---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 259

                            Headlines

19TH JDC, LOUISIANA: Class Certification of Detainees Sought
3M COMPANY: Bachmann Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Mississippi Sues Over AFFF Products' Contamination
A&R WHOLESALE: Euseda et al. Seek Unpaid OT, Spread of Hours Pay
ACM RESEARCH: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline

ACORN OUTDOOR: Underpays Forestry Workers, Morton Suit Claims
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Moore Suit Says
AETNA LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Cancer Treatment Coverage
AIR METHODS: Loses Bid to Change Venue, Stay or Dismiss Dyer Suit
ALLE PROCESSING: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Naiman Suit

ALLEGIS GLOBAL: Duran Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AMAZON.COM: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Monopoly
AMCI ACQUISITION: Frey Challenges Proposed Merger With Advent
AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty's Bid for Class Certification Denied

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Yearby Files Suit in N.D. California
AMERICAN SENIOR: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ARBICORP: Faces Class Action Over Arbistar Digital Currency Scam
ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending
ARIES CAPITAL: Ciesniewski Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Cir.

AROVAST CORPORATION: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ARZZ INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
ASSET CAMPUS: Vo Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Apartment Lessee
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Morris Files Suit in S.D. New York

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: FRS Appeals Denial of Motion to Intervene
AXAR CAPITAL: Plaintiff Verifies Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware
AXCESS STAFFING: Wilbourn Seeks to Certify Two Classes
BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces Fiduciary Breach Class Action Lawsuit
BAYOU TECHE: Verdict Dismissing Maturin's Class Cert. Bid Reversed

BERKELEY UNIFIED: Students Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
BERRY CORP: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline
BIG MOOSE: Faces COVID-19 Related Class Action Over Negligence
BIKEBANDIT.COM: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BILL ELDER: Class Cert. of El Paso County Jail Inmates Sought

BLACKBAUD INC: Duranko Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
BLACKBAUD INC: Sloane Files Suit in D. South Carolina
BLAKBAUD INC: Arthur Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
BLUE & CREAM: Calcano Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BLUEWATER TOXICOLOGY: Vaughn Balks at Unpaid OT, Meal & Rest Breaks

BOKF NA: Court Refuses to Quash Judgment Offers in Almeida Suit
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Ministry of Children Settles Saunders Class Suit
CALIRIDES LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL ACCESS: Fabricant Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Escobar Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California

CASIO AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CATHOLIC HEALTH: Pirolo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CD PROJEKT: Faces Class Actions Over Cyberpunk Misrepresentation
CEN-CAL PLASTERING: Alcazar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CITIGROUP INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline

COMERICA BANK: Can Compel Arbitration in El-Hage Suit, Court Says
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Edourad Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation
COVIA HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline
CREATIVE CONSUMER: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL: Starr, et al. Seek Conditional Class Status
CREDIT SUISSE: Court Awards $4MM+ Atty's Fees to Lead Counsel
CREDIT SUISSE: Lead Counsel in Birmingham Suit Given $4MM in Fees
DARKTRACE INC: Der-Hacopian Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
DEFYNE HOLDINGS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

DEUTSCHE BANK: 2nd Circuit Has Yet to Rule on Class Action
DISH DBS: Trial in Retirement Trust Suit to Begin Sept. 7
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Federal Law Claims in Matthews Suit Tossed
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in Sutton Suit
DURACELL US: Optimum Batteries' Label "Deceptive," Ferguson Alleges

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Crivellone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
EL GROUP LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Quezada Claims
ELECTROCORE INC: Bid to Nix Turnofsky Putative Class Suit Pending
ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Class Suit Under Appeal
ELITE REMODELING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Messages

EPPING GARDENS: Carbone Lawyers Lead Quarantine Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Affilious Alleges Social Advertising Market Monopoly
FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Networking Market, Steinberg Says
FACEBOOK INC: Parties Agree to Filing of Olin's 3rd Amended Suit
FAITH IN FLORIDA: Madera Bid to Certify Defendant Class Junked

FAT BRANDS: Class Certification Bid in Rojany Suit Junked
FAT BRANDS: Vignola Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
FCA US: Mich. Court Tosses Injunctive Relief Claim in Grundy Suit
FEDERAL SAVINGS: McDermott Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Toche Files Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

FITNESS GIANT: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FLAGSHIP FACILITY: Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
FLAGSHIP SECURITY: Gibbs Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime
FLEX LTD: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Shareholder Securities Class Action

FULTON COUNTY, GA: Dismissal of Amended Rice Class Suit Reversed
GAP INC: Kim Files Suit in C.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Piston Rings
GENERAL MOTORS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Granted
GENERAL MOTORS: Goodwin Procter Objects to Settlement Approval

GENERALI US BRANCH: Flanigan Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GENERALI US BRANCH: Keith Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GENERALI US BRANCH: Nixon Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moore Sues Over Mislabeled Lip Care Products
GLENCORE: Averts Aluminum Buyers' Appeal Request for Class Action

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of February 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 16 Deadline
GOOGLE INC: Genius Media, Nation File Advertising Antitrust Suit

GOOGLE LLC: Sweepstakes Today Sues Over Digital Ad Market Monopoly
GOURMETGIFTBASKETS.COM: Sanchez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
GREENWICH LOGISTICS: Romero Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
GRIZZLY GRIPTAPE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAMZEH ALASFAR: Anderson et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

HANDS OF MERCY: Lindsey Seeks to Certify Health Aide Workers Class
HAWAII COFFEE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HCA VIRGINIA: Fleece Amended Class Complaint Nixed with Prejudice
HELIX TCS: Kenney Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
HILLTOP SECURITIES: Faces Fistanic Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages

HITACHI MAXELL: Indirect Purchasers' Settlements Wins Final OK
HOMEAWAY INC: Home Owners Agree to End Suit Over "Travelers Fees"
HOTELS.COM: Schaubach Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Data
HP INC: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Firmware Updates on Printers
HP INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Fraud Claims

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Kona EV Owners to File 2nd Class Action Over Fires
I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL: Rainge Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
IBA BUSINESS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
IICOMBINED USA: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INDUSCO INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INSU ACQUISITION: Li Sues Over Proposed Merger With MetroMile
JAKKS PACIFIC: Facing Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
JELD-WEN: Bid to Reconsider Order Unsealing Expert Reports Nixed

JENNIFER MCCOY PC: Maxwell Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
JOLO INC: Bid to Certify Class Granted in Saad FLSA Suit
JOYY INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of January 19 Deadline
JOYY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 19 Deadline
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, School District Says

KEVIN DAVIS: Plumbers & Pipefitters Seek Class Action Status
KROGER COMPANY: Asks Court to Reconsider Nov. 9 Class Cert. Order
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Capp Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 9th Cir.
LALICIOUS LLC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAND AIR EXPRESS: Chain, et al. WARN Act Class Suit Junked

LANDRY'S INC: Leger FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
LAUREATE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McDaniel Suit Alleges
LEDGER: Users Mull Class Action Over Personal Data Breach
LHC GROUP: Conditional Class Status Partly Granted in Farmer Suit
LION AIR: Class Action Lawyers Want Jayne to Stop Selling Clothes

LITIES CORP: Conditional Class Certification OK'd in Velasquez Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Inaccurate Utility Billings
LOVISA AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims
LUMOS PHARMA: Seeks Rehearing to Reconsider Opinion in Nguyen Suit
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits

MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Brownlee Files Suit in N.D. Texas
MDL 2262: $68.6-Mil. Deal in Gelboim Antitrust Suit Has Final Nod
MENARD INC: Bid to Toss Consumer-Fraud Claims Denied in Earls Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
MERIDIAN PRIME: Timberg Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Costs

MICHAEL J. ADAMS: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
MICROSOFT CORP: No Receipts Needed for Class-Action Settlements
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Hossain FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MLS PROPERTY: Bauman Suit Alleges Commission Price Conspiracy
MORGAN & MORGAN: Denial of Bid to Disqualify Affirmed in Hawthorne

MORGAN STANLEY: MS&Co. Still Defends IPERS Antitrust Class Suit
MV TRANSPORTATION: Bailey BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL CREDIT: Henson Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
NATIONAL CREDIT: Wallace Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Nieves Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

NED LAMONT: Bid to Dismiss Wilkes Amended Class Suit Partly OK'd
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Must Face Class Action Over Involuntary ER Stays
NEW JERSEY HEALTH: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Document Production in Local 3621 Suit
NEW YORK: Pinto Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Civil Rights Violation

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in New Jersey Carpenters' Suit Pending
O.J. SMITH: Certification of FLSA/NCWHA Collective, Class Sought
OJ SMITH: Court Approves Class Settlement Notice in Gonzalez Suit

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ: Class Cert. Partly OK'd in Rizza G.A. Suit
P&B INTERMODAL: Underpays Mechanics, Smith Suit Claims
P&G AUDITORS: Curry, et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Crews Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Louisiana
PATTON STATE: Class Action Seeks Release, Transfer of Patients

PEAK DESIGN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEDIATRIC HOME: Berridge Seeks Conditional Class Certification
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Taylor Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
PENUMBRA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Potential Claims
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Unlawfully Uses Yearbooks' Data, Callahan Claims

PETCO ANIMAL: Fesler Sues Over Illegal Access of Customers' Info
PINNACLE COMMUNICATIONS: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York
PLANETART LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Prcye Seeks to Certify Class Action
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Pryce's Bid to Certify Class Stricken

QUEST HEALTHCONNECT: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Helfand Appeals Collins Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
R.R. DONNELLEY: Farias BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL: Lima Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
REALPAGE INC: Kelly, et al. Bid for Class Certification Nixed

RELIANT CAPITAL: Wallace Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Judgment on Pleadings in Ford Partly Okayed
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: May Face Class Action Over Tuition Fees
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
REVOLVE GROUP: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suit Gets Initial OK

RIDESHARE RENTAL: Continues to Defend Hamlin and Koch Suits
RIDESHARE RENTAL: Rung Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
RIDESHARE RENTAL: Vanbecelaere Putative Class Suit Ongoing
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
S BRAVO SYTEMS: Faces Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court

S-L SNACKS: 9th Circuit Rules on Food-Labeling Class Action
SACRAMENTO, CA: $414K Settlement in Coburn Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval
SAINT LUKE'S: Rohan Seeks to Certify 403(b) Plan Participants Class
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Suit Seeks Claims Managed as Class Action

SAN DIEGO USD: 9th Cir. Remands JF Suit to Be Given Leave to Amend
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA: Tenants Mull Class Action Over Housing Woes
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
SANOFI SA: Faces Zantac Class Actions Over Presence of NDMA
SARISSA CAPITAL: Goldstein Files Rule 4(d)(c) Statement

SEASONS FOOD: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages and Overtime
SENSIBLE HOUSING: Kajiwara Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SENSUALLY YOURS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERVIS ONE: Richards RESPA & FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Maryland
SHAMROCK FOODS: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California

SHIFT HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burns Suit Claims
SOLARWINDS CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Potential Claims
SONA NANOTECH: Faces Alperstein Suit Over Decline in Share Price
SONA NANOTECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 16 Deadline
SONIM TECH: Settlement Reached in California IPO Suit

SOUTHWEST TRADERS: Gibson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SPARK ENERGY: Court Dismisses ICFA & Breach Claims in Burger Suit
SPECIAL TOUCH: Estep Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Shea Seeks to Certify FDCPA & FCCPA Classes
SPECIALTY INDUSTRIAL: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SPECTRUM CHARTERS: Alexander Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
SPRINGDALE HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Suit Alleges
SQUARETRADE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Shuman Class Suit
ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Jail Conditions

STABILIS SOLUTION: Barrett Class Suit vs. Subsidiary Underway
STARBUCKS CORP: George Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
STATE FARM FIRE: Fox Insurance Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
STEVEN REAMS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement on Hold
STUDENT LOAN: Threatens Consumers to Pay Debts, Shadrin Suit Says

SUNPRO SOLAR: Baker Files TCPA Suit in D. Vermont
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval
SYNCHRONY BANK: O'Neill Suit removed to D. Massachusetts
TELTECH SYSTEMS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Claims
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Bartlett Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices

TRANS UNION: High Court Agrees to Review Data Breach Class Action
TRANSTAR INDUSTRIES: Magallon Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
TRITERRAS INC: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action in New York
TRUMAN ROAD: Smith Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to Eight Circuit
TRUTHFINDER LLC: Faces Abboud Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

UNC: Agrees to Reinstate Women's Golf Team to Avert Class Action
UNITED COLLECTION: Toloraia Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Congress Plans to Restore Medicaid to Micronesians
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Pinson's Prelim Injunction Bid Granted
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Women File Class Action Against ICE

UNITED STATES: Prestige Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
USP CANAAN: Collins, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
USP CANAAN: Rodriguez, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
VALVE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in G.G.'s 1st Amended Complaint

VAXART INC: Himmelberg and Hovhannisyan Suits Consolidated
VAXART INC: Jaquith Putative Derivative and Class Action Ongoing
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suit
VERDE ENERGY: Loses Bid to Dismiss or Arbitrate Claims in Panzer
VF OUTDOOR: Court Allows Transfer of Valencia Suit to N.D. Calif.

Victoria: Families May Consider Class Action Over Hotel Quarantine
VMSB LLC: Tevez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Conroy Files Product Liability Suit in D.N.J.
WABASH COUNTY, IN: Copeland et al., Renew Bid for Class Status
WALTON COUNTY: Markulin FMLA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Florida

WALWORTH COUNTY, SD: Bid to Certify Class in Agard Suit Tossed
WEBMD LLC: Time to Reply to Narvaez Complaint Extended to Feb. 4
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Australians Sue Over Unpaid Work
WESTJET: Supreme Court Approves Class Action Over Travel Credits
WHITE STALLION: Roberson Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff

WILLIAM MCFARLAND: Class Certification Nixed in Fyre Festival Suit
WINS FINANCE: Continues to Defend Kamau Shareholder Class Suit
WINS FINANCE: March 22 Hearing on Desta Settlement Approval
WORLD RUGBY: Faces Suit Over Players' Concussion-Related Injuries
WRIGHTENBERRY HOSIERY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ZOOM VIDEO: Deaf Charged for Closed Captioning Service, Kane Says
ZOOM VIDEO: Kane Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
[*] AICD Calls for Substantial Securities Class Action Reform
[*] Global Legal Panel Examines Trends in US, EU Class Actions

                            *********

19TH JDC, LOUISIANA: Class Certification of Detainees Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA RYAN, BLAZE
FRANKLIN, AMISAR CYRUS NOURANI, and HERBERT SCULLY on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TARVALD ANTHONY
SMITH, BONNIE JACKSON, and RONALD JOHNSON, in their official
capacity as Judges of the 19th Judicial District Court of
Louisiana; NICOLE ROBINSON, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana;
FRANK HOWZE in his official capacity as Coordinator of the Bail
Bond Program for the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana;
SHERIFF SID J. GAUTREAUX, III, in his official capacity as Sheriff
of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; and LT. COL. DENNIS GRIMES,
in his official capacity as Warden of East Baton Rouge Parish
Prison, Case No. 3:20-cv-00843-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "all individuals who are in the custody of the East Baton
      Rouge Sheriff's office after their arrest and who have
      been or will be subjected to the bail practices of the
      Judges and Commissioners of the 19th Judicial District
      Court;"

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their attorneys as class counsel pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

nJDC19 is located at 300 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2WvUuJn at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          Hannah Lommers-Johnson, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                  hannah.lommersjohnson@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Tiffany Yang, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          Tiffany Yang, Esq.
          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
          1220 L Street NW No. 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 728-9557
          Facsimile: (202) 728-9558
          E-mail: mnemeth@advancementproject.org
                  tyang@advancementproject.org
                  tharvey@advancementproject.org

               - and -

          David J. Utter, Esq.
          William R. Claiborne, Esq.
          Scott Robichaux, Esq.
          Jacob Longman, Esq.
          FAIR FIGHT INITIATIVE
          410 East Bay Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 236-9559
          Facsimile: (912) 236-1884
          E-mail: david@fairfightinitiative.org
                  will@fairfightinitiative.org
                  scott@claibornefirm.com
                  jlongman@ljlaw.org

3M COMPANY: Bachmann Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BACHMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04359-RMG
(D.S.C., December 16, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty chemicals
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Mississippi Sues Over AFFF Products' Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ex rel. Lynn Fitch, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of Mississippi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP (successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company); CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION (f/k/a United Technologies Corporation); CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; CLARIANT CORPORATION;
CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; AGC, INC.
(f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC.; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-04370-RMG (D.S.C., December 17, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for products liability, trespass,
negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance, fraudulent transfer,
and punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendants' role in the contamination of
the natural resources of the state, including lands, waters, biota,
and wildlife, as a result of the release of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into the environment through the
handling, use, disposal, and storage of the Defendants' products
containing PFAS. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed,
and/or sold perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), and/or products containing PFOS or PFOA, including but
not limited to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which are toxic at
extremely low levels. Additionally, the Defendants failed to
provide adequate warnings or instructions with their products, both
before and after selling such products. The Defendants failed to
adequately advise their customers, the public, or the state about
the threats PFOS or PFOA pose to natural resources and human health
if released into the environment. The Defendants, by their actions
and/or inactions, bear ultimate responsibility for the release of
vast amounts of PFOS and PFOA into Mississippi's environment,
contaminating the state's water resources, soils, sediments, biota,
and wildlife, and threatening the health, safety, and well-being of
the state's residents.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation, f/k/a United Technologies
Corporation, is an aircraft manufacturing company based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

BASF Corporation is a chemical company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Chemicals, Incorporated is a chemical manufacturing company based
in Baytown, Texas.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

AGC, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Archroma Management, LLC is a global colour and specialty chemicals
company headquartered near Basel, Switzerland.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty chemicals
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Scott Summy, Esq.
         Cary McDougal, Esq.
         Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq.
         Cristina Sanchez, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
         Dallas, TX 75219-4281
         Telephone: (214) 521-3605
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181

                 - and –

         Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
         Darren Sumich, Esq.
         David A. Parsiola, Esq.
         Brandon J. Taylor, Esq.
         Christina M. Cossich, Esq.
         Andrew J. Cvitanovic, Esq.
         Luana N. Smith, Esq.
         COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, LLC
         8397 Highway 23, Suite 100
         Belle Chasse, LA 70037
         Telephone: (504) 394-9000
         Facsimile: (504) 394-9110

                 - and –

         James H. Herring, Esq.
         HERRING, LONG & CREWS
         129 E. Pace Street
         Canton, MS 39046
         Telephone: (601) 859-2573
         Facsimile: (601) 859-3955

                 - and –

         Tricia L. Beale, Esq.
         MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
         1141 Bayview Ave, Suite 402
         Biloxi, MS 39530
         Telephone: (228) 386-4404
         Facsimile: (228) 386-4407
         E-mail: tricia.beale@ago.ms.gov

A&R WHOLESALE: Euseda et al. Seek Unpaid OT, Spread of Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SANTOS EUSEDA and RENE GONZALES, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&R WHOLESALE
BAGELS INC. d/b/a EAST NORTHPORT BAGEL CAFÉ, MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY,
MUJAHID CHAUDHRY, and SHAKEEL CHAUDHRY, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-06041 (E.D.N.Y., December 11, 2020) challenges the
Defendants' alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen workers.
Plaintiff Euseda began working for the Defendant from on or about
June 2019 through on or about July 2020, while Plaintiff Gonzales
was from on or about October 2019 through on or about November 1,
2020 and also worked as a cashier.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week, but they were only paid a flat hourly wage
regardless of the number of hours they worked per week. The
Defendants allegedly operated under a policy of willfully failing
and refusing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees overtime compensation at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40. In
addition, the Defendants willfully failed to compensate them spread
of hours at the basic New York minimum hourly wage rate on days in
which the length of their work day was more than 10 hours.

Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide annual wage notices and
wage statements.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and
former non-exempt workers to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and spread of hours pay pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.

