated Dec. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mwlTW3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

ZOSANO PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Dec. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of Zosano Pharma Corporation stockholders.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Zosano Pharma Corporation

Class Period: February 13, 2017 to September 30, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020

Zosano is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company. Its lead product
candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of zolmitriptan coated
onto the Company's microneedle patch. Its pivotal efficacy trial,
called ZOTRIP, began in July 2016. In December 2019, Zosano
submitted its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking regulatory approval for
Qtrypta.

On September 30, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a discipline
review letter ("DRL") from the FDA regarding its NDA for Qtrypta
and stated that approval was not likely. According to the Company's
press release, the FDA "raised questions regarding unexpected high
plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan observed in five study
subjects from two pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from
these subjects affect the overall clinical pharmacology section of
the application." The FDA also "raised questions regarding
differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects
receiving different lots of Qtrypta in the company's clinical
trials."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.92, or 57%, to
close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously
identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a
repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during
development.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.17, or 27%, to
close at $0.04440 per share on October 21, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's clinical results reflected differences in
zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving
different lots; (2) that pharmacokinetic studies submitted in
connection with the Company's NDA included patients exhibiting
unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing differences among patient results, the
FDA was reasonably likely to require further studies to support
regulatory approval of Qtrypta; (4) that, as a result, regulatory
approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Zosano class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ZSAN

           About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

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


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***