The Corporate Defendant operates a cafe that sells bagels. The
Individual Defendants maintain control, oversight and direction
over the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


ACM RESEARCH: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges ACM Research, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACMR) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities
fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have
valuable claims.

Class Period: March 6, 2019 - October 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Feb. 19, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ACMR
Contact An Attorney Now: ACMR@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895

ACM Research Inc. (ACMR) Securities Class Action:

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that (1) ACM Research's revenues and
profits were diverted to undisclosed related parties, and (2)
consequently, the company materially overstated its revenues and
profits.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Oct. 8, 2020, when
J Capital Research published a report entitled "Dirty business,"
bringing ACM Research's reported financials into serious question.

More specifically, J Capital concludes ACM Research is a fraud,
over-reporting both revenue and profit. According to the report,
"ACMR reports industry-beating gross margins of 47%" but "[w]e
believe the real gross margins are half at the best." J Capital
also concludes revenues are overstated by 15-20%, undisclosed
related parties are diverting revenue and profit from the company,
the key means by which ACMR tunnels over-reported profit out of the
company may be through about $20 million in overstated inventory
and through cash that is inflated or compromised, and warranty and
service costs are understated by at least $11 million.

This news sent the price of ACM Research shares sharply lower
during trading on Oct. 8, 2020.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving ACMR cooked its
books, thereby misleading its investors," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are an ACMR investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding ACMR
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email ACMR@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

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


ACORN OUTDOOR: Underpays Forestry Workers, Morton Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DUSTY MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACORN OUTDOOR SERVICES, INC., and
JUSTIN PENICK, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-00245 (E.D. Tex.,
December 14, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective
action against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay
practices in violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a heavy mechanical
operator from June 2020 until November 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other Forestry Workers as hourly employees, non-exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. Although they regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the
Defendants, they were not paid exact overtime compensation at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay.

Moreover, the Defendant unlawfully deducted their Forestry Workers'
paycheck for their tardiness, absences, and for failure to properly
record information in the time-keeping app which resulted in
additional violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

Acorn Outdoor Services, Inc. provides forestry services on a
contract or fee basis. Justin Penick is a principal, director,
officer, and/or owner of Acorn. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Moore Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DREW MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY & COSMETIC LASER CARE,
A MEDICAL CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11587 (C.D. Cal., December 23, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's transmission of unsolicited
text messages concerning cosmetic care appointments to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing
system. The Plaintiff did not give the Defendant his consent to
receive any text message solicitations to schedule cosmetic care
appointments.

The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by the acts of
Defendant by causing them to incur certain cellular telephone
charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which they previously
paid, and invading their privacy.

Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Laser Care, A Medical Corporation,
is a skin care clinic in Santa Clarita, California. [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

AETNA LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Cancer Treatment Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative class
action lawsuit that alleges a major insurance carrier has
systematically declined to cover a necessary cancer treatment
purely because of its cost has jumped to federal court in the
Middle District of Florida.

The putative class action lawsuit alleges a major insurance carrier
has systematically declined to cover a necessary cancer treatment
purely because of its cost. [GN]


AIR METHODS: Loses Bid to Change Venue, Stay or Dismiss Dyer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denies
the Defendants' motion to change venue, stay, or dismiss the
lawsuit titled VAUGHN DYER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-2309-DCN (D. S.C.).

Air Methods provides emergent air ambulance services to patients
across the United States. Rocky Mountain Holdings is a limited
liability company that, according to the complaint, owns and
operates Air Methods. On Nov. 17, 2018, Plaintiff Dyer's wife and
minor child were involved in an accident with an EMS vehicle in
Beaufort County, South Carolina. An Air Methods helicopter
airlifted Dyer's wife and child from the scene of the accident to a
hospital in Savannah, Georgia. For the 40-mile transport, Air
Methods billed Dyer $53,224.96.

Mr. Dyer alleges that to collect its fee, Air Methods engages in a
practice called "balance billing," under which it collects a
portion of the charged fee from patients' insurance companies and
seeks payment of the outstanding balances by hiring or threatening
to hire debt collectors and filing breach-of-contract lawsuits
against delinquent patients in state courts. It is unclear whether
Air Methods has sought payment from Dyer through such means.
According to Dyer, Air Methods charges patients, on average, around
four times the fair market value of its services.

On June 18, 2020, Dyer filed the declaratory judgment action on
behalf of himself and others, who have similarly been billed for
Air Methods' emergent services in South Carolina. He seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and specifically requests that
the Court make certain declarations, including that the Defendants
and the Plaintiff, and the Class did not enter into any contract,
either express or implied-in-fact, for the Plaintiff and the Class
to pay the amounts charged by the Defendants for the transportation
services it provided, and that the Defendants have engaged in
collection efforts against the Plaintiff and the Class for amounts
that the Plaintiff and the Class did not contractually agree to
pay.

As further relief, the complaint seeks a prospective order from the
Court requiring the Defendants to: (1) cease all balance billing
and collection efforts with respect to outstanding bills for air
medical transportation service until this Court makes a
determination of the methodology for determining their reasonable
value; and (2) account for all sums collected for air medical
transportation services provided to the Plaintiff.

In their instant Motion, the Defendants make four alternative
requests. The Defendants ask the Court to transfer the action to
the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
Alternatively, they ask the Court to transfer, dismiss, or stay the
action pursuant to the first-to-file doctrine. As a third option,
the Defendants request that the Court declines asserting
jurisdiction over Dyer's claim under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. They also ask the Court to dismiss Dyer's
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The Defendants first request that the Court transfers the action to
the District of Colorado arguing that the relevant factors weigh in
favor of transfer because the action is duplicative of a
consolidated class action already pending in the District of
Colorado and because Dyer is forum shopping. They specifically
point to Scarlett v. Air Methods Corp., No. 1:16-cv-02723 (D. Colo.
2016), which is a consolidation of several individually filed class
actions against Air Methods. The Defendants point out that the
instant class action is the 12th that Dyer's counsel has filed
against Air Methods.

The Court says that it fails to see, however, how the instant
action is duplicative of any other now pending, given that the
action (1) is brought by a unique plaintiff, (2) on behalf of a
unique class, (3) based on a factually unique injury, and (4)
invokes South Carolina state law.

District Judge David C. Norton opines that the action is not
duplicative of any of the actions consolidated in Scarlett for
several reasons. Most glaringly, the actions are brought by
discrete plaintiffs and on behalf of discrete classes. Dyer brings
the instant class action on behalf of all persons billed by the
Defendants "for air medical transport that [d]efendants carried out
from a location in South Carolina." The class actions in Scarlett,
on the other hand, have been brought on behalf of Air Methods'
patients, who were billed in other states.

Some overlap in the proceeding categories do not duplicative
actions make; the law requires "substantial similarity," which does
not exist here, Judge Norton says. Because the Court already
determined that the action is not duplicative of Scarlett or any
other case to which the Defendants cite, the first-to-file doctrine
is inapplicable, Judge Norton holds. As such, he rejects the
Defendants' first-to-file argument.

The Defendants also ask that the Court "declines to exercise
jurisdiction" over the action pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment
Act and "dismiss the complaint." The Court rejects the Defendants'
argument and resolves to exercise jurisdiction over the action.

Moreover, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
asserts various theories for the dismissal of Dyer's declaratory
judgment claim, which seeks several declarations from the Court.
The Court groups Dyer's proposed declarations into two categories:
(1) declarations that Air Methods and plaintiffs did not enter into
express or implied-in-fact contracts for air ambulance services,
and (2) declarations that the Americans with Disabilities Act would
preempt a court from imposing implied-in-law contracts or other
similar quasi-contractual obligations onto the plaintiffs and the
defendants.

Like the Tenth Circuit, the Court finds that the ADA does not
preempt Dyer's proposed declaration that Air Methods and its
patients did not enter into enforceable contracts. It finds that
both categories of Dyer's proposed declarations state valid grounds
for relief.

In sum, the Court rejects the Defendants' requests to stay,
transfer, or dismiss the action pursuant to Section 1404(a) and the
first-to-file doctrine, and resolves to exercise jurisdiction over
the action. With respect to the Defendants' substantive arguments
for dismissal, the Court finds that Dyer has stated a cognizable
claim by requesting declarations that are not preempted by the ADA
and do not fail as a matter of law. As such, it denies the
Defendants' Motion in full.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 17, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9yu5ujq from Leagle.com.


ALLE PROCESSING: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Naiman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Sidney Naiman, v. Alle
Processing Corporation, a New York corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00963-DGC (D.Ariz), the Hon. Judge David G. Campbell
entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to
      the Plaintiff's claims for breach of express warranty,
      unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief, and denying with
      respect to the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA) claim.

   2. striking class allegations of the amended complaint for
      the ACFA claim; and

   3. setting a case management conference by separate order.

The Court said, "Because individual issues would overwhelm any
attempt to try the ACFA claim on a class-wide basis, the class
cannot satisfy [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(b)(3). The Court will grant the
motion to strike the class allegations."

The Plaintiff alleges that he "fell victim" to the Defendant's
"deceptive conduct" when he purchased its Beef Stuffed Cabbage Mon
Cuisine meal on April 14, 2020. Directly below the photograph on
the front of the package was the bolded statement: "NET WT 40oz 16
(2.5LB). The Plaintiff alleges, nonetheless, that the Defendant
"deceived" him and caused him to buy the product "in part" by
stating, in non-bold print on the back of the package, that it
contained one 10-ounce serving. He claims he would not have
purchased the meal had he known he was getting four times as much
food as he thought he was buying.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Zq2gB at no extra charge.[CC]

ALLEGIS GLOBAL: Duran Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELA DURAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. ALLEGIS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; ALLEGIS GROUP
HOLDINGS, INC.; ADECCO USA, INC.; BEST BUY WAREHOUSING LOGISTICS,
INC.; BEELINE.COM, INC.; ADELE ALVAREZ; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-587209, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-09025 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 overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, and
unfair competition.

Allegis Global Solutions, Inc. is a company that provides human
resource services, headquartered in Hanover, Maryland.

Allegis Group Holdings, Inc. is a provider of recruitment,
background screening, training, performance monitoring, and
workforce management solutions based in Hanover, Maryland.

Adecco USA, Inc. is a company that provides recruiting and
workforce solutions based in Melville, New York.

Best Buy Warehousing Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Beeline.com, Inc. is a software-as-a-service company dealing with
solutions for sourcing and managing the extended workforce based in
Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Mia Farber, Esq.
         Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
         Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
         Telephone: (213) 689-0404
         Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
         E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
                 Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
                 Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.Com, Inc. The
case is styled as Rochelle Miller, On Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Including but Not to, Luigi
Spiridigiliozzi v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Case No. 614797/2020 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Dec. 21, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract".

Amazon.com, Inc., -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington,
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Panzavecchia
          PANZAVECCHIA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1000 Franklin Avenue, Suite 204
          Garden City, New York 11530
          Fax: (516) 776-9406
          Phone: (516) 776-9494


AMAZON.COM: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Carnette, writing for Fool.com, reports that what a wild ride
it's been for Big Tech. After decades of Washington applying a
relatively soft-touch regulatory approach to the sector's leaders,
there's been a sharp turn toward much fiercer rhetoric over the
last two years. The sentiment that it's time to rein in those
companies is widespread. Big Tech has drawn the ire of
congresspeople on both sides of the aisle, and it is increasingly
taking heat from officials at the state level as well.

Amazon is facing a marketplace-related class-action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs allege it uses its monopoly power to essentially dictate
prices on third-party products. [GN]


AMCI ACQUISITION: Frey Challenges Proposed Merger With Advent
-------------------------------------------------------------
DILLON FREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMCI ACQUISITION CORP.; HANS MENDE; WILLIAM
HUNTER; GARY UREN; LARRY CLARK; and JASON GRANT, Defendants, Case
No. 657105/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Dec. 17, 2020) brings
this stockholder class action on behalf of himself and all other
public stockholders of AMCI Acquisition Corp. against AMCI and
AMCI' s Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty as a
result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company, through various
merger vehicles, to Advent Technologies, Inc.

According to the complaint, on November 24, 2020, the Defendants
caused to be filed with the SEC the materially deficient
Registration Statement in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote
their AMCI shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The
Registration Statement is materially deficient and deprives AMCI
stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent,
informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits
and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (a) the sales process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction; (b) the financial projections for Advent, provided by
Advent to the AMCI and the Company's financial advisor Jefferies,
LLC. for use in its respective financial valuations; and (c)
financial valuation analyses, if any, that were provided by the
Company's Board, and/or Jefferies.

AMCI Acquisition Corp. operates as a blank check company. The
Company focuses on acquiring one and more businesses and assets,
via a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock
purchase, and reorganization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626


AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty's Bid for Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, as
Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of
the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, v.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.s, Case No.
3:17-cv-01709-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ted
Moskowitz entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification of:

      "all owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured,
      of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies that
      were renewed, issued, or delivered by Defendant in
      California, and in force on January 1, 2013, and which
      underwent or will undergo lapse or termination for the
      non-payment of premium without Defendant first providing
      all of the notices, grace periods, and offers of
      designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71
      and 10113.72;" and

   2. denying without prejudice American General's Motion to
      Exclude McNeil Class Members; and

The Court said, "The multiple factual issues that may need to be
tried for each of the more than 57,000 class members may affect
whether the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) and
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) can be
met. In light of this concern, the Court notes that issuing
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) may be more
appropriate than certifying a class. The California Supreme Court's
forthcoming decision in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. will clarify
what issues might be certified under Rule 23(c)(4)."

The parties may renew these motions after the California Supreme
Court renders an opinion in McHugh or after the McNeil court
renders a decision.

American General moves to exclude from the purported class any
individuals "who were class members in the nationwide class action
settlement in McNeil v. American General, et al., Case No.
3-99-1157 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 8, 2000). American General asserts that
the McNeil settlement's class members, which includes individuals
who owned American General's predecessor's industrial life
insurance policies during the time period from January 1, 1982
through September 30, 1999.

According to Judge Moskowitz, the Court must defer to the
California Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in McHugh. Given
the central importance of this question, and its potential effect
on the existence of any common questions, the Court finds that it
is in the interest of judicial economy to deny without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for class certification without ruling on its
merits.

This case centers on whether three California Insurance Code
provisions apply to life insurance policies issued prior to the
provisions' enactment. They guarantee a 60-day grace period after
nonpayment of a premium, Cal. Ins. Code sections 10113.71(a), the
right to designate someone to receive notices of lapsed payments,
section 10113.72(a)-(b), and a 30-day notice of a lapsed payment to
both the policy owner and aforementioned designee before the policy
may be terminated for nonpayment, id. sections 10113.71(b),
10113.72(c). These code sections went into effect on January 1,
2013.

A copy of the Court's order denying the plaintiff's motion for
class certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lQH057 at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Yearby Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American National
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Joe S. Yearby, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. American National
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-09222 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 18,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.

American National -- https://www.americannational.com/ -- offers
personalized insurance coverage for life, home, business, auto and
much more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 789-3100
          Fax: (310) 789-3150
          Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com


AMERICAN SENIOR: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Senior Benefits, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-02423-DWL (D. Ariz., Dec. 16, 2020) seeks to recover
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant contacted Mr. Winters on
his cellular telephone number ending in -6678 using an automatic
telephone dialing system, in an attempt to solicit him to purchase
the services offered by the Defendant.

American Senior Benefits, LLC markets specialty health insurance
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: david@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

ARBICORP: Faces Class Action Over Arbistar Digital Currency Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Drake, writing for CoinGeek, reports that a lawyer representing
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against an alleged
billion-dollar digital currency scam is calling for forceful action
against the perpetrators. The lawyer described Arbistar as the
largest computer scam in Spain's history.

As CoinGeek reported, Arbicorp, the parent company which developed
the digital currency trading bot Arbistar, has been accused of
defrauding over $1 billion from investors. The firm froze user
funds in September, blaming a glitch in the system that led it to
overpay its clients. Spanish police arrested the founder Santiago
Fuentes but later released him.

Now, a lawyer leading the charge for justice against the firm is
urging authorities to do more for the victims. In an interview with
Spanish outlet elDiario, Carlo Aranguez criticized the pace of the
judicial process against Arbicorp.

"It's not acceptable that in the face of the largest computer scam
in our country, justice is not forceful."

The class-action lawsuit, which Aranguez is leading, is one of four
against Arbicorp. The alleged Ponzi scheme defrauded over 32,000
investors, Aranguez told the outlet. The founder, Fuentes, has
repeatedly denied that he scammed his investors. He claims that a
glitch led the firm to overpay profits to investors, ultimately
necessitating the freezing of funds. In a video three months ago,
he claimed that he would refund all his investors.

However, according to Aranguez, Arbicorp was nothing but a scam
that used late stage investors' funds to pay earlier investors. The
lawyer represents a group of 130 people who collectively lost €4
million.

"If 130 have lost four million euros, the overall volume is
impressive. We are facing the largest computer scam in our country.
None had reached this volume."

While he appreciates that the peculiar nature of the class-action
lawsuit requires specialized legal focus, he called on Spanish
authorities to move faster.

The lawyer noted that scams like Abicorp are gaining popularity
across Spain. He attributed this to the failure of traditional
financial and investment systems which have disadvantaged smaller
investors. They, in turn, explore riskier options which in some
cases like Abicorp, end up being scams.

Follow CoinGeek's Crypto Crime Cartel series, which delves into the
stream of groups -- from BitMEX to Binance, Bitcoin.com,
Blockstream, ShapeShift and Ethereum—who have co -- opted the
digital asset revolution and turned the industry into a minefield
for naïve (and even experienced) players in the market. [GN]


ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion seeking
to dismiss the consolidated purported class action suit entitled,
Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., is still pending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim.

On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety without prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended
complaint alleges generally the same claims as the consolidated
amended complaint with certain additional allegations, as well as
claims that the risk factors set forth in the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering were inadequate and that
certain additional statements in the sources identified above were
misleading.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses. On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion
was filed on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply
brief on November 26, 2019.

On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic and the individual defendants
filed a letter apprising the Court of a recent decision by the
Third Circuit and discussing its relevance to the pending motion to
dismiss.

Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to
respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on
July 9, 2020. The motion to dismiss remains pending.

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

Arconic Corporation manufactures engineered products and forgings.
The Company offers aluminum sheets, plates, and other extruded
products for the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
brazing, and industrial markets. Arconic serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

ARIES CAPITAL: Ciesniewski Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James A. Ciesniewski filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled James Ciesniewski v. Aries Capital
Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00817-JPH-TAB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

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

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated Dec. 11, 2020, denying Mr. Ciesniewski's motion for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) since he has not
demonstrated any manifest error of law or fact in the summary
judgment order.

The appellate case is captioned as James Ciesniewski v. Aries
Capital Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-3451, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, December 16, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing Statement is due for Appellant James A. Ciesniewski
by December 23, 2020;

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by December 30, 2020;
and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before January 25, 2021 for
James A. Ciesniewski.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES A. CIESNIEWSKI, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200

Defendants-Appellees ARIES CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., doing business
as ARIES DATA COLLECTIONS, ASTA FUNDING, INC., PALISADES
COLLECTION, LLC, PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC, and PARKER L.
MOSS, PARKER L. MOSS, P.C. are represented by:

          Daniel L. Polsby, Esq.
          CLAUSEN MILLER
          Ten S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 606-7703

               - and -

          John P. Boyle, Esq.
          MOSS & BARNETT, PA
          150 S. Fifth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 877-5253

               - and -

          Nicholas W. Levi, Esq.
          KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP
          211 N. Pennsylvania Street
          One Indiana Square
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 638-4521  

AROVAST CORPORATION: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arovast Corporation.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Arovast Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06148
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Arovast Corporation -- https://www.cosori.com/privacy-policy -- is
an ecommerce retailer serving customers in areas such as health and
fitness devices, home improvement devices, consumer electronics,
smart household devices, outdoor recreational equipment, and beauty
electronics products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ARZZ INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARZZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a SCHUTZ; DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-01269 (E.D. Cal.,
Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://schutz-shoes.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendants' Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff.

ARZZ International, Inc. d/b/a Schutz sells and markets footwear,
apparel, equipment, and accessory products for men, women, and
children. [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


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI BROWN, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE,
LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00795-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class defined as:

      "all persons, that Canon Business Process Services sent,
      on behalf of Asset Acceptance, a SCAO Form MC52 Form
      Request and Writ for Garnishment in a glassine window
      envelope, from November 1, 2016, through February 28,
      2017, where the SCAO Form MC52 Form was folded by a
      machine, and stuffed by a machine into a glassine window
      envelope;"

   2. certifying a subclass, based on the Court's September 28,
      2020 Opinion and Order, defined as:

      "all persons, that Cannon Business Process Services sent,
      on behalf of Asset Acceptance, a SCAO MC52 Form Request
      and Writ for Garnishment in a glassine window envelope,
      where the Writ was on NCR, which excludes those letters
      issued from the 36th, 46th and 47th District Courts,
      limited to the two "drops" that includes Ms. Brown in
      November 2016 and Ms. Julie Alberts in January 2017, where
      the SCAO MC Form was folded by a machine, and stuffed by a
      machine into a glassine window envelope;"

   3. appointing herself as the class representative; and

   4. appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel.

The proposed class' claims under 15 U.S.C. section 1692f(8) arise
primarily from Asset's historically used form glassine window
envelope that displays the text "PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL" during
a defined class time period. The proposed subclass' claims under 15
U.S.C. section 1692f(8) arise from uniformity: a SCAO Form MC 52; a
pre-programed machine folding pattern; using NCR paper that was
lined up by Canon to display text to be visible on the form
envelope's glassine window; the automated machine stuffing and
sealing of that SCAO Form MC 52 in a form glassine window envelope;
and are limited to the two "drops" that included Plaintiff's and
Ms. Albert's glassine envelopes that show the phrase "judgment
debtor."

On March 11, 2015, Canon Business Process Services, Inc., and
Midland Credit Management, Inc., entered into a Management Services
Agreement, for Canon to provide services for Asset, including
sending the subject form glassine window envelope. Thereafter, but
prior to September 22, 2016, "it was brought to [Ms. Smith, Asset's
"Michigan Managing Attorney['s]",] attention by Canon that the way
the machine initially folded the [MC 52] form was folded in such a
manner that the Social Security box and garnishee was viable in the
window" and "Garnishment certainly implies collection of a debt and
we wouldn't need the language to be visible in the glassine
window."

On January 11, 2017, Ms. Julie Alberts, the plaintiff in Alberts v.
Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00467 (W.D. Mich.), was
sent the same form envelope with the same Form MC 52 inside.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/34hKFD0 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          5 E. Market St., Suite 250
          Corning, NY 14830
          Telephone: (888) 551-8685
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          318 E. Main St., Ste. L, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 49331
          Telephone: (616) 897-2900
          E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com

ASSET CAMPUS: Vo Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Apartment Lessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vivian Vo and Heaven Le,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Asset
Campus USA, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00447-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

   "all persons who 1) leased and/or guaranteed student housing
   apartments in Florida managed by Asset Campus USA, LLC and 2)
   who moved out of their apartment(s) on or after March 1, 2020
   3) before the termination of their lease."

   Specifically excluded from this class are those persons who
   didn't share their apartment with anyone else.

The Plaintiff Vivian Vo, a resident of Coral Springs, Florida, is
the mother of fellow plaintiff Heaven Le, also of Coral Springs.
Heaven Le is a student at Florida State University; in the academic
year 2019-2020 she was a freshman. On April 5, 2019, the plaintiffs
applied to lease one half of a two-bed, single room apartment at
the Southgate Campus Centre, 675 West Jefferson Street,
Tallahassee.

Asset Campus is a limited liability company with its headquarters
located in Houston, Texas. Asset Campus was hired by the Leon
County Educational Facilities Authority to manage this apartment
complex. Asset Campus manages "campus living" apartment complexes
around the country, including the following in Florida: Southgate,
Seminole Trails, Vox Tallahassee, Villa San Michele, Bradford Oaks,
and Heritage Grove, all of which serve students from Florida State
University, Tallahassee
Community College and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical
University; 4th Street Commons, which serves students from Florida
International University; and The Residences at University Village,
which serves students from Florida Gulf Coast University.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3a8r2RD at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616-8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
          THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          100 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 3112
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          George T. Levesque, Esq.
          Jason Zimmerman, Esq.
          Allison Goodson, Esq.
          GrayRobinson, P.A.
          301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          E-mail: George.levesque@gray.robinson.com
                  Jason.zimmerman@gray.robinsonson.com
                  Allison.goodson@gray.robinson.com

ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Morris Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assicurazioni
Generali Group, S.p.A., et al. The case is styled as Howard Morris,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Assicurazioni Generali Group, S.p.A., Generali U.S. Branch,
Generali Global Assistance, Inc., Case No. 1:20-md-02968-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. -- https://www.generali.com/ --
offers life and non-life insurance and reinsurance throughout the
world. The Company offers life, health, accident, automobile,
marine, aviation, transport, fire, general liability, and credit
insurance and reinsurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E Kovel, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Fax: (212) 699-1194
          Email: dkovel@kmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Christopher James Houpt, Esq.
          Ilana Cohen, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP (DC)
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 263-3328
          Fax: (202) 263-5328
          Email: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                 choupt@mayerbrown.com
                 icohen@mayerbrown.com


AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: FRS Appeals Denial of Motion to Intervene
-----------------------------------------------------------
Financial Recovery Strategies (FRS), a recognized leader in class
action settlement claims recovery, on Dec. 21 filed its notice of
appeal to the district court's 7-page November 17, 2020 order in
which the court denied, solely on timeliness grounds, FRS's motion
to intervene in the End-Payor Actions of the In re Automotive Parts
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-md-2311, pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In the End-Payor actions, the Plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that any person or entity that, in or while living or
headquartered in one of 31 eligible jurisdictions, leased or
purchased new (not for resale) a qualifying vehicle (which
generally includes substantially all four-wheeled passenger
automobiles, cars, light trucks, pickup trucks, crossovers, vans,
mini-vans and sport utility vehicles manufactured in the U.S. over
an almost 25-year period), overpaid as a result of alleged
antitrust violations concerning certain automotive parts included
in those vehicles. FRS submitted proofs of claim on behalf of
clients that had purchased or leased qualifying vehicles. FRS's
clients also include auto insurance companies that paid class
members for the full value of their qualifying vehicles at the time
they were deemed total losses, including losses that resulted from
the alleged antitrust violations. FRS's believes that, under the
longstanding and universally accepted equitable subrogation
doctrine -- which allows an insurance company to "stand in the
shoes" of its policyholder to recover from a wrongdoer the loss for
which the insurance company paid its policyholder -- auto insurance
companies must be allowed to recover from the End-Payor settlements
to the extent that their payments compensated their policyholders
for their alleged antitrust losses.

Even though some 74% of insured vehicles in the U.S. carry
collision insurance, and even though in 2016 another auto insurance
company had opted out of the first round of End-Payor settlements
to assert its own subrogation claims, none of the settlement
notices to class members mentioned the rights of subrogated auto
insurance companies. With no guidance available, FRS reached out to
class counsel. After class counsel disagreed that subrogated auto
insurance companies could recover from the End Payor settlements,
FRS, in December 2019, sought a ruling from the district court on
that issue. Among other things, FRS pointed out, as it previously
had with class counsel, that a ruling now on the subrogation issue
was a far more efficient solution than waiting to decide the issue
until after a long and burdensome claims administration process.
Nevertheless, and even though both FRS and class counsel had agreed
to have the court resolve the issue, the court took no action. With
the claims submission deadline approaching in June 2020, FRS moved
to intervene for the purpose of finally securing a ruling on the
subrogation issue raised six months earlier.

Class Counsel, although they had agreed months earlier to have the
court resolve the issue, opposed FRS's intervention. FRS responded
by again pointing out the sheer inefficiency of declining to
address subrogation now, and the delay in distribution that would
result from ignoring subrogation until the end of the claims
process. But rather than take the most efficient approach - one
that would assure a quicker distribution to claimants - the court
declined to reach the subrogation issue, concluding instead that
FRS's motion was untimely.

FRS's approach was the most efficient available. Now that the
district court has declined to address the rights of subrogated
auto insurance companies to recover from the End-Payor settlements,
the only way for FRS to assure that its auto insurance company
clients' subrogation claims are addressed is to wait until those
claims are rejected, as class counsel and the claims administrator
have consistently represented that they would be, and then, at the
end of the claims process, seek for the third time a ruling from
the district court. In addition, and to preserve and protect FRS's
auto insurance company clients' rights, FRS will appeal that
court's denial of its intervention motion.

                            About FRS

FRS is a leading class action settlement claims recovery consulting
firm. We provide best-in-class services while adhering to the
highest ethical and professional standards so that our clients are
not exposed to any financial risk or reputational harm. FRS
provides a vast array of services, including providing to our
clients effective notification of settlements in which they may be
eligible; performing research to assure that all eligible
businesses are included in the claim process; providing advice on
what, if any, documents need to be collected and assisting in that
effort; when required documents are not available or are too
burdensome to collect, developing and obtaining approval for
innovative alternatives to satisfy documentation requirements; and
preparing, assembling and submitting claims packages and managing
them throughout the administration process, including addressing
any concerns or questions raised by claims administrators, class
counsel or courts. Founded in 2008 and independently owned, FRS has
already been responsible for obtaining for its clients hundreds of
millions of dollars in class action and other settlement
recoveries. Through FRS UP, FRS MerX and FRS Telecom, FRS also
provides its clients with superior unclaimed property recovery
services, merchant cost reduction and refund services and recovery
of telecommunications overcharges, respectively. [GN]


AXAR CAPITAL: Plaintiff Verifies Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit ADAM FRIED, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDREW AXELROD,
SPENCER E. GOLDENBERG, ROBERT B. HELLMAN, JR., DAVID MILLER,
STEPHEN J. NEGROTTI, JOSEPH M. REDLING, PATRICIA WELLENBACH, and
AXAR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, and STONEMOR, INC., Case No.
2020-1065, Plaintiff Adam Fried filed with the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware a verification of this stockholder derivative
and class action complaint on December 16, 2020.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.

Axar Capital Management, LP is an investment manager focused on
value-oriented and opportunistic investing, headquartered in New
York, New York.

StoneMor, Inc. is a company that offers cemeteries and funeral
homes based in Levittown, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
         ASHBY & GEDDES
         P.O. Box 1150
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Telephone: (302) 654-1888
         E-mail: sjenkins@ashby-geddes.com

AXCESS STAFFING: Wilbourn Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA WILBOURN, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AXCESS STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, COWORX RESOURCES, LLC, COWORX
STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, COWORX PERSONNEL, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-04686-LMM-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying an "Axcess Background Check Class" defined as:

      "all employees and job applicants in the United States to
      whom Axcess provided its Fair Credit Reporting Act
      Disclosure but whose consumer report was procured by
      CoWorx in the two years preceding the filing of this
      action through the date of final judgment;" and

   2. certifying a "CoWorx No Disclosure/No Authorization Class"
      defined as:

      "all employees and job applicants in the United States
      subject of a consumer report procured by CoWorx for
      employment purposes but to whom CoWorx did not first
      provide a written disclosure or from whom did not first
      obtain written authorization in the two years preceding
      the filing of this action through the date of final
      judgment."

The Plaintiff alleges Axcess failed to notify her a third party,
CoWorx (not Axcess), was procuring her consumer report. The
Plaintiff alleges the third party, CoWorx, obtained her consumer
report without first notifying her or obtaining her consent.

Axcess and CoWorx are nationwide staffing companies providing labor
solutions in multiple states. Axcess and CoWorx procure
employment-purposed consumer reports for use in their hiring
process.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3a5UI1I at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces Fiduciary Breach Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ("BNY Corp.") and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
("BNY Mellon"), committed, or aided and abetted, multiple breaches
of fiduciary duties and client agreements by directing millions of
dollars of their wealth management clients' funds into conflicted,
underperforming investment vehicles, prioritizing their own
financial interests over those of these clients, according to a
class action lawsuit filed on Dec. 21 in Pennsylvania federal
court. The lawsuit, filed by law firm DiCello Levitt Gutzler, seeks
to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in advisory and
investment management fees that the plaintiffs and other class
members paid to BNY Mellon while it acted as an unfaithful
fiduciary, as well as all other damages authorized by law.

The complaint alleges that clients of BNY Mellon's wealth
management division collectively deposited millions of dollars in
their respective accounts and vested BNY Mellon with full
investment authority over those funds. BNY Mellon and BNY Corp.
promised that BNY Mellon would act as a fiduciary for its wealth
management clients and represented that "[u]nder the fiduciary
standard, financial advisors have a legal obligation to put the
best interests of the client ahead of their own when making
investment recommendations. . . [This] means choosing the
investments that best align with the client's objectives. . .
Advisors under the fiduciary standard do not profit based on the
investments that are recommended for a client's portfolio."

In truth, however, BNY Mellon allegedly used client assets to
purchase investment vehicles in which BNY Mellon and BNY Corp. had
financial interests, preferring those self-dealing investments even
when unaffiliated, better funds were available, and, together with
BNY Corp., received unauthorized and undisclosed commissions, fees,
or other improper compensation.

DiCello Levitt partner, Bruce Bernstein, plaintiffs' co-lead
counsel in the case, stated that: "[w]e believe that BNY Mellon
cost its wealth management division clients hundreds of millions of
dollars by breaching its fiduciary duties, breaching the terms of
its client agreements, and engaging in deceptive trade practices to
line its own pockets and enrich its affiliates at its clients'
expense." He expanded on that by stating: "while the complaint
alleges that there were lower fees, better-performing investment
options available in all investment categories, BNY Mellon instead
chose its own interests over those of its supposedly highly-valued
clients. Such behavior cannot be permitted to stand, and we will
use every legal remedy available to hold it responsible and, on
behalf of plaintiffs and other class members, recover all available
damages under the law."

The grant of full discretionary authority to investment advisors is
common practice—safeguarded by fiduciary standards and contract
clauses that prohibit the advisors from engaging in undisclosed,
conflicting transactions, such as purchasing investments that are
either affiliated with the advisors or in which they hold a
financial interest.

"By granting BNY Mellon full discretionary authority, our clients
placed a significant amount of trust in the bank and its investment
professionals," added Josh Gunnemann, a partner at Councill &
Gunnemann LLC and plaintiffs' co-lead counsel. "Unfortunately, BNY
Mellon broke that trust and breached its fiduciary duties through
self-dealing."

In addition to Bernstein and Gunnemann, Plaintiffs are represented
by Adam Levitt and Robert F. DiCello of DiCello Levitt Gutzler, and
by Stephen Councill of Councill & Gunnemann.

The case is Walden v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and
BNY Mellon, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

                   About DiCello Levitt Gutzler

DiCello Levitt combines excellence in commercial litigation, class
action litigation, mass tort litigation, catastrophic injury
litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and civil rights
litigation. Practicing nationwide -- and internationally -- from
offices in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, St. Louis, and Washington,
DC, we are an aggressive, attentive, and creative complex
litigation firm whose work speaks for itself -- billions of dollars
in recoveries in some of the highest -- profile matters in U.S.
history. Revered by clients and respected by defense counsel, our
team gets results.

                   About Councill & Gunnemann

Founded in 2020 by two experienced trial lawyers, Councill &
Gunnemann represents individuals and businesses in complex
litigation and regulatory matters across the country. With over
twenty-five years of securities litigation, trial, and regulatory
experience, Councill & Gunnemann represents clients in complex
litigation, FINRA arbitrations, SEC administrative proceedings, and
jury trials in federal and state court. [GN]


BAYOU TECHE: Verdict Dismissing Maturin's Class Cert. Bid Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOY MATURIN AND NORRIS MATURIN v. BAYOU TECHE WATER
WORKS, INC., ET AL, Case No. 20-257 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal
of Louisiana for the Third Circuit reversed the trial court's order
granting the directed verdict dismissing the motion for class
certification.

The Maturins have lived along Bayou Teche in the rural area near
St. Martinville, Louisiana, for the last 32 years.  Bayou Teche
Water Works ("BTWW") has supplied water to the Maturins and
approximately 9,000 other residents in their service area from St.
Martinville to New Iberia, Louisiana, for nearly all of that time.
It is the sole provider of water for approximately 3,100 businesses
and residences in the service area. Each customer of BTWW is a
member of the cooperative, non-profit corporation, and each member
enjoys the right to vote to select its board members and to attend
board meetings.

The Maturins allege they and all other customers of BTWW have
experienced water problems with the water supplied by BTWW for many
years including, brown, smelly, discolored water, "corrosive and
repulsive" water containing sediment and unidentifiable particulate
matter some of which are allegedly cancer-causing agents.  They
allege the water supplied by BTWW has continually and consistently
had excessive amounts of chlorination disinfection byproducts well
in excess of the statutory Maximum Containment Levels ("MCLs") and
that these violations pose serious health risks.

The Maturins also allege that the water supplied by BTWW has fouled
household filtration systems and machines that use the water, to
the extent that they have to be replaced in minimal periods of
time, well short of their normal useful life.  Additionally, the
Maturins allege the water is not fit for use in cooking or for
drinking and that they and the other customers of BTWW have for
years had to purchase bottled water and ice.  They further allege
that the long-term use of the water supplied by BTWW has exposed
its customers to the fear of personal injuries and/or serious
illness.

Norris has for many years worked for a neighboring water company,
Louisiana Water Company ("LAWCO"), and is professionally
knowledgeable about water quality. After enduring years of poor
water quality, incurring monthly expenses for clean water to use
for drinking and cooking, the Maturins confronted BTWW about the
water problems.  Being knowledgeable on how to enlist the State's
assistance with the problem, Norris and Joy formally requested help
from the Public Service Commission. The matter was transferred to
the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals ("DHH") for
investigation.

DHH's investigation found that the water being supplied by BTWW was
not in compliance with state health standards.  The deficiencies
included unacceptable levels of disinfectant by-products in the
water and BTWW was cited for 13 violations which the state health
officer determined made the system incapable of attaining
compliance with 40 CFR 141 and 40 CFR 142.16(b).  DHH ordered BTWW
to bring its water quality into compliance with Louisiana's state
health standards by taking 30 outlined remedial actions within a
prescribed time frame.

On April 13, 2016, the present suit was filed by Joy and Norris
Maturin "individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated" against BTWW for damages resulting from years of poor
water quality.  On Oct. 23, 2017, DHH issued its determination that
BTWW had complied with the required remedial actions ordered by the
state.

The Maturins filed a Motion to Certify as a Class Action and to
appoint Joy and Norris as the representatives of the Class.  At the
close of the Plaintiffs' presentation, BTWW moved for a directed
verdict dismissing the Motion for Class Certification.  Despite
finding the Plaintiffs proved to the trial court's satisfaction
that the matter would best be addressed as a class action the trial
judge concluded that Joy and Norris had a conflict of interest
adverse to the potential class members and could, therefore, not be
certified as class representatives.  Based upon that conclusion the
trial court granted the directed verdict dismissing the motion for
class action.

The Maturins appeal the trial court ruling alleging three
assignments of error: the trial court erred in (i) its application
of LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(A)(4) to the record evidence in the case sub
judice, leading to the erroneous legal conclusion that Joy & Norris
Maturin do not adequately represent the interests of similarly
situated putative class members; (ii) concluding that its findings
merit complete denial of class certification, where besides the
adequacy concerns raised, all other criteria for class
certification were met; and (iii) in admitting irrelevant &
prejudicial evidence related to Norris Maturin's employment with
LAWCO; and further in precluding rebuttal evidence to that
irrelevant LAWCO evidence.

The Appellate Court is called upon to determine the correctness of
the trial court's granting a directed verdict.  It finds that the
directed verdict was improvidently granted and reversed that
ruling.  It holds that Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article
1810 expressly provides that a party moving for a directed verdict
at the close of a plaintiff's case may offer evidence in the event
that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right
so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been
made.

According to the Opinion, the motion for directed verdict was made
at the close of the Plaintiffs' case before the Defendants put
forth any evidence, thus, the Appellate Court does not have a
complete record upon which it could exercise its full authority to
render a decision on the merits of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  For these reasons, it must remand the case for
further proceedings.  All costs of this appeal are assessed against
BTWW.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/34zMhrO from Leagle.com.

Jacques Soileau, P.O. Box 344, in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, COUNSEL
FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: Joy Maturin and Norris Maturin.

Gordon J. Schoeffler, P.O. Box 4829, in Lafayette, Louisiana,
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: Joy Maturin and Norris Maturin.

Joseph R. Roy, III, P.O. Box 4929, in Lafayette, Louisiana, COUNSEL
FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: Joy Maturin and Norris Maturin.

Wayne R. Maldonado, John C. Henry, at 3850 North Causeway Blvd., in
Metairie, Louisiana, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Bayou Teche
Water Works, Inc. and American Alternative Insurance Company.


BERKELEY UNIFIED: Students Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STUDENT A, by and through
PARENT A, her guardian; STUDENT B, by and through PARENT B, his
guardian; STUDENT C, by and through PARENT C, his guardian; and
STUDENT D, by and through PARENT D, her guardian, each one
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
children, v. THE BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (BUSD) and THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case
No. 4:17-cv-02510-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on January 20, 2021, to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of their proposed class-wide
      settlement agreement;

   2. provisionally certifying the proposed settlement class;

      "all current and future BUSD students who have, may have
      or are suspected of having a reading disability, such as
      dyslexia, within the meaning of Individuals with
      Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504, the
      Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or Section
      56000;"

   3. appointing their attorneys as Class Counsel, pending final
      approval;

   4. approving the Parties' proposed form of notice and
      directing notice to the Settlement Class; and

   5. setting deadlines for notice, objections, and a final
      fairness hearing.

      --  Relief:

          The relief granted to the Settlement Class is: the
          implementation, monitoring and continuation of a
          comprehensive Literacy Improvement Program in
          consultation with nationally recognized Outside
          Consultants over three to five years; and the payment
          of $350,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

      --  Attorney Fees, Service Awards, CY Pres Fees:

          Per the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agree to
          pay Class Counsel the maximum total sum of $350,000
          for attorneys' fees and costs as follows:

          a. The total sum of $175,000.00 shall be paid to the
             "Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund," co-
             counsel for the Plaintiffs, to be paid in three
             installments; and

          b. The total sum of $175,000.00 shall be paid to
             "Jacobson Education Law," co-counsel for the
             Plaintiffs, to be paid in three installments.

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the class action civil rights
complaint for declaratory and injunctive against the Defendants.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants maintain policies and
practices that discriminate against students with and suspected to
have reading disorders and deprive them of a Free Appropriate
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ADA, IDEA, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

BUSD is the public school district for the city of Berkeley,
California, United States. The district is managed by the
Superintendent of Schools, and governed by the Berkeley Board of
Education, whose members are elected by voters.

A copy of the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement dated Dec. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oQA8GG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON EDUCATION LAW, INC.
          1919 Addison Street, Suite 105
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 647-8125
          Facsimile: (510) 280-9340
          E-mail: djacobson@jacobsoneducationlaw.com

               - and -

          Brendan E. Radke, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 677-9041
          E-mail: bradke@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Shane Brun, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          601 S. California Ave., Suite 100
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (415) 318-1245
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1200
          E-mail: sbrun@kslaw.com

BERRY CORP: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Dec. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Berry Corporation
(BRY) (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); or (b) between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=berry-corporation&id=2501
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=berry-corporation&id=2501

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency
and stability; Berry's operational inefficiency and instability
would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would
disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs; the
foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's
revenues; and 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.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


BIG MOOSE: Faces COVID-19 Related Class Action Over Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Sharp, writing for Associated Press, reports that plans for a
lawsuit against a Maine venue that hosted what became a
"superspreader" wedding reception underscore the liability risks to
small businesses amid the coronavirus pandemic and an uphill push
by Republicans in Congress to give such outfits legal immunity.

Behemoths like Walmart and Tyson Foods, which have been the target
of COVID-19-related lawsuits, can largely absorb any losses. But
hundreds of negligence lawsuits have been filed across the country,
with mom-and-pops most fearing the prospect of litigation that
could put them under.

"They can end up losing even if they win a lawsuit," said David
Clough, of the National Federation of Independent Businesses,
because costly litigation can bankrupt small businesses that don't
have deep pockets.

For the family-owned Big Moose Inn in Millinocket, Maine, it's not
a theoretical problem. The estates of at least three nursing home
residents whose deaths were linked to a wedding reception there in
August intend to sue the inn and the nursing home, said the
families' attorney, Timothy Kenlan.

The wedding and reception sparked outbreaks that infected at least
180 people and caused at least eight deaths, state officials said.
Seven of those who died were residents of the Maplecrest nursing
home in Madison, Maine, whose attorney declined to comment.

A notice of claim indicates damages will be sought from the inn for
hosting an event that Kenlan contends violated state safety
protocols during a pandemic.

"What stands out here is the egregious conduct. They put profits
ahead of people," Kenlan said. "They were flouting the rules."

Paul Brown, attorney for Big Moose Inn, said there's no way to
prove the wedding reception was the source of infections. There
were several other events including an outing at a lake and the
wedding itself at a nearby church that were just as likely to have
been the source of infections, he said.

The number of reception guests at the inn exceeded the state limit
of 50 people, the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention
said. But Brown contends the business tried to follow rules by
dividing the reception into two groups of fewer than 50, so there
was no violation, he said.

During the reception, signs warned guests to wear masks and to
maintain distance, but there was no mandate at the time to enforce
those rules.

A national lawsuit tracker by Hunton Andrews Kurth indicates more
than 6,000 coronavirus-related complaints have been filed across
the country.

Many involve attacks on pandemic restrictions, while others have
targeted banks and insurers, and there have been thousands more
workers' compensation claims, as well, said Alexandra Cunningham,
of the Richmond, Virginia, law firm.

But a much smaller number -- about 270 individual lawsuits -- are
wrongful death, personal injury or workplace safety claims, mostly
targeting cruise ships, meat-processing plants and other
businesses, including nursing homes, she said.

The lawsuits tend to focus on the most egregious cases.

A lawsuit targeting a Tyson Foods plant in Iowa said workers lacked
masks and were forced to work close together, while managers bet on
how many workers would get infected during a coronavirus outbreak.
Tyson investigated in response to the lawsuit and fired seven
managers.

Walmart is the subject of a wrongful death lawsuit after a worker
died of COVID-19 complications in March. A class action lawsuit is
targeting McDonald's. The ACLU sued on behalf of workers at a
Nebraska meatpacking pant. And a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit
by Amazon warehouse workers.

"Although there are very few cases, those cases are really
important because they represent critical cases of worker safety,"
said Julia Duncan from American Association for Justice, which
represents trial attorneys.

Those large corporations can better weather a lawsuit than small
businesses like the Big Moose Inn, for whom legal fees and damages
could be crippling.

Republican efforts to protect businesses from legal liability were
a sticking point in Congress over a $900 billion-plus pandemic aid
package.

Many Democrats object to a liability shield and say the Trump
administration has already given companies the upper hand on safety
issues by relaxing protections for workers.

The liability issue has been set aside for now but will be back in
the new year, and state lawmakers likely will weigh in, as well,
said Clough, the state director for the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, which represents nearly 3,000 small,
independent businesses in Maine.

Before the liability issue was set aside, the discussion focused on
immunity for businesses except in cases of "gross negligence,"
something trial lawyers criticize as a fancy way of dressing up
full liability from virus lawsuits. There haven't been enough
lawsuits to justify special protections, trial lawyers say.

While the specter of lawsuits unsettles business owners, it might
be difficult for plaintiffs to prove they caught the virus at a
specific establishment, or of proving negligence, because the rules
and safety guidance have evolved. Masks, for example, were not
recommended initially; now they're recommended and sometimes
mandated.

Lawsuits require a plaintiff to prove both harm and negligence --
that an entity failed to protect someone from a reasonably
foreseeable event, said Jim Burke, professor emeritus at the
University of Maine School of Law.

Proving where someone contracted the virus is central to winning a
lawsuit, and that was difficult even before the latest surge of the
virus, Burke said. "As the community spread gets broader, it will
become harder to prove causation," he said.

For the Big Moose Inn, its lawyer believes some form of liability
protection is warranted.

"If a business is complying with the requirements, doing the best
they can, making the effort to keep employees and guests safe, then
there should be some liability shield," Brown said. "If they're
working hard and trying, they shouldn't be penalized for something
that's really outside their control."

Many attorneys are likely waiting to see how lawsuits like the one
that's anticipated against Big Moose Inn play out, Cunningham
said.

The statute of limitations for such negligence claims generally is
two to three years, she said. [GN]


BIKEBANDIT.COM: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bikebandit.Com, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Bikebandit.Com, LLC,
Bike Bandit, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10791 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21SS,
2020).

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

BikeBandit -- https://www.bikebandit.com/ -- is a motorcycle parts
superstore retailer founded in 1999 by successful serial
entrepreneur Ken Wahlster. The company sells motorcycle parts,
apparel, and accessories through an online store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BILL ELDER: Class Cert. of El Paso County Jail Inmates Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANNAH WEIKERT, JENNIFER
HERMANNS, TERRENCE LACEY, SEAN NELSON, JEAN-JOSEPH LE CHIFFRE, and
GILBERT TRUJILLO, on their own and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. BILL ELDER, Sheriff of El Paso
County, Colorado, in his official capacity, Case No.
1:20-cv-03646-RBJ-KMT (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class of individuals:

      "ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE PERSONS HELD IN CUSTODY AT THE EL
      PASO COUNTY JAIL;"

   2. certifying the following three subclasses:

      a. The Pretrial Detention Subclass, consisting of:

         ALL CLASS MEMBERS HELD IN PRETRIAL DETENTION AT THE
         EL PASO COUNTY JAIL

      b. The Post-Conviction Subclass, consisting of:

         "ALL CLASS MEMBERS HELD IN POST-CONVICTION CONFINEMENT
         AT THE EL PASO COUNTY JAIL;"

      c. The Medically Vulnerable Subclass, consisting of:

         "ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE MEDICALLY VULNERABLE WITH
         RESPECT TO COVID-19 PURSUANT TO CURRENT CDC GUIDELINES,
         WHICH INCLUDES: PERSONS WITH CANCER; CHRONIC KIDNEY
         DISEASE; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE; HEART
         CONDITIONS; IMMUNOCOMPROMISED STATE FROM SOLID ORGAN
         TRANSPLANT; OBESITY (BMI OF 30 OR HIGHER); SEVERE
         OBESITY (BMI OF 40 OR HIGHER); PREGNANCY; SICKLE CELL
         DISEASE; SMOKING; TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS; ASTHMA
         (MODERATE TO SEVERE); CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; CYSTIC
         FIBROSIS; HYPERTENSION OR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE;
         IMMUNOCOMPROMISED STATE FROM BLOOD OR BONE MARROW
         TRANSPLANT, IMMUNE DEFICIENCIES, HIV, USE OF
         CORTICOSTEROIDS, OR USE OF OTHER IMMUNE WEAKENING
         MEDICATIONS; NEUROLOGIC CONDITIONS SUCH AS DEMENTIA;
         LIVER DISEASE; OVERWEIGHT (BMI OF 25 OR GREATER);
         PULMONARY FIBROSIS; THALASSEMIA; TYPE 1 DIABETES
         MELLITUS; AND PERSONS AGE 55 AND OLDER."

The Plaintiffs seek a Court order implementing a single, system
wide process to rectify the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional
rights and protect them from COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs have moved for interim relief to stop the
catastrophic harm being experienced by individuals incarcerated at
the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center as a result of the
Defendant Sheriff Elder's failure to take adequate preventative
measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The El Paso County Jail
has experienced the worst jail outbreak of COVID-19 in Colorado,
with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
currently reporting that over 1,031 inmates and 115 staff have been
infected during the course of a continuing, active outbreak.
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(b)(2), this Motion seeks certification of a
class of incarcerated persons at the Jail, who are in desperate
need for relief before they suffer additional substantial -- and
potentially fatal -- harm.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/3qYsCLWat no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and proposed counsel for the putative
class, are:

          Daniel D. Williams, Esq.
          HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC
          921 Walnut Street, Suite 200
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 442-6514
          E-mail: Williams@hbcboulder.com

               - and -

          David G. Maxted, Esq.
          MAXTED LAW LLC
          1543 Champa Street Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 717-0877
          Facsimile: (720) 500-1251
          E-mail: dave@maxtedlaw.com

               - and -

          Jamie Hughes Hubbard, Esq.
          STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC
          1652 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 689-8909
          E-mail: hubbard@sslhlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Silverstein, Esq.
          Sara Neel, Esq.
          Arielle Herzberg, Esq.
          Asma Kadri Keeler, Esq.
          Anna I. Kurtz, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          OF COLORADO
          303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 402-3114
          E-mail: msilverstein@aclu-co.org
                  sneel@aclu-co.org
                  akeeler@aclu-co.org
                  aherzberg@aclu-co.org
                  akurtz@aclu-co.org

BLACKBAUD INC: Duranko Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud, Inc. The
case is styled as Christina Duranko, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-01966-NR (W.D. Pa., Dec. 18, 2020).

Blackbaud is sued over an alleged data breach that compromised the
personal data of its clients.

BlackBaud -- https://www.blackbaud.com/ -- is the world's leading
software company who offers software solutions powering the entire
social good community such as Faith Communities, Foundations, K-12
Schools, Nonprofits, and more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          EAT END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          212 45th Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          Phone: (412) 877-5220
          Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com


BLACKBAUD INC: Sloane Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud Inc. The
case is styled as Amanda M. Sloane, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-04380-JMC (D.S.C., Dec. 17, 2020).

Blackbaud is sued over an alleged data breach that compromised the
personal data of its clients.

BlackBaud -- https://www.blackbaud.com/ -- is the world's leading
software company who offers software solutions powering the entire
social good community such as Faith Communities, Foundations, K-12
Schools, Nonprofits, and more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN LLC
          PO Box 1007
          1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard
          Building A
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (843) 727-6500
          Fax: (843) 216-6509
          Email: ctuck@rpwb.com


BLAKBAUD INC: Arthur Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pam Arthur, Dorothy Kamm, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioner v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:20-cv-14319, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Dec. 17, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-04382-JMC to the
proceeding.

Dorothy Kamm sought actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory
damages and statutory penalties, an award of punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and any other expense, including expert
witness fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of express/implied
contract.

Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the
data obtained by schools and non-profit companies, including Bread
for the World and Planned Parenthood, which maintained Plaintiffs'
private information. In May of 2020, ransomware attack and data
breach of several schools, healthcare, non-profit companies and
other organizations whose data and servers were managed, maintained
and secured by Blackbaud compromised sensitive and personal data
from students, patients, donors and other individual users.

BlackBaud -- https://www.blackbaud.com/ -- is the world's leading
software company who offers software solutions powering the entire
social good community such as Faith Communities, Foundations, K-12
Schools, Nonprofits, and more.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
          Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (608) 257-3911
          Fax: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

The Respondent is represented by:

          Joanne M. O'Connor, Esq.
          JANES FOSTER JOHNSTON & STUBBS
          505 S Flagler Drive
          Suite 1100 PO Box 3475
          West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3475
          Phone: (561) 659-3000
          Fax: (561) 650-5300
          Email: joconnor@jonesfoster.com


BLUE & CREAM: Calcano Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS CALCANO,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly Situated,
v. BLUE & CREAM LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-09614-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Ronie Abrams entered an order that class notice and Court
approval of the voluntary dismissal are not required under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e), as no motion for class certification has been filed
and no class has been certified in this action.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff and Defendant, under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby stipulate to dismiss this entire action with
prejudice, resolving all matters in dispute having been made and
each party bearing its own fees and costs."

Blue & Cream is a Hamptons based multi-label Mens & Womens retail
clothing store.

A copy of the parties stipulation of case dismissal dated Dec. 18,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38uDuZz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottllieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIED & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New Yok, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com


BLUEWATER TOXICOLOGY: Vaughn Balks at Unpaid OT, Meal & Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH VAUGHN, RACHELLE HANSON, and HEATHER WENTWORTH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BLUEWATER TOXICOLOGY, LLC, d/b/a BLUEWATER DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,
and JENNIFER BOLUS, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00502-REW (E.D.
Ky., December 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky
Wages and Hours Act by failing to pay proper overtime wages and
failing to provide meal and rest breaks.

Ms. Vaughn was employed by the Defendants as an in-office
phlebotomist from on or about March 18, 2019 until her termination
on November 25, 2020.

Ms. Hanson was employed by the Defendants as a lead processor on or
about July 23, 2020 until her termination on November 25, 2020.

Ms. Wentworth was employed by the Defendants as an in-office
phlebotomist from on or about March 18, 2019 until her termination
on October 8, 2020.

Bluewater Toxicology, LLC, doing business as Bluewater Diagnostic
Laboratory, is a company that offers diagnostic laboratory services
to healthcare facilities, physicians, medical staff, and their
patients in Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq.
         Tamara J. Patterson, Esq.
         LOCKABY PLLC
         1795 Alysheba Way, Suite 4207
         Lexington, KY 40509
         Telephone: (859) 263-7884
         Facsimile: (844) 270-3044
         E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com

BOKF NA: Court Refuses to Quash Judgment Offers in Almeida Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike
in the lawsuit titled TONY ALMEIDA, et al. v. BOKF, NA, Case No.
17-CV-126-JED-CDL (N.D. Okla.).

In the Motion, several of the Named Plaintiffs in the putative
class action ask the Court to strike or otherwise invalidate offers
of judgment submitted to them by Defendant BOKF. In the
alternative, they ask the Court to extend the deadline for
accepting the offers.

District Judge John E. Dowdell states that the Court declines to
invalidate the offers of judgment but orders that the offers be
held open for a period of seven days from the entry of this order.

Shortly after the Court ruled on its motion to dismiss, BOKF
submitted offers of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule 68's state-law counterpart, Okla. Stat.
tit 12, Section 1101.1(B). Like the federal rule, Oklahoma's offer
of judgment statute establishes a cost-shifting mechanism meant to
encourage settlement and discourage litigation of doubtful claims.
Under both rules, when a defendant offers to concede judgment on
specified terms but the plaintiff declines, the plaintiff will be
responsible for the defendant's subsequent costs if the plaintiff
ultimately wins a judgment whose terms are less advantageous than
those offered by the defendant.

There are important differences, however. Oklahoma's rule
explicitly provides for the recovery of attorney fees and for
counteroffers that bind a defendant in the same way that an offer
binds the plaintiff. Unlike Rule 68, Section 1101.1 applies even if
the offering defendant, rather than the plaintiff, ultimately
prevails after the offer's rejection. Thus, Oklahoma's statute
raises the stakes significantly for a plaintiff, who refuses a
formal offer of judgment, but it also permits the plaintiff to turn
the tables on a defendant who makes a low offer.

Oklahoma courts do not appear to have considered whether an offer
of judgment under Section 1101.1 is valid when submitted in a class
action before the class has actually been certified, but many
federal courts have concluded that the dynamic such offers create
is inconsistent with the policy of class certification under Rule
23. By placing the potential liability on the putative class
representative, a pre-certification offer may create a conflict of
interest between her and members of the putative class by forcing
her to "weigh her own interest in avoiding personal liability for
costs under Rule 68 against the potential recovery of the class."

Courts have taken differing approaches to resolving this tension.
Some courts have held that a pre-certification offer has no force.
Although these solutions have some appeal, the Court declines to
adopt them in the instant case. For one, the state's offer of
judgment statute provides that that section shall apply to all
civil actions. It is disinclined to create a judicial exception in
the face of such unambiguous statutory language. Furthermore, in
many of the cases where courts have invalidated pre-certification
offers of judgment under Rule 68, at least some of the underlying
causes of action arose from a remedial statute.

By discouraging the plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, application of Rule 68 arguably
undermines the legislative policy in favor of such actions, Judge
Dowdell says.  In the case, the Plaintiffs' remaining cause of
action -- a gross negligence claim -- arises under common law.
Application of Section 1101.1 in this context, therefore, does not
come at the expense of an express public policy. Given the language
of the state's rule, and the absence of a remedial statute
expressing public policy in favor of the type of claim at issue,
the Judge holds that BOKF's offers of judgment are valid and
enforceable.

According to the Opinion and Order, the Court has issued no
substantive rulings in the case since BOKF submitted its offers,
and, other than the instant motion, the only currently pending
motion is BOKF's motion to strike certain allegations from the
complaint. Because the Court has already dismissed most of the
Plaintiffs' claims, a ruling on BOKF's motion to strike would seem
unlikely to substantially change the relative bargaining position
of the parties. In any case, any prejudice can be avoided by
holding BOKF's motion in abeyance until the extended offer period
has expired.

For the reasons set out in Court's Opinion and Order, the
Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part. Because
the Court holds that BOKF's offers of judgment are valid and
enforceable, the Plaintiffs' request to strike the offers or
otherwise invalidate them is denied. Nevertheless, the Court finds
good cause to extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to respond to
BOKF's offers of judgment. Any Plaintiff, who wishes to respond to
the offers of judgment, shall do so within seven days of the entry
of the Order. BOKF's pending motion to strike will be held in
abeyance until the extended offer period has closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 17,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fybesc from
Leagle.com.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Ministry of Children Settles Saunders Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chehala Leonard, writing for APTN National News, reports that
Robert Riley Saunders was granted bail by B.C. Provincial Court
judge Monica McParland in Kelowna on Dec. 18. Bail was set at
$50,000.

Saunders faces 13 criminal charges including ten counts of fraud
over $5,000, one count of theft over $5,000, one count of breach of
trust, and one count of uttering a forged document.

Earlier this year in a separate legal matter, the Ministry of
Children and Family Development settled a class action lawsuit,
which alleged that "Saunders defrauded many children in the care of
the Ministry of their food, clothing and shelter allowances.

According to documents filed as part of the class action settlement
process, Saunders' actions are estimated to have impacted more than
100 youth, who are mostly Indigenous.

As Saunders is currently being held in custody at Calgary Remand
Centre, he participated in the Dec. 18 hearing via video
conference.

The court issued a publication ban preventing information shared
during the hearing, including the judge's reasoning for her
decision to grant bail.

The Crown prosecutor also requested a publication ban on
information -- including initials and gender -- that could identify
the alleged victims, who were under 18 at the time of the alleged
crimes. Judge McParland granted this request, so the publication
ban is in effect.

Saunders' next court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 25, 2021 in
Kelowna. [GN]


CALIRIDES LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CaliRides LLC. The
case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CaliRides LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10683
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Cali Rides -- https://www.facebook.com/calirides13/ -- is located
in El Centro, California and is part of the Taxi & Limousine
Services Industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL ACCESS: Fabricant Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ACCESS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-11244 (C.D. Cal., December 11, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in
or around December 2019 in an attempt to promote its services by
using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The Plaintiff
asserts that she did not provide the Defendant her "prior express
consent" to be contacted using an ATDS.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers were harmed
and damaged by the Defendant's unlawful conduct causing them to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid, and invading their privacy.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory and treble damages, an injunctive
relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, and any other relief
that the Court deems just and proper.

Capital Access International LLC is a business lending company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIENDMAN, 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


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Escobar Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IVAN ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-9429, 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 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02501-WBS-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code by failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and failing to provide proper payroll records.

Capstone Logistics, LLC is a company that provides logistics
services based in Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
         Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
         Alexandra S. Oxyer, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                 jriley@seyfarth.com
                 aoxyer@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Justin T. Curley, Esq.
         Megha J. Charalambides, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com
                 mcharalambides@seyfarth.com

CASIO AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casio America, Inc.
The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Casio America, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10681 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Casio America, Inc. -- https://www.casio.com/ -- manufactures and
markets consumer electronics. The Company offers calculators,
keyboards, digital cameras, mobile presentation devices, disc title
and label printers, watches, cash registers, graphing scientific
calculators, and electronic musical instruments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Pirolo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CATHOLIC HEALTH
SERVICES OF LONG ISLAND. The case is styled as DOMINICK PIROLO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF E/O THERESA PIROLO, DECEASED AND
O/B/O ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CATHOLIC HEALTH SERVICES OF
LONG ISLAND, ST. JOHNLAND NURSING HOME, INC. and ST. CHARLES
HOSPITAL, Case No. 620410/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec.
21, 2020).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE".

Catholic Health Services -- http://www.chsli.org/-- is an
integrated system encompassing some of the region's finest health
and human services agencies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          42-40 BELL BLVD., #301
          BAYSIDE, NY 11361
          Phone: (718) 352-9762

The Defendants are represented by:

          KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN, LLP
          1205 FRANKLIN AVENUE, STE.200
          GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 248-6000

               - and -

          FUMUSO KELLY SWART FARRELL LLP
          110 MARCUS BLVD., SUITE 500
          HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
          Phone: (631) 232-0200


CD PROJEKT: Faces Class Actions Over Cyberpunk Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Any Robinson, writing for Video Games Chronicle, reports that CD
Projekt is facing potential class action lawsuits over its alleged
misrepresentation of Cyberpunk 2077.

As reported by the New York times, one Warsaw-based law firm and CD
Projekt investor has announced it's analysing grounds for legal
action on the basis of "misrepresentation in order to obtain
financial benefits".

It said its investigation was related to "recent events" and
particularly Cyberpunk's removal from the PlayStation Store, which
saw CD Projekt's share price fall by 15% on December 18.

Sony announced the unexpected move on Dec. 18, following a
turbulent week for CD Projekt Red centred around criticism of
Cyberpunk 2077's performance on last-gen consoles.

Cyberpunk 2077's troubled launch has resulted in CD Projekt shares
tumbling and wiping over $1 billion off the wealth of the company's
founders.

A second, New York-based law firm has also announced an
investigation into the Cyberpunk developer.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP said on Dec. 18 it was
looking into potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of CD Projekt, "resulting from allegations that CD Projekt may have
issued materially misleading information to their shareholders and
investing public."

It said: "If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of CD Projekt
SA, please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights
as an investor in CD Projekt SA."

According to a law firm specialised in video games, CD Projekt
could be accused of employment of "manipulative and deceptive
practices."

According to SEC rule 10b-5, it is unlawful for any person,
directly or indirectly, "to engage in any act, practice, or course
of business which operates. . . as a fraud or deceit upon any
person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

Speaking to investors, CD Projekt's joint-CEO Adam Kiciński
apologised for Cyberpunk 2077's console issues and said that the
company hoped to rebuild the trust of its fanbase.

"After 3 delays, we as the Management Board were too focused on
releasing the game," he said. "We underestimated the scale and
complexity of the issues, we ignored the signals about the need for
additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen consoles.

"It was the wrong approach and against our business philosophy. On
top of that, during the campaign, we showed the game mostly on PCs.
This caused the loss of gamers' trust and the reputation that we've
been building through a big part of our lives.

"That's why our first steps are solely focused on regaining those
two things. We are concentrated on fixing Cyberpunk on last-gen
consoles. . . We will do everything possible to prove that we stick
to our values. We truly hope that our efforts will let us rebuild
the trust we have lost." [GN]


CEN-CAL PLASTERING: Alcazar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cen-Cal Plastering,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Fermin Alcazar, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals
v. Cen-Cal Plastering, Inc., a California Corporation, Jeffery F.
Gann, Kevin W. Gann, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010611 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 17, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Cen Cal Plastering, Inc. -- http://cencalplastering.com/-- is the
leader in stucco and architectural foam detail products since 1998
and provides the highest quality plastering products and services
to many of the most prominent construction companies in Northern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marco A Palau, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
          212 9th St., Ste. 314
          Oakland, CA 94607-4479
          Phone: (510) 269-4200
          Fax: (408) 657-4684
          Email: marco@advocatesforworkers.com


CITIGROUP INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Dec. 29 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 Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased
Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) common stock between January 15, 2016 and
October 12, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
December 29, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 25, 2017, the Company submitted 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.

If you purchased Citigroup common stock 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, P.C.

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

Contacts:

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


COMERICA BANK: Can Compel Arbitration in El-Hage Suit, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABASS EL-HAGE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMERICA BANK and ELAN FINANCIAL
SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 20-10294 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Laurie
J. Michelson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan:

    (i) granted Elan Financial's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
        Arbitration on an Individual Basis;

   (ii) granted Comerica's request to compel arbitration as a
        nonsignatory in its Response in Support of Elan Financial
        Services' Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration; and

  (iii) dismissed as moot Comerica's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
        Arbitration under the Deposit Account Contract.

Plaintiff El-Hage alleges that Comerica Bank and its servicer Elan
Financial enrolled customers in an overdraft protection program
without their consent in order to charge higher fees and interest
rates.  El-Hage opened a checking account with Comerica in 2007 and
then a Visa Platinum credit card in 2017.  Elan Financial was the
servicer for the credit card.

Mr. El-Hage alleges that when he opened the credit card, his
Cardmember Agreement stated that overdraft protection must be
"specifically requested," but he was enrolled despite never
requesting the service.  He further alleges that the overdraft
protection is not protective at all.  Additionally, El-Hage
alleges, the overdraft protection service rounds up to the nearest
$100 to transfer funds.  On top of this, El-Hage alleges, the
Defendants automatically enroll customers to pay their monthly
credit card bill with their associated checking account.

Mr. El-Hage brings suit against Comerica and Elan Financial on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, asserting violation of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act, Michigan Compiled Laws Section 445.901,
breach of contract, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment.  He
seeks certification of a Michigan class for the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act claim and certification of a nationwide class for
the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.

Elan Financial and Comerica each filed a motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration.

Elan Financial and Comerica filed separate motions to dismiss and
compel arbitration; each has a separate contractual relationship
with El-Hage.  Elan Financial seeks to rely on the Cardmember
Agreement for Elan Financial Services Visa Accounts that El-Hage
received with his credit card.  Comerica seeks to rely on the
Business and Personal Deposit Account Contract with Comerica Bank
that governs El-Hage's Comerica checking account.  Both contracts
contain an arbitration clause and class action waiver.
Alternatively, both Elan Financial and Comerica believe that they
may each compel arbitration as nonsignatories to each other's
contract with El-Hage.

Mr. El Hage argues neither of these formed valid agreements to
arbitrate.

Judge Michelson concludes that El-Hage assented to the terms of the
Cardmember Agreement when he used the card, and none of his
objections have shown that the agreement is invalid or
unenforceable.  Hence, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists
between El-Hage and Elan.  He also concludes that El-Hage's dispute
with Elan falls within the scope of their agreement to arbitrate.
Accordingly, because a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between
the parties, and the parties' dispute falls within the substantive
scope of that agreement, Elan is entitled to enforcement of the
arbitration provision.  The Judge, therefore, dismisses El-Hage's
claims against Elan without prejudice and compels arbitration of
those claims on an individual, non-class basis.

The Judge also concludes that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists
between El-Hage and Elan and their dispute falls within the
substantive scope of that agreement.  Comerica, although not a
signatory, has a close relationship with Elan as joint service
providers and El-Hage's claims against both Elan and Comerica are
intimately intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.
So Comerica is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision as a
nonsignatory.  Dismissal without prejudice, rather than a stay
pending arbitration, is proper again because all of the issues
raised against Comerica must be submitted to arbitration.

Accordingly, the action is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://bit.ly/38v9cWn from Leagle.com.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Edourad Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Fabienne Edourad,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:20-cv-62631-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2020).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. -- https://www.convergentusa.com/ --
is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL CAPPADORA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff v. COSTO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and KARIM
ZEFFOUNI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06067 (E.D.N.Y., December
14, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful policies,
practices and procedures in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a produce stocker at
the Defendants' wholesale club located at 3250 Vernon Blvd.,
Queens, NY 11106 from on or about November 2018 until he was
terminated in or around September 22, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that his paystubs during his employment with
the Defendants consistently showed that he was being underpaid
between eight and 25 hours. In addition, he was not compensated by
the Defendants for the off the clock work he performed, thereby
failing to receive an overtime compensation at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40.

Moreover, the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff
subsequently after the Plaintiff organized a group chat with other
employees to discuss potential unionization. The Defendants would
stalk and harass the Plaintiff around his employment, and denied
him promotions and full-time employment.

Costo Wholesale Corporation owns wholesale clubs worldwide. Karim
Zeffouni is a branch manager, who exercises operational control of
the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


COVIA HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Dec. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Covia Holdings
Corporation f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Covia") (OTC:
CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA) (NYSE: FMSA) between March 15, 2016 to June 29,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=covia-holdings-corporation&id=2519
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

ttp://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=covia-holdings-corporation&id=2519

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not
necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; Covia's revenues,
which were dependent on its proprietary "value-added" proppants,
was based on misrepresentations; when Covia insiders raised this
issue, defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the
issue; and 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.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 8, 2021.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


CREATIVE CONSUMER: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Consumer
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Creative Consumer Products, Inc.
d/b/a Dionis, Case No. 1:20-cv-06150 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Creative Consumer Products Inc. -- https://www.ccpinc.com/ --
provides cosmetic products. The Company offers different types of
moisturiser and other skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL: Starr, et al. Seek Conditional Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC STARR, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees, v.
CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SOFTWARE, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-02986-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
      of a collective class and to facilitate identification and
      notice to:

      "similarly situated employees and any individual who works
      or worked for Credible Behavior Health Software, Inc. as a
      Partner Service Coordinator from (three years prior to the
      filing of this order) to the present is a putative
      collective class member entitled to notice;"

   2. directing the Defendant, within 15 days, to produce to the
      Plaintiffs' counsel a list of the full name, last known
      residential address, last known work address, last known
      phone number(s), last known e-mail address, dates of
      employment and location of employment of each and every
      individual who is a member of the putative class;

   3. directing that Notice be distributed by regular U.S. mail
      and email and a reminder notice shall be distributed 15
      days prior to the close of the notice period; and

   4. approving a notice period of 60 days to putative class
      members to opt-in to the lawsuit by means of submitting a
      consent form to join.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' proposed order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nGWhXN at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA Collective,
are:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  kaburgy@nicholllaw.
                  snevin@nicholllaw.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Court Awards $4MM+ Atty's Fees to Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, et al., v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10014-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield entered an order awarding the Lead Counsel attorneys'
fees of $4,030,000, to be paid from the settlement fund:

   --  Three quarters of that amount, or $3,022,500, shall be
       payable immediately, and the remaining $1,007,500
       shall be payable after all distributions to class members
       from the settlement fund are complete.

   --  Lead Counsel is awarded reimbursement of expenses in the
       sum of $367,083.75, to be paid from the settlement fund
       immediately. Birmingham is awarded $1,868.75, Local 60 is
       awarded $3,177.25, Local 456 is awarded $3,648.00 and
       Local 710 is awarded $11,285.00, all payable after all
       distributions to class members from the settlement fund
       are complete.

On July 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
a $15.5 million class action settlement. The Court granted
preliminary approval on August 24, 2020, and notice of the
settlement and fairness hearing was sent to class members. On
December 10, 2020, the Court held a fairness hearing. No objections
to the settlement were filed, and no objectors appeared at the
hearing.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in 2016, alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to Defendant Credit
Suisse Group AG’s management of American
Depositary Receipts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34tDNm6 at no extra charge.[CC]

CREDIT SUISSE: Lead Counsel in Birmingham Suit Given $4MM in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF
SYSTEM, et al. v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al., Case No. 17 Civ.
10014 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), District Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued a
final approval order granting in part application for attorneys'
fees and costs, and service award.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2016, alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to Defendant Credit
Suisse's management of American Depositary Receipts. The case was
litigated for more than two years before settlement was negotiated.
The class was represented by Saxena White P.A. and Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll. The Lead Counsel worked a total of 11,650 billable
hours on the matter.

On July 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
a $15.5 million class action settlement. The Court granted
preliminary approval on Aug. 24, 2020, and notice of the settlement
and fairness hearing was sent to the class members. On Dec. 10,
2020, the Court held a fairness hearing. By separate order, the
Court approved the settlement agreement and plan of allocation as
fair and adequate under Rule 23(e) Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs move for fees and costs to be paid out of the $15.5
million settlement fund pursuant to Rule 23(h). The requested
attorneys' fees are 30% of the fund or $4.65 million. The
Plaintiffs also move for costs of $367,083.75 in litigation
expenses incurred by the counsel, and $21,319 in time and expenses
incurred by the Lead Plaintiffs: the City of Birmingham Retirement
and Relief System, Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy and Highway
Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds, Teamsters Local 456 Pension and
Annuity Funds, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No.
710 Pension Plan.

Judge Schofield states that the first step in the attorneys' fees
analysis is to determine a baseline reasonable fee with reference
to other common fund settlements of a similar size and complexity,
based on the subject matter of the claims. The second step is to
consider the Goldberger factors of risk, the quality of the
representation and other public policy concerns to make any
necessary adjustments to the baseline fee.

The final step is to apply the lodestar method as a cross-check,
which addresses the final factor under Goldberger v. Integrated
Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 2000) -- the time and labor
expended by the counsel. Based on this analysis, a reasonable fee
in the case is 26% of the $15.5 million settlement fund, or $4.03
million, Judge Schofield holds.

In support of their request for a 30% fee, the Lead Counsel note
various cases in the Second Circuit awarding fees in their
requested range. The Court declines to award the 30% requested by
the Lead Counsel on the basis of these cases, and instead finds
that a lower recovery percentage is appropriate in light of the
size of the settlement and the fact that the Court must act as a
fiduciary serving as a guardian of the rights of absent class
members.

As to complexity, the Lead Counsel do not provide, nor does the
Court discern, any reason why litigating the case was inherently
more complex than other types of securities class litigation, the
Court notes. As to magnitude, the case was litigated through
discovery, a motion to dismiss and two settlement discussions. The
magnitude and complexity of the case are consistent with other
securities class action, and do not favor recovery above the
baseline set by similar cases, Judge Schofield opines.

Judge Schofield also opines, among other things, that a
demonstrable risk of loss is inherent to any case that proceeds to
trial, and such risk does not justify increasing the recovery
percentage in the case.

Birmingham, Local 60, Local 456 and Local 710 request reimbursement
for employee time spent participating in the action in the amounts
of $1,868.75, $3,177.25, $3,648.00 and $12,625.00, respectively.
The Court finds awards of $1,868.75, $3,177.25 and $3,648.00
appropriate for Birmingham, Local 60 and Local 456, respectively.

Local 710's requested reimbursement includes 8 hours of time by an
assistant administrator at a rate of $200 per hour, which is higher
than those of employees at the other Lead Plaintiffs, which are
$115, $71 and $91.20. The Court finds a comparable rate of $100 per
hour reasonable for the 8 hours expended by Local 710's assistant
administrator in the action. Local 710 also requests reimbursement
for $11,025 in fees from an outside attorney for his efforts in
advising Local 710 in the action. Upon review of that attorney's
billing records, the Court finds reimbursement to Local 710 for his
services proper. Local 710 is awarded $11,825.

Accordingly, the Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of $4.03
million, to be paid from the settlement fund. Three quarters of
that amount, or $3,022,500, will be payable immediately, and the
remaining $1,007,500 will be payable after all distributions to the
class members from the settlement fund are complete. The Lead
Counsel is awarded reimbursement of expenses in the sum of
$367,083.75, to be paid from the settlement fund immediately.
Birmingham is awarded $1,868.75, Local 60 is awarded $3,177.25,
Local 456 is awarded $3,648 and Local 710 is awarded $11,285, all
payable after all distributions to the class members from the
settlement fund are complete.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 17, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd6dm48m from Leagle.com.


DARKTRACE INC: Der-Hacopian Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN, v.
DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of class action settlement;

   2. granting in part the motion for attorneys' fees and
      incentive award;

   3. approving the settlement amount of $300 per class member,
      settlement administrator costs in the amount of $15,000,
      and attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $150,000;

   4. awarding the named Plaintiff an incentive award of $1,500;

   5. directing the parties to file a short stipulated final
      judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date
      of this Order; and

   6. directing the parties and settlement administrator to
      implement this Final Order.

The Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable, and that the settlement class members received
adequate notice. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the class action settlement is granted.

The Plaintiff brought the consumer class action against the
Defendant Darktrace alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Action. The Plaintiffs allege that as part of
Defendant's employment application process, it requires consumer
reports, known as background checks, to evaluate prospective
employees.

A copy of Court's order granting motion for final approval of class
action settlement dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gIaCAG at no extra charge.[CC]

DEFYNE HOLDINGS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEFYNE HOLDINGS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11283
(C.D. Cal., December 14, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on her cellular telephone ending in -1083 beginning in or around
October 2017 in an attempt to solicit her to purchase its services.
The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (ATDS) in placing its calls, and failed to obtain the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such calls using
ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers were harmed by the unlawful conduct of the
Defendant causing them to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invading
their privacy.

Defyne Holdings, LLC is a credit card processing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEUTSCHE BANK: 2nd Circuit Has Yet to Rule on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Banez, writing for Law.com, reports that following Denny,
the majority of district courts in the Second Circuit "have
narrowed class definitions to exclude putative class members
without standing, rather than outright denying a motion for class
certification." Tomassini v. FCA US, 326 F.R.D. 375, 387 (N.D.N.Y.
2018). However, where redefining the class is impossible or would
create additional problems, certification should be denied. Id.
Moreover, Tomassini noted that it is not clear how class members
who "did not suffer an inflated-price injury[, when they bought a
car] . . . could provide standing[.]" Id. at 386.

In 2006, the Second Circuit held that "no class may be certified
that contains members lacking Article III standing . . . The class
must therefore be defined in such a way that anyone within it would
have standing." Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d
Cir. 2006). "To meet the Article III standing requirement, a
plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact' that is 'distinct
and palpable'; the injury must be fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and the injury must be likely redressable by a
favorable decision." Id. at 263.

Whether 'Restasis' will be upheld by the Second Circuit remains to
be seen. In the meantime, explore some "take-aways" from cases
outside of the Second Circuit that should be considered, especially
when litigating class actions in the Eastern District of New York.
[GN]


DISH DBS: Trial in Retirement Trust Suit to Begin Sept. 7
---------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial in City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B, is
scheduled to start sometime during the five-week "stack" beginning
September 7, 2021.  

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Charles Ergen, the other
members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its
officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's
affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  

In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11,
2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board
members other than Mr. Ergen.  The trial of this matter is
scheduled to start sometime during the five-week "stack" beginning
September 7, 2021.  

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Federal Law Claims in Matthews Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERESA MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-595 (DLF) (D.D.C.),
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the District's Motion to Dismiss
terminating the Plaintiffs' federal law claims.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the District
of Columbia and its Mayor.  The Plaintiffs are seven individuals
who allege that the District designated a stretch of Interstate 295
as a construction zone even though there was no construction in the
area.  As a result, the District doubled the speeding fine for
drivers caught on one of three speed cameras placed along the
stretch of highway.

In addition to doubling the fine, the District lowered the speed
limit from the usual 50 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour.  To
warn drivers of the decreased speed and increased fine, the
District posted only a single permanent signpost, despite the fact
that additional signage is required by statute.  In addition, there
were no traffic cones, flaggers, or any other signs of construction
work in sight.

Although several of the Plaintiffs were ultimately not fined, those
who were paid $200 after being caught driving over fifty miles per
hour in the 40 miles per hour zone.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
District designated this false construction zone as a speed trap to
generate revenue.  They allege that the District has a persistent
and widespread practice and custom of using its automated traffic
enforcement system for this purpose.

The Plaintiffs first brought suit in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law,
alleging that the District: (1) violated the Excessive Fines
Clause; (2) violated their substantive due process rights; (3) was
unjustly enriched; and (4) owes money had and received.

The District then removed the case to federal court, invoking the
Court's federal question jurisdiction over the Section 1983 claims
and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.
Once before the Court, the District filed a motion to dismiss
raising both jurisdictional and merits arguments.  It argues that
all of the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief and that certain Plaintiffs lack
standing to assert any claims.

Based on the allegations in the complaint, Judge Friedrich finds
that the Plaintiffs have not met the high threshold for
establishing an ongoing or imminent future injury.  Although the
Plaintiffs allege that Reginald Matthews and Teresa Matthews drive
on I-295 every day, they do not allege that any one of them will
drive past the single remaining camera in the future.  They do not
allege that they are unable to pay their fines.  And even if the
cessation of voluntary action doctrine did apply, the fact that the
Defendants may create similar speed traps in the future, is too
remote to create an injury-in-fact.  Thus, they lack standing to
bring claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The parties disagree about whether all of the Plaintiffs have
standing to bring the remaining claims.  There is no question,
however, that at least one plaintiff has standing, which is
sufficient for the remaining claims to survive the standing
inquiry.  Take Dmitriy Bekker, for example, who received and paid
the $200 citation that emanated from one of the construction zone
speed cameras.  Bekker suffered an injury that is both fairly
traceable to the District's actions and redressable by a favorable
judicial decision.  With at least one Plaintiff having standing to
bring the remaining claims, it is proper to proceed the merits.

The Plaintiffs bring two claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1983.  They
allege that the District violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the
Eighth Amendment and their substantive due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment by lowering the speed limit and doubling
fines.  Because the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does
not apply to the District of Columbia, however, the Judge will
construe the claim as alleging a due process violation under the
Fifth Amendment.

Judge Friedrich notes that there is no question that D.C. has a
legitimate interest in deterring speeding to ensure public safety.
The Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the fine was so
"grossly disproportionate" as to be unconstitutionally excessive.
Because the $200 fine was not grossly disproportionate to that
purpose or the speeding offense, the Judge dismisses Count III.

The Judge also dismisses Count IV.  She opines that a claim need
only be cognizable under a more specific Amendment to preclude
protection under general notions of substantive due process--the
claim need not actually succeed under the more specific Amendment
for this rule to apply.  Because the Eighth Amendment's protection
against excessive fines provides an explicit textual source of
constitutional protection, the more generalized notion of
substantive due process cannot provide a basis for relief.

Whether or not an allegedly wrongful traffic fine could fit within
the claim of unjust enrichment or money had and received appears to
be matters of first impression in D.C. law.  Given the early
posture of the case, and out of deference to the development of
state law, the Judge declines to exercise the Court's supplemental
jurisdiction over these claims.  Accordingly, Judge Friedrich
dismisses Counts III and IV of the complaint with prejudice, but
dismisses Counts I and II without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs may
pursue these and any other viable state law claims in state court.

For these reasons, Judge Friedrich dismissed the federal law claims
and declined to exercise the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims in Counts I and II, dismissing the latter set
of claims without prejudice.  In light of that disposition, the
motion to dismiss is granted.  A separate order consistent with her
decision accompanies her Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/2WIqPMM from Leagle.com.


DIVERSITY AT WORK: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in Sutton Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT SUTTON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. DIVERSITY AT WORK GROUP, INC.
d/b/a UNITED COURIER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-682
(S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio granted the Plaintiff's motion for
approval of notice/conditional class certification in substance.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's pre-discovery
motion to send notice to similarly situated employees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the parties' responsive
memoranda.  Also pending before the Court is Defendants United
Courier, Scott Laminack, Jim Meyers, and Lynn Meyers's motion for
extension of time to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion to
send notice to similarly situated employees, and Plaintiff's
responsive memorandum.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Plaintiff improperly
seeks approval of his proposed class notice before certifying a
conditional class.  Under the FLSA and Sixth Circuit precedent, the
Court must first determine whether to conditionally certify the
collective action before considering facilitating the proposed
notice.  However, the parties discuss the merits of certifying the
conditional class in their briefs.  Accordingly, Judge Black
considers the Plaintiff's motion to send notice as a motion for
conditional class certification.

Plaintiff Sutton brings the action under the FLSA, and related
state wage laws, on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime wages, reimbursable expenses, and liquidated damages.
Defendant Diversity operates a delivery and courier service across
Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.  Defendant
Lynn Myers is the President of United Courier and Director of
Diversity at Work Group.  Her husband, Defendant Jim Meyers, is the
Vice President of United Courier.  Her son, Defendant Scott
Laminack, is the General Manager of United Courier.  The Plaintiff
also names unidentified corporations and persons as defendants
should discovery reveal additional Defendants.

Plaintiff Sutton was employed by United Courier from approximately
May 2017 until August 2019.  His duties consisted of completing
deliveries scheduled through United Courier.  Sutton alleges that
he regularly worked over 40 hours per week but was not paid time
and half his regular rate for his overtime hours.  Additionally, he
contends that he was required to provide his own vehicle to
complete his deliveries and maintain the vehicle in safe and
working condition, including purchasing gasoline, vehicle parts and
fluids, insurance, licensing and registration, and other
necessities to complete his job duties.

Mr. Sutton contends he was not reimbursed by United Courier for the
cost of driving and maintaining his own vehicle.  Because he was
not reimbursed, Sutton contends that after deducting vehicle
expenses, he was paid less than minimum wage.  He contends all
United Courier delivery drivers are required to use their own
vehicles, are not reimbursed for expenses, and work over 40 hours
per week.  Additionally, he contends that although the agreement
between the parties is labeled as an independent contractor
agreement, United Courier misclassifies its delivery drivers as
independent contractors.  Instead, he United Courier's policies and
procedures related to delivery drivers indicate that that the
drivers are employees.

The parties agree that, under the FLSA, conditional class
certification is warranted.  They disagree on the definition of the
putative class, including the breadth of similarly situated
individuals and the form of Sutton's proposed notice.

Mr. Sutton proposes the following definition of the putative class
members:  All current and former United Courier delivery drivers
who worked within three years prior to the filing of this Class
Action Complaint and the date of the Court's order approving
Notice.

United Courier argues that the class is too broad for two reasons:
(1) the class should be limited to drivers with independent
contractor agreements--not all drivers; and (2) the proposed class
should run from the date the class is conditionally certified--not
the filing of the complaint.  The parties also disagree on certain
aspects of the form of the proposed notice submitted by Sutton: (1)
the opt-in period, (2) language related to what the case is about,
and (3) the responsibilities of those opting-in.

Judge Black holds that Sutton has demonstrated that he is similarly
situated to all current and former delivery drivers of United
Courier, not only those with independent contractor agreements.
But he agrees with United Courier that the proposed class period
should run three-years from the Court order conditionally
certifying the class, not from the filing of the Complaint as
proposed by the Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Judge certifies a
conditional class including all current and former delivery drivers
running three years from the date of the Order certifying the
conditional class.

Turning to the proposed notice, the Judge agrees a 60-day notice is
reasonable but declines to facilitate an undeliverable period.  He
also agrees that the language related to the reimbursement of
personal expenses is necessary for the putative Plaintiffs to make
an informed decision whether to consent to the action.  The Judge
strikes the language related to tipping, and holds that the
language regarding the putative class members' discovery
obligations must be added; however, language regarding potential
fees should not be included.

Based upon the foregoing, Judge Black granted the Plaintiff's
motion for approval of notice/conditional class certification in
substance.  Specifically, he conditionally certified the following
class: All current and former United Courier delivery drivers who
worked within three years prior to the date of the Court's order
approving Notice.

Within 30 days of the Court's Order, the Defendant will identify
all the Putative Class Members by providing a list in electronic
and importable format, of the names, addresses, and all known
e-mail addresses.  The Plaintiff is authorized to send the Notice
(with the changes detailed) to the Putative Class Members by postal
mail and e-mail to the putative class members.

The Judge denied as moot the Defendants' motion for extension of
time to file a response/reply as to the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a conditional class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3h44Qt5 from Leagle.com.


DURACELL US: Optimum Batteries' Label "Deceptive," Ferguson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DURACELL U.S. OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:20-cv-10734 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of New York General
Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising and marketing of its Optimum batteries.
The Optimum batteries' representations of "Extra Life" and "Extra
Power" cause consumers to expect that the product will last longer
and provide more power than the Defendant's Coppertop batteries and
those of other brands. However, the Optimum batteries have a shelf
life significantly shorter than 10 years and less than the
Coppertop. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the
product is an sold at a premium price compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way. Had the Plaintiff and
class members known the truth, they would not have bought the
product or would have paid less for them.

Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc. is a battery manufacturing company,
with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [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
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Crivellone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Crivellone,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, JHPDE Finance I, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06173 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2020).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions -- https://www.gotodrs.com/ -- provides
nationwide consumer collection services to industries including
Banking, Student Loan, Debt Purchasing, Heath Care, Retail,
Telecommunication and Utilities and Online Lending.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EL GROUP LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Quezada Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10702 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.lotuffleather.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of ADA. The
Plaintiff, a visually-impaired person, seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

El Group, LLC is a leather products company, and offers products
and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ELECTROCORE INC: Bid to Nix Turnofsky Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Allyn
Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., is still pending.

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

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

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

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

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

In the Turnofsky case, on November 25, 2019 several plaintiffs and
their counsel moved to be selected as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted the
motion of Carole Tibbs and the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C. On
July 17, 2020 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Turnofsky.  

In addition to the prior claims, the amended complaint adds an
additional director defendant and two investors as defendants and
adds a claim against the Company and the underwriters for violating
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. On September 15, 2020, the
Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

On November 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss.

The Company and the other defendants plan to file reply papers in
support of the motion by December 7, 2020.

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

ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal of the
order of dismissal in the consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, aul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L
000876-19, is still pending.

On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court
of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley
Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19,
respectively.

In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald &
Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for its
initial public offering (IPO); and two of the Company's
stockholders.

On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which are proceeding
under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19.

Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought certification
of a class of stockholders who purchased common stock in the IPO or
whose purchases are traceable to that offering.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for
the IPO.

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to stay the
action in favor of the pending federal action.

On February 21, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March
2, 2020, the court entered an amended order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
N.J. Superior Court-Appellate Division. The appeal was fully
briefed as of July 17, 2020.

The date for argument of the appeal has not yet been set.

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

ELITE REMODELING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE REMODELING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11241 (C.D. Cal., December 11, 2020) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant contacted her on her
cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around
October 2019 in an attempt to solicit her to avail its services.
Specifically, the Defendant attempted to contact the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone thru its numbers (818) 874-8981, (424) 270-8010,
and (818) 217-3773, and then transmit unsolicited text messages by
using an "automatic telephone dialing system" without obtaining the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive calls and messages
using an ATDS.

The Plaintiff contends that due to the Defendant's unsolicited
calls and text messages, she has incurred certain charges or
reduced telephone time for which she has previously paid, and her
privacy has been invaded.

Elite Remodeling Group, Inc. is a home renovation company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIENDMAN, 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


EPPING GARDENS: Carbone Lawyers Lead Quarantine Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
3AW Drive reports that the lawyer representing some of the families
of loved ones who died of COVID-19 in aged care says his clients
are "bitterly disappointed" by the findings of the hotel quarantine
inquiry.

655 people died in the second wave in aged care after the virus
escaped from the hotel quarantine program.

The inquiry has been unable to determine who made the decision to
use private security in the failed hotel quarantine system.

Tony Carbone, Managing Partner at Carbone Lawyers, is leading a
class action against Epping Gardens.

He said his clients were "very upset" by the findings.

"They are bitterly disappointed and quite frankly disgusted because
no one is actually put up their hand to say we ordered the hotel
private security guards," he told Shane McInnes, filling in for Tom
Elliott on 3AW Drive.

"They were hoping they would get some answers on that." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Affilious Alleges Social Advertising Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFILIOUS, INC., JESSYCA FREDERICK, NJ PREMIER INC., TIMOTHY MILLS,
MARK YOUNG, DANNY COLLINS, JOSHUA JEON, 406 PROPERTY SERVICES,
PLLC, MARK BERNEY, and MARQUISHA CORK, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-09217 (N.D. Cal., December 18, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act.

The complaint contends that the Defendant has willfully acquired
and maintained monopoly power in the social advertising market in
the U.S. The Defendant has accomplished this by means of predatory,
exclusionary, and anticompetitive conduct, including but not
limited to: (1) removing friends, news feed, and other crucial
application programming interfaces (APIs); (2) refusing to sell
social data to competing applications developers; (3) extracting
social data from competitors through threats of blacklisting and/or
through nonconsensual data scraping; (4) targeting competitors for
reciprocity or denial of API access; (5) entering into whitelisting
and data sharing agreements with competitors, including for large
advertising purchases or the provision of user data; and (6)
engaging in covert surveillance of competitors' users in order to
detect and ultimately acquire competitive threats before they
became too formidable.

The Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered and will suffer injury
of the type that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent as a
result of the Defendant's conduct.

Affilious, Inc. is a company that specializes in performance
marketing based in California.

Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate, with its
headquarters located at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
         Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
         Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
         BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
         445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (332) 205-7668
         E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
                 egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
                 awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com

                - and –

         Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
         BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
         633 West Fifth Street, 26th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 462-2772
         E-mail: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com

                - and –

         Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
         David H. Goldberger, Esq.
         Kate Lv, Esq.
         SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-4565
         E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                 dgoldberger@scott-scott.com
                 klv@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         David R. Scott, Esq.
         Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
         SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                 kanderson@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
         Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
         SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Telephone: (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
                 msrodoski@scott-scott.com

FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Networking Market, Steinberg Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES STEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-09130 (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the Unfair Competition Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an anti-competitive
strategy to maintain its monopoly in the personal social networking
market in the U.S. Absent Facebook's anti-competitive conduct, a
competitive market would have required Facebook to provide
consumers greater value in return for their valuable data. Instead,
Facebook used its monopoly power to box out competition, taking
consumer data without providing adequate compensation to its users.
This constitutes antitrust injury. Through its deceptive and
anti-competitive conduct, Facebook prevents competition on the
merits, and the resultant lack of competition means that users
receive less value for their data than they would have received
otherwise and further means that users are deprived of alternatives
for personal social networking.

Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate, with its
headquarters located at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         One America Plaza
         600 West Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 230-0800
         Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                 sward@barrack.com

                 - and –

         Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
         Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
         Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         3300 Two Commerce Square
         2001 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 963-0600
         Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
         E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                 jgittleman@barrack.com
                 mtalbot@barrack.com

FACEBOOK INC: Parties Agree to Filing of Olin's 3rd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued a joint stipulation and order in the lawsuit entitled
LAWRENCE OLIN, HAROLD NYANJOM, SHERON SMITH-JACKSON, and JANICE
VEGA-LATKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01881-RS (TSH) (N.D.
Cal.).

The Parties have conferred regarding the Plaintiffs' request to
file a Third Amended Complaint, and Facebook provisionally consents
to the filing of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), on the condition that such consent shall
be without prejudice to Facebook's ability to file a motion to
dismiss, and that its deadline to respond to the Third Amended
Complaint shall be extended to the later date of 30 days after
entry of the Order or Jan. 28, 2021.

The Parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, that:

      1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint is withdrawn;

      2. Facebook consents to the filing of the Third Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint subject to the terms of the
Stipulation;

      3. Facebook will move to dismiss, or file and serve any
answer or other response to, the Third Amended Complaint the later
date of: (i) 30 days after the entry of the Order, or (ii) Jan. 28,
2021;

      4. If Facebook files a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs'
opposition is due within 21 days of the filing of a motion to
dismiss; and

      5. If Facebook files a motion to dismiss, Facebook's reply in
support of the motion to dismiss is due within 21 days of the
filing of the Plaintiffs' opposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's Joint Stipulation and Order dated
Dec. 17, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hc8vdx from
Leagle.com.

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. -- Neal J. Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com --
L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- in Walnut Creek,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lawrence Olin, Harold Nyanjom,
Sheron Smith-Jackson and Janice Vega-Latker

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP -- Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@lw.com -- Nicole C. Valco -- nicole.valco@lw.com
-- Joseph C. Hansen -- joseph.hansen@lw.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Susan E. Engel -- susan.engel@lw.com -- in Washington,
D.C., Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.


FAITH IN FLORIDA: Madera Bid to Certify Defendant Class Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTA VALENTINA RIVERA
MADERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
FAITH IN FLORIDA, HISPANIC FEDERATION, MI FAMILIA VOTA EDUCATION
FUND, UNIDOSUS, and VAMOS4PR, v. KIM A. BARTON, in her official
capacity as Alachua County Supervisor of Elections, on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated County Supervisors of Elections,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00152-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E.
Walker entered an order denying the Plaintiffs resubmitted Motion
for Certification of Class of Defendant.

The Court has considered, without hearing, the Parties' Joint
Notice Regarding Proposed Modified Preliminary Injunction Order and
Resubmittal of Class Certification Motions, in which Plaintiffs
resubmit their Motion for Certification of Class of Defendant. This
Court has already denied Plaintiffs' initial motion. Because the
Plaintiffs have not shown that a class of defendants is appropriate
in this case, the Plaintiffs' resubmitted motion is denied, Judge
Walker says. The Plaintiffs' proposed defendant class does not
present the required typicality and adequacy of representation to
be appropriate for this case. Judge Walker added that if Plaintiffs
seek to have all additional county supervisors of elections at
issue in this case become defendants, they will need to be joined
individually rather than through class certification.

A copy of Court's order denying Defendant class certification dated
Dec. 14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/3oVccSvat no extra charge.[CC]

FAT BRANDS: Class Certification Bid in Rojany Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for
class certification filed in the putative class action suit
entitled, Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., has been denied.

On June 7, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe,
James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC were named as defendants in a
putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Rojany v. FAT
Brands, Inc., Case No. BC708539, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

On July 31, 2018, the Rojany Case was designated as complex,
pursuant to Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court and
assigned the matter to the Complex Litigation Program. On August 2,
2018, the Original Defendants were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit, Alden v. FAT Brands, Case No.
BC716017, filed in the same court.

On September 17, 2018, the Rojany and Alden Cases were consolidated
under the Rojany Case number. On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric
Rojany, Daniel Alden, Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron
Marin filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against FAT
Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward
H. Rensi, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global
Equities, LLC, thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants. On November 13, 2018,
Defendants filed a Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to
First Amended Consolidated Complaint with Leave to Amend in Part.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
February 25, 2019.

On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer to the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Court
sustained Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint in
Part, narrowing the scope of the case. Defendants filed their
Answer to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on November 12,
2019.

Thereafter, plaintiffs Alden, Hazelton-Harrington and Marin,
voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice, leaving only
plaintiff Rojany as the putative class representative plaintiff.

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification. On October 8, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

Defendants dispute Plaintiff's allegations and will continue to
vigorously defend themselves in this litigation.

Defendants estimate that Plaintiff's individual compensatory
rescissory damages do not exceed $5,000 (inclusive of interest, but
exclusive of any recoverable costs and fees).

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.

FAT BRANDS: Vignola Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Court ordered
the stipulated dismissal of the action captioned Adam Vignola, et
al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al. with prejudice, in its entirety.

On August 24, 2018, the Original Defendants were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled
Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs moved to be
appointed lead plaintiffs, and the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs'
motion on November 16, 2018. On January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against the Original
Defendants.

The allegations and claims for relief asserted in Vignola are
substantively identical to those asserted in the Rojany Case.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action In Favor of a
Prior Pending Action.

On June 14, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay but
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Class
Action Complaint, with Leave to Amend. Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint on August 5, 2019.

On September 9, 2019, Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 17, 2019, the
Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in Part, Without Leave to Amend.

The allegations remaining in Vignola are substantively identical to
those remaining in the Rojany Case. Defendants filed their Answer
to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on January 14, 2020.
On December 27, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

By order entered March 16, 2020, the Court denied Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. By order entered April 1, 2020, the
Court set various deadlines for the case, including a fact
discovery cut-off of December 29, 2020, expert discovery cut-off of
February 23, 2021 and trial date of March 30, 2021.

On July 16, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the case, pursuant to which lead plaintiffs will dismiss
their claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a
payment by or on behalf of defendants of $75,000.

On September 25, 2020, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement
and Mutual Release memorializing the aforementioned agreement in
principle to settle this case.

On October 13, 2020, the Court ordered the stipulated dismissal of
this action, with prejudice, in its entirety.

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.

FCA US: Mich. Court Tosses Injunctive Relief Claim in Grundy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL GRUNDY, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11231 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Stephen J.
Murphy, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part
FCA's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs filed the amended class action complaint and alleged
that FCA breached a lifetime warranty on its vehicles.  From 2006
to 2009, FCA's predecessor--Chrysler, LLC -- advertised,
manufactured, and sold vehicles with a "Lifetime Limited Powertrain
Warranty."   The Plaintiffs are residents of twenty-two States who
purchased vehicles covered by the Lifetime Warranty.  Each
Plaintiff allegedly purchased his or her vehicle from Chrysler.
After Chrysler declared bankruptcy, FCA expressly assumed Old
Chrysler's obligations under the Lifetime Warranty.

All the Plaintiffs alleged that they brought their vehicles to FCA
dealers for repairs and that they believed the Lifetime Warranty
covered the repairs.  But FCA refused to cover the cost of the
repairs, and instead told each Plaintiff that their vehicle's
Lifetime Warranty was revoked because the vehicle had not undergone
a powertrain inspection pursuant to the terms of the Inspection
Clause.

After they were denied services, the Plaintiffs collectively filed
the present class action and alleged that FCA breached its
obligations under the Lifetime Warranty.  The Plaintiffs' proposed
class includes residents of 22 states who "are current or former
original owners of a Class Vehicle and were denied Lifetime
Warranty coverage based on the inspection clause."

Rather than answering, FCA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and argued that the Plaintiffs breached
the Lifetime Warranty by not presenting their vehicles for an
inspection every five years.  FCA also argued that the Court should
strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations and any allegations of an
essential purpose.  The Plaintiffs disputed FCA's claims, and FCA
replied.

Because the Plaintiffs pleaded that they did not receive notice of
the inspection provision, Judge Murphy denies the motion to dismiss
the breach of warranty claims.  He, however, dismisses the
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief because the bankruptcy
court that oversaw the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings already
found that damages for a breach of warranty claim stemming from the
Lifetime Warranty Provision must be limited to the cost of repair
and labor for fixing the vehicles.  The Judge defers to the
bankruptcy court's interpretation of its sale order because it
plainly had jurisdiction to interpret its own prior orders.  On
that basis, the Court limits the Plaintiffs' claims to the cost of
labor and repair for fixing the vehicles.

FCA also argued that the breach of contract/common law warranty
claim should be dismissed as duplicative of the breach of express
warranty claim.  But the Plaintiffs conceded that they pleaded
their breach of contract/common law warranty claims in the
alternative to their breach of warranty claims.  In brief, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs pleaded their breach of
contract/common law warranty claims in the alterative to their
breach of express warranty claims.  He does not dismiss the claims
as duplicative.

FCA then argued that the Plaintiffs' class allegations, and any
allegations relating to "the doctrine of essential purpose" should
be struck.  The Judge cannot find, at the motion to dismiss stage,
that the Plaintiffs' specific proposed classes are fail-safe
classes.  He, therefore, denies the motion to strike the class
allegations based on the potential need for individual discovery.
If necessary, he will readdress both issues if and when the
Plaintiffs move for class certification.

FCA also argued that the Plaintiffs' "failure of essential purpose"
allegations should be struck because the claims at issue dealt only
with remedies--but that the order in Hightman v. FCA US LLC (In re
Old Carco LLC), No. 19-01333, ECF 15 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11,
2020)) limited remedies in the case.  Although sparsely briefed,
FCA appears to claim that the Plaintiffs are entitled only to a
remedy of repairs.  But the Plaintiffs argue that their essential
purpose claims are necessary because mere repair of the vehicles is
inadequate to make them whole.  Contrary to FCA's assertions, the
Hightman bankruptcy order did not bar damages; it merely limited
damages to the cost of repair and labor for fixing the vehicle.
The Judge declines to strike the essential purpose claims.

In sum, Judge Murphy granted in part and denied in part FCA's
motion to dismiss: the requests for injunctive relief are
dismissed, but the remaining claims and requests for damages are
not.  The Judge also declined to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://bit.ly/34ryJyI from Leagle.com.


FEDERAL SAVINGS: McDermott Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McDermott v. The Federal
Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06657 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge William F Kuntz, II entered an order finding as moot motion
to certify class.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving denial of overtime compensation.

The Federal Savings Bank is a veteran-owned bank, with a focus on
Veterans Affairs loans and Federal Housing Administration loans for
military and first time home buyers.[CC]


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Toche Files Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as
ZELMIRA TOCHE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., doing business as:
FBCS, INC., LVNV FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:20-cv-18226-KM-JBC (D.N.J., Dec. 4, 2020).

The case alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and is assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. is a debt
collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

FITNESS GIANT: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness Giant, LLC.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Fitness Giant, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10792 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2020).

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

Fitness Giant LLC -- https://www.fitnessgiant.com/ -- was founded
in 2002. The company's line of business includes operating health
clubs, spas, and other physical fitness facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


FLAGSHIP FACILITY: Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTA L. CERON DE OROZCO
and EMMA BARCENAS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, v.
FLAGSHIP FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02397-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L.
Samartino entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Settlement and finding
      that:

      (1) the Settlement is fair and reasonable to the
          Class when balanced against the possible risks of
          further litigation, including issues relating to class
          certification, liability, calculating damages, and
          potential appeals;

      (2) significant investigation, research, and litigation
          was conducted, which allowed the Parties to fairly
          evaluate their respective positions;

      (3) settlement at this time will avoid the substantial
          cost, delay, and risks presented by further 3
          litigation of the action; and

      (4) the Settlement was reached after serious, informed,
          and non-collusive negotiations, which were conducted
          at arm's length by experienced counsel with the
          assistance of a neutral and reputable mediator.

   2. finding that the proposed Settlement Class meets the
      requirements of numerosity, commonality, and typicality to
      justify certification, and that there is adequate and fair
      representation; and

   3. directing that the Settlement be effectuated in accordance
      with the Stipulation of Settlement:

      a. The settlement awards be made and administered in
         accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of
         Settlement as to the 6,922 Class Members, which
         includes the 908 individuals who have validly opted to
         participate in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
         Collective Action;

      b. The California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA),
         California Labor Code sections 2699 et seq., a PAGA
         payment of $20,000 is reasonable, and hereby orders
         that the Settlement Administrator shall pay the PAGA
         Payment of $20,000 as set forth in the Stipulation of
         Settlement. Of this amount, seventy-five percent, or
         $15,000, will be paid to the LWDA and twenty-five
         percent, or $5,000, will be distributed to Class
         Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement;

      c. Confirms Graham Hollis APC as Class Counsel and
         approves the requested fee of $600,000, as well as
         $26,861.68 in costs, both to be paid from the
         Settlement Fund;

      d. Confirms Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
         Administrator and approves $39,000 in costs and
         expenses to be paid to Rust from the Settlement Fund;

      e. Finds named Plaintiffs Marta L. Ceron De Orozco and
         Emma Barcenas suitable class representatives and orders
         payment to each of $10,000 out of the Settlement Fund;
         and

      f. Directs that, in accordance with the Stipulation for
         Settlement, any uncashed settlement checks or
         settlement checks that remain uncashed after 180 days
         after mailing be redistributed to Legal Aid at Work as
         a cy pres award.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/34z56eKat no extra charge.[CC]

FLAGSHIP SECURITY: Gibbs Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE GIBBS, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSHIP SECURITY COMPANY, LLC,
JOSEPH E. GURLEY, SR., JEFF GURLEY, and JOHN "MIKE" GRIFFIN,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02895 (W.D. Tenn.,
December 11, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
paid, non-exempt security guard during the 3-year period preceding
the filing of this action, claims he and other similarly situated
security guards typically worked over 40 or more hours per week for
the Defendants. However, the Defendants paid them straight time
hourly rate only for all hours they worked over 40 per week,
thereby failing to pay them their overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
over 40.

Flagship Security Company, LLC is a company that provides
protection of assets, security, and safety services for its
customers in Tennessee and Mississippi. Jeff Gurley is the
principal owner and operator. Joseph E. Gurley is the Director of
Operations. John "Mike" Griffin is the Operations Manager. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
             OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com


FLEX LTD: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on December 10, 2020, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with
prejudice a putative securities class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturing and
design company and certain of its officers. Kipling v. Flex Ltd.,
No. 18-CV-02706-LHK, 2020 WL 7261314 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020).
Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations
concerning a major contract to manufacture shoes for a shoe
company. The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
actionable misstatements or omissions and, because the Court had
already granted plaintiff an opportunity to replead in a prior
order, dismissed the case with prejudice.

The Court first explained that one challenged statement -- that a
contract with the shoe company "ha[d] been a great solution for us,
a great story for us" and that "[w]e have to drive significant
volume, which we're doing today" -- had been dismissed in the
Court's prior order as nonactionable puffery. Because reasonable
investors "do not rely on vague statements of optimism like 'good,'
'well-regarded,' or other feel good monikers," and that a "'great
story' of 'driv[ing] significant volume' is a paradigmatically
vague statement of optimism," the Court reaffirmed that the
statement was not actionable. Id. at *9.

The Court next assessed plaintiff's allegations, which were based
on information provided by seven confidential witnesses, that the
company made false statements regarding the profitability of the
manufacturing contract. Id. at *10. The Court rejected the
reliability and import of the witnesses' statements on various
grounds, concluding that "none . . . [was] indicative of the
falsity of the profitability [s]tatements." Id. at *12. As to
certain witnesses, the Court determined that their statements were
"vague hearsay" because they did not specify who supplied the
confidential witnesses with the alleged information, any dates or
details of the discussions in which that information was provided,
or how the colleagues who allegedly supplied the information knew
that information in the first instance. Id. at *11. Plaintiff
contended that these witnesses had personal knowledge by virtue of
having attended corporate meetings, but the Court observed that
there was no allegation that those meetings involved discussions of
the company missing its production projections, either generally or
with respect to the contract in question. Id. For other witnesses,
the Court found their testimony unreliable because they had never
done any work in connection with the contract at issue. Id. The
Court also determined that many of the witnesses' statements were
unreliably vague, including a witness who failed to detail which
specific production metrics were not met and departed the company
before certain challenged statements were made. Id. With regard to
other confidential witness statements, the Court determined that
they only described "operational difficulties," which did not
necessarily render the profitability statements false. Id. at
*12-14.

The Court also concluded that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
falsity with respect to challenged statements not related to
profitability. Id. *15. Plaintiff alleged that the company's
allegedly undisclosed operational difficulties rendered misleading
statements that the company was "accelerating our investments" in
the project "on the back of early automation successes" and that
the company was "starting to get early successes around some of the
design engagements that we're having." Id. But the Court determined
that the mere existence of operational problems did not mean the
company did not have "early successes." Id. The Court further
observed that certain allegations by confidential witnesses
actually "supported the veracity" of some of the challenged
statements, because they suggested that the company initially had
met its production metrics before those metrics fell off later in
time. Id. The Court also emphasized, as it had in a prior order,
that the company had disclosed "sweeping risks to the viability" of
the contract, including that the contract concerned a "new product
category and we're very new to it." Id. at *17.

Because the Court determined that further amendment would be
futile, and that plaintiff had failed to cure the deficiencies
highlighted in the Court's prior order, the Court dismissed the
action with prejudice. Id. at *18. [GN]


FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Shareholder Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Marshall, writing for farmonline, reports that
scandal-plagued dairy, cereal and nutritional products producer
Freedom Foods is now the subject of a planned class action lawsuit,
with claims likely to date back to 2014.

The shareholder action has been launched by law firm Slater and
Gordon, rushing in to activate claims on behalf of shareholders who
bought Freedom shares from December 2014.

Civil court action is only possible in relation to a maximum six
year period prior to a claim being activated.

The class action alleges breaches of the Corporations Act,
Australian consumer laws and the Australian Securities and
Investment Commission Act, and is also against Freedom's auditor,
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, which signed off on the food
manufacturer's now discredited accounts dating back years.

Among other allegations Slater and Gordon claimed since 2014
Freedom had withheld material information about the company's true
asset position, it breached continuous disclosure obligations and
misled or deceived the market.

Freedom Foods is Australia's biggest long-life milk processor, a
big player in the plant-based beverage sector, a significant
lactoferrin producer for the nutritional health products market,
and a fast growing name in health food snacks and breakfast cereals
under the Freedom, Arnolds Farm, Messy Monkeys and Heritage Mill
brands.

It has production sites in Melbourne and Shepparton in Victoria,
and Sydney and the Riverina in NSW.

Financial blowout
Last month, after a long forensic investigation of the company's
books the company confirmed previous concerns about discrepancies
in its stocks and earnings records, which culminated in a $590
million blowout in losses and asset writedowns for 2019-20.

Previous financial reports have also been revised, with 2018-19's
$11.6m profit turning into a loss totalling almost $146m.

Chairman, Perry Gunner, who has flagged he will resign at next
month's re-scheduled annual general meeting, said it had become
clear some aspects of the culture within Freedom Foods were not in
the best interest of all stakeholders.

In a letter to shareholders he said there was no disputing it had
been a difficult year for the group.

"Freedom foods Groups shareholders and employees have a right to
feel angry and frustrated," he said.

It was now clear the growth obtained by the company was not
profitable growth in a number of its business divisions.

However, on the positive side, Mr Gunner noted revenue had grown
annually in the past five years and was up 26 per cent to $580.2m
for the year ending June 30.

Deloitte, which signed off on the past six years of audited
financial statements, has conceded it has identified significant
accounting irregularities.

However the full extent of the unusual bookkeeping was not realised
until Freedom's chief financial officer Campbell Nicholas and
managing director Rory Macleod left in June and deep dive
investigations were commenced by PwC.

Class litigation specialist Slater and Gordon has acknowledged the
company disclosed some details of a difficult 2019-20 financial
year in May and late June just prior to a share trading halt, but
shareholders had been unable to respond since, especially to the
significant material revealed in November.

Trading in Freedom's shares has been frozen for six months, but the
stock is expected to be worth far less than the $3 shares fetched
when they last traded given the company's net tangible asset value
has now been revalued at just 8.7 cents a share - down from almost
$2/share early in the year.

Freedom, which is poised to announce a capital raising to cover its
cost blowout, and potentially the sale of some processing assets,
has seen the true value of its assets shrink from 235m a year ago
to $61m after the accounts were re-evaluated. [GN]


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Dismissal of Amended Rice Class Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICE, et al., v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.,
A20A1898 (Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia for the First
Division reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action on behalf of all
Fulton County homeowners who purchased their homes in 2015 and
2016, seeking a refund of ad valorem property taxes under OCGA
Section 48-5-380 from Fulton County and several of its
municipalities based on alleged illegal assessments of their
properties.  In their complaint, as amended, the Plaintiffs alleged
that the Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors conducted illegal
assessments of their properties under state constitutional and
statutory law by intentionally singling out their recently sold
properties for reappraisal at the increased sales price while
leaving the assessed values of comparable unsold properties
undisturbed.

The Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, as amended, that by
appraising their properties in 2016 and 2017 based on sales price
without reappraising similarly situated residential properties that
had not been sold in 2015 and 2016, the Board violated the
Uniformity Clause of the Georgia Constitution, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and the equalization requirement imposed by OCGA
Section 48-5-306(a).  Consequently, the Plaintiffs alleged that
they were due refunds from the Defendants of the taxes illegally
assessed in 2016 and 2017, in addition to pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorney fees and expenses under OCGA Section
13-6-11.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint,
asserting that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for a tax
refund under OCGA Section 48-5-380.  According to them, the
Plaintiffs were limited to challenging the Board's actions through
the tax appeal process set out in OCGA Section 48-5-311, which the
Plaintiffs had failed to do.

The trial court subsequently granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted, concluding that the
Plaintiffs had failed to state a tax refund claim under OCGA
Section 48-5-380 and instead should have pursued a tax appeal under
a different statute.

The Plaintiffs now appeal from the trial court's dismissal order.
They argue that the trial court erred in holding that their
complaint failed to state a claim for a tax refund under OCGA
Section 48-5-380 and that they, thus, were limited to pursuing a
tax appeal under OCGA Section 48-5-311.

The Appellate Court agrees.  The Appellate Court cannot say that
within the framework of the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs would
be unable to come forward with evidence that the Board used an
illegal procedure and violated state law in its assessment of their
properties for the 2016 and 2017 tax years.  Contrary to the
conclusion reached by the trial court, the Plaintiffs stated a
claim under the tax refund statute.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the case go beyond a claim that the Board improperly
relied on sales prices for valuation or used different valuation
methods when reappraising different types of property.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court says, the Defendants failed
to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs could not possibly introduce
evidence within the framework of the amended complaint entitling
them to a tax refund for tax years 2016 and 2017 under OCGA Section
48-5-380.  The Appellate Court, therefore, reversed the trial
court's grant of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3nCJfdI from Leagle.com.


GAP INC: Kim Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gap, Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Christian T. Kim, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gap, Inc., Banana Republic, Synchrony
Bank, DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11452 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
18, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap, --
https://www.gapinc.com/ -- is an American worldwide clothing and
accessories retailer..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Gregory Braden, Esq.
          Todd D Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
                 tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jae Kook Kim
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          117 East Colorado Boulevard Suite 600
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: ekim@carlsonlynch.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Piston Rings
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a GM
Vortec engine lawsuit alleges there are problems with the piston
rings, PCV systems, active fuel management and oil life monitoring
systems.

Those allegedly defective systems are included in these vehicles
named in the GM Vortec engine lawsuit.

2010--2014 Chevrolet Avalanche
2010--2014 Chevrolet Silverado
2010--2014 Chevrolet Suburban
2010--2014 Chevrolet Tahoe
2010--2014 GMC Sierra
2010--2014 GMC Yukon
2010--2014 GMC Yukon XL

The Vortec engine lawsuit alleges oil is allowed to travel past the
defective piston rings from the crankcase and burns in the
combustion chamber during the combustion stroke. A mist of oil and
exhaust gas is created by blowby that reaches the crankcase and
blends with oil in the crankcase.

The class action lawsuit says the oil mist is then "vacuumed
through the engine's PCV system into the intake manifold where it
is recirculated into the combustion chamber and burned, causing
additional oil consumption."

This allegedly reduces the amount of oil in the vehicle and causes
engine damage due to a lack of proper lubrication of the engine
components.

The plaintiffs also claim the spark plugs constantly foul from oil
due to the defective piston rings. Oil allegedly coats the
electrodes of the spark plugs, which should remain dry to fire
properly.

Carbon buildup is also allegedly an issue as oil hardens when it
passes around the piston rings and isn't burned in the combustion
chamber. The vehicles suffer spark knock and the pre-ignition
detonation interferes with the proper seating of the piston rings
in their grooves, which causes them to wear out as they grind
against the cylinder walls improperly.

Alleged Defects Named in the GM Vortec Engine Lawsuit
According to the class action lawsuit, multiple other components
and systems contributes to oil consumption. The active fuel
management system comprises an oil pressure relieve valve that
sprays oil directly at the piston skirts. This oil spray allegedly
fouls the defective piston rings and causes oil to migrate past the
rings.

Another alleged problem is the Vortec 5300 PCV system that vacuums
atomized oil from the valvetrain into the intake system, where it
is ultimately burned in the combustion chambers. This vacuuming
process allegedly contributes to excessive oil consumption because
the PCV system is flawed.

Then there is the oil life monitoring systems which allegedly fail
to warn drivers of low oil levels that could damage the engines.
According to the plaintiffs, the systems monitor engine conditions
to "calculate the expected deterioration in oil quality and thus
the time for a recommended oil change."

This allegedly allows drivers to keep driving the vehicles even
though the Vortec engines are undergoing damage due to low oil
levels and a lack of engine lubrication.

An "extraordinary number of complaints" have allegedly been filed
about GM oil consumption problems in Vortec 5300 engines dating
back to model year 2007 vehicles.

The plaintiffs claim there were so many oil consumption complaints
GM engineers started investigating in at least 2008, allegedly
concluding the piston rings were suffering premature failures.
Those failures caused excessive oil consumption and engine wear.

According to the Vortec engine lawsuit, GM must have known about
the alleged oil consumption problems because technical service
bulletins were issued to dealers.

Those TSBs were related to excessive oil consumption in Generation
IV Vortec 5300 engines, and the lawsuit says the bulletins talked
about piston ring flaws and problems with the PCV systems and
active fuel management systems.

The GM Vortec engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin: Brame, et al., v. General
Motors LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:14-mc-02543-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jesse M. Furman entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the economic loss class action
      settlement;

   2. confirming certification of the economic loss settlement
      class, for settlement purposes only, consistng of:

      "all Persons who, at any time as of or before the Recall
      Announcement Date of the Recall(s) applicable to the
      Subject Vehicle, own(ed), purchase(d), and/or lease(d) a
      Subject Vehicle in any of the fifty States, the District
      of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
      and all other United States territories and/or
      possessions;"

      The Class is comprised of five Subclasses as follows (the
      "Subclasses"), and a Class Member who own(ed),
      purchase(d), and/or lease(d) more than one Subject Vehicle
      is included within different Subclasses listed below and
      shall be a member of each applicable Subclass:

           a. Subclass 1: The Delta Ignition Switch Subclass,
              comprised of those Class Members who own(ed),
              purchase(d), and/or lease(d) a Subject Vehicle
              subject to NHTSA Recall No. 14v047. Subclass 1
              Counsel is Marc Seltzer of Susman Godfrey LLP;

           b. Subclass 2: The Key Rotation Subclass, comprised
              of those Class Members who own(ed), purchase(d),
              and/or lease(d) a Subject Vehicle subject to NHTSA
              Recall Nos. 14v355, 14v394, and 14v400. Subclass 2
              Counsel are Joe Rice and Kevin Dean of Motley Rice
              LLC;

           c. Subclass 3: The Camaro Knee-Key Subclass,
              comprised of those Class Members who own(ed),
              purchase(d), and/or lease(d) a Subject Vehicle
              subject to NHTSA Recall No. 14v346. Subclass 3
              Counsel are Peter Prieto and Matthew Weinshall of
              Podhurst Orseck, P.A.;

           d. Subclass 4: The Electronic Power Steering
              Subclass, comprised of those Class Members who
              own(ed), purchase(d), and/or lease(d) a Subject
              Vehicle subject to Recall No. 14v153. Subclass 4
              Counsel are David Boies and Steven Davis of Boies
              Schiller Flexner LLP;

           e. Subclass 5: The Side Airbag Subclass, comprised of
              those Class Members who own(ed), purchase(d),
              and/or lease(d) a Subject Vehicle subject to NHTSA
              Recall No. 14v118. Proposed Counsel are Adam
              Levitt and John Tangren of DiCello Levitt Gutzler;

              Excluded from the Class are: (a) the MDL Court and
              the Bankruptcy Court and each of their personnel
              and the judicial officers presiding over the
              Actions and members of their immediate family and
              staffs; (b) authorized GM dealers who executed a
              dealer agreement with New GM or Old GM; (c) daily
              rental fleet purchasers, owners and lessees
              (including all registrants of a Subject Vehicle
              identified as "rental" in the IHS Markit / Polk
              vehicle registration data provided by New
              GM to the Class Action Settlement Administrator);
              (d) governmental or quasi-governmental bodies,
              political subdivisions, and any agency or
              instrumentality thereof (including all registrants
              of a Subject Vehicle designated as "governmental"
              in the IHS Markit / Polk vehicle registration
              data provided by New GM to the Class Action
              Settlement Administrator); (e) each Person who did
              not own, purchase, and/or lease a Subject Vehicle
              until after the Recall Announcement Date
              applicable to that Subject Vehicle; (f) all
              counsel (and their law firms) representing
              Plaintiffs in the Actions, including Plaintiffs'
              Class Counsel, Allocation Counsel, Designated
              Counsel, and members of their immediate family;
              (g) all Persons who released claims relating to
              the Actions against all of the GUC Trust, the AAT,
              Old GM and New GM concerning a Subject Vehicle,
              including without limitation all Persons who
              signed a consumer release and received a payment
              from the Arizona Attorney General pursuant to the
              Consent Decree entered on March 8, 2018 by the
              Superior Court of the State of Arizona in the
              matter of Arizona v. General Motors LLC, No.
              CV 2014-014090 (Maricopa County, Ariz.), all
              Persons who signed a GM Ignition Compensation
              Claims Resolution Facility Release of All Claims
              and received payment from Claims Administrator
              Kenneth Feinberg, and Persons who signed and
              notarized a release to settle a lawsuit or unfiled
              claims with New GM pertaining to a motor vehicle
              accident involving the Subject Vehicle in which
              the release released claims relating to the
              Actions against all of the GUC Trust, Old GM and
              New GM concerning the Subject Vehicle; and (h) all
              Persons who are Opt-Outs;

   3. dismissing all actions with prejudice; and

   4. appointing Jennifer Keough of JND Legal Administration
      (JND) as Class Action Settlement Administrator and
      directing Ms. Keough to carry out all duties and
      responsibilities of the Class Action Settlement
      Administrator as specified in the Settlement Agreement.

      Common Fund:

      --  All Settlement Implementation Expenses shall be paid
          from the Common Fund, which was established as a
          Qualified Settlement Fund under section 468B(d)(2) of
          the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation
          section 1.468B-1 pursuant to this Court's Preliminary
          Approval Order, by the court-approved Qualified
          Settlement Fund Administrator and Trustee, Flora Bian
          of JND; however, all such Settlement Implementation
          Expenses shall be paid from the Common Fund only upon
          either (I) written approval by Plaintiffs' Class
          Counsel, New GM, and the GUC Trust 6 or (ii) leave of
          Court; and

      --  The Court finds that, pursuant to Paragraph 88.a of
          the Settlement Agreement, following entry of the GUC
          Trust Approval Order, the Withdrawal Order, and the
          Preliminary Approval Order, New GM and the GUC Trust
          deposited, respectively, $8,800,000.00 and
          $2,000,000.00 into the Common Fund.

      Allocation of Net Common Fund:

      --  The Court finds that the Settlement Claim Review
          Protocol and the Allocation Decision are a fair and
          reasonable method to allocate the Net Common Fund, and
          the Parties, the Class Action Settlement Fund
          Administrator, and the Qualified Settlement Fund
          Administrator are directed to administer the
          Settlement Claim Review Protocol and Allocation
          Decision in accordance with their terms.

The judgement relates to all economic loss actions including:

   --  Alers v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 15-CV-0179;

   --  Andrews v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-5351;

   --  Arnold, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-5325;

   --  Ashbridge v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
       4781;

   --  Ashworth, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4804;

   --  Balls, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4691;

   --  Bedford Auto v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-5356;

   --  Belt v. General Motors LLC, et al, Case No. 14-CV-8883;

   --  Bender v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4768;

   --  Benton, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4268;

   --  Biggs v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-CV-5358;

   --  Bledsoe, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       7631;

   --  Brandt, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4340;

   --  Brown, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4715;

   --  Burton, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4771;

   --  Camlan, Inc., et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-
       CV-4741;

   --  Childre, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-5332;

   --  Coleman, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4731

   --  Corbett, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       5754;

   --  Cox, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4701;

   --  Darby, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4692;

   --  Deighan, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4858;

   --  DeLuco v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-2713;

   --  DePalma, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-5501;

   --  DeSutter, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4685;

   --  Detton, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4784;

   --  Deushane, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4732;

   --  Dinco, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4727;

   --  Duarte v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
       4667;

   --  Edwards, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4684;

   --  Elliott, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-8382;

   --  Elliott, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-5323

   --  Emerson, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4650;

   --  Espineira v. General Motors LLC, et. al., Case No. 14-CV-
       4637;

   --  Favro, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4752;

   --  Forbes, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4798;

   --  Foster, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4775;

   --  Fugate v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4714;

   --  Gebremariam, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-
       CV-5340;

   --  Groman v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-2458;

   --  Grumet, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4690

   --  Harris, et al. v. General Motors LLC et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4672;

   --  Henry, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4811;

   --  Heuler, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4345;

   --  Higginbotham, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case
       No. 14-CV-4759;

   --  Holliday, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-5506;

   --  Hurst, et al. v. General Motors Co., Case No. 14-CV-4707;

   --  Ibanez, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       5880;

   --  Jawad v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4348;

   --  Johnson, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       5347;

   --  Jones v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-5850;

   --  Jones v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4350;

   --  Kandziora v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
       8386

   --  Kelley, et al. v. General Motors Co., et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4272;

   --  Kluessendorf, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case
       No. 14-CV-5035;

   --  Knetzke, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4641;

   --  Kosovec, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-6830;

   --  Krause v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-7977

   --  Lannon, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4676;

   --  LaReine, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4717;

   --  Letterio, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4857;

   --  Leval, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4802;

   --  Levine v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4661;

   --  Lewis, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4720;

   --  Maciel, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4339;

   --  Malaga et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4738;

   --  Markle, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4662;

   --  Mazzocchi, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-2714;

   --  McCarthy v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
       4758;

   --  McConnell, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4270;

   --  Mullins v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-8885;

   --  Nava, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4754

   --  Nettleton Auto Sales Inc., et al. v. General Motors LLC,
       et al., Case No. 14-CV-4760;

   --  Phaneuf, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       3298;

   --  Phillip, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4630;

   --  Ponce, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4265;

   --  Powell v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4778;

   --  Ramirez, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4267;

   --  Ratzlaff, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4346;

   --  Roach, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4810;

   --  Robinson, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4699;

   --  Rollins, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-7242;

   --  Ross, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4756;

   --  Roush, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4704;

   --  Ruff, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4764;

   --  Rukeyser, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       5715;

   --  Saclo et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4751;

   --  Salazar, III, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case
       No. 14-CV-4859;

   --  Salerno, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4799;

   --  Santiago, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4632;

   --  Satele, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4273;

   --  Sauer, et al. v. General Motors, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
       5752;

   --  Sesay, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-6018;

   --  Shollenberger v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-4338;

   --  Silvas, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4342;

   --  Skillman, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-3326;

   --  Smith, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-5338

   --  Spangler, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4755;

   --  Stafford, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-
       4808;

   --  Stafford-Chapman, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al.,
       Case No. 14-CV-5345;

   --  Stevenson v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 14-CV-5137;

   --  Taylor Deushane, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
       14-CV-4732;

   --  Turpyn, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-5328;

   --  Villa, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
       CV-4801;

   --  Williams, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al. Case No.
       14-CV-7979;

   --  Witherspoon, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case
       No. 14-CV-4702;

   --  Woodward, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No.
       14-CV-4226; and

   --  Yagman v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
       9058.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nFZFSP at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Goodwin Procter Objects to Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that more than 27.5
million people who own or leased GM vehicles whose value allegedly
declined after the revelation of a defect in some GM ignition
switches received notice earlier this year of a proposed $120
million class action settlement of their economic loss claims. None
of those 27.5 million class members objected to final approval of
the settlement.

But there was an objection to the deal: Goodwin Procter, which
represented class counsel in complex bankruptcy litigation,
including litigation implicating the economic loss claims resolved
in the settlement, told U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of
Manhattan in September that it was owed more than $1.5 million for
its work -- and that it should be allowed to get that money from
the class recovery. The firm filed a motion asking Judge Furman to
pay its $1.5 million from the class fund. And when class counsel
from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro opposed the fee request -- explaining that the settlement
agreement called for plaintiffs' lawyers to be paid via a separate,
$34.5 million fund and that Goodwin Procter would have a chance to
seek its fees from that fund -- Goodwin Procter filed an objection
to final approval of the settlement.

That's right: Lawyers who were hired in part to secure the rights
of the GM car owners in the class tried to disrupt a $120 million
settlement for those same car owners.

Judge Furman shut that all down on Dec. 18. The judge granted final
approval to the $120 million settlement. He also, in a separate
opinion, rejected Goodwin's fee request and objection as
"meritless." For one thing, the judge said, the law firm has no
standing to object to the settlement because it's not a member of
the class and it can try to collect its fees from other sources.

And for another, Judge Furman wrote, his role in evaluating the
settlement is to protect class members. Goodwin, he said, conceded
that the settlement is fair and adequate for the millions of people
in the class. Allowing the law firm to halt to deal to request fees
from the class recovery, "would actually harm the class by reducing
the funds made available to class members," Judge Furman wrote. So
indulging Goodwin's fee request and objection, he said, would be an
abdication of his role as the guardian of the right of absent class
members.

William Weintraub of Goodwin Procter did not respond to my email
requesting comment on Judge Furman's ruling. Class counsel Steve
Berman of Hagens Berman and Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser
said by email that they're pleased "Goodwin won't be able to take
money away from the class and will have to apply for fees from the
fee fund, just like all of the lawyers who worked on the case."
Cabraser separately emphasized in an email that Goodwin's motion
for fees was fundamentally incompatible with the structure of the
settlement because of the deal's division between money for the
class and for plaintiffs' lawyers.

GM's lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis also opposed Goodwin's right to
object to the settlement, arguing (among other points) that Goodwin
will have a chance to seek fees from the plaintiffs' lawyers' fee
fund under an allocation plan that must ultimately be approved by
Judge Furman. GM counsel Richard Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis
referred my request for comment to a GM spokesman who said the
company is pleased that Judge Furman approved the settlement.

Goodwin's posture in the settlement approval process derived from
the firm's unusual role in the GM ignition switch litigation. The
firm's clients were not vehicle owners and lease holders but were
instead the plaintiffs' lawyers appointed to represent the class.
Goodwin represented class counsel in proceedings in federal
bankruptcy court, before Judge Furman and at the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to clarify whether GM, which emerged from a
Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, could be held liable for
pre-reorganization conduct. Goodwin was hired to focus on personal
injury and wrongful death claims but, according to the firm, ended
up delivering a benefit to members of the economic loss class as
well.

Goodwin said it had a right under its engagement letter with lead
counsel to claim a fee for its common benefit work from "any
available fund," including the proposed economic loss settlement.
The firm also cited a pre-trial order from Judge Furman that
created a common benefit fund for attorneys' fees, which would
include contributions from settled cases.

Judge Furman said in the Dec. 18 opinion that the order Goodwin
cited specifically carved out class action settlements. Fees for
class action settlements, under the order, were not subject to an
assessment for the common benefit fund, the judge said, but would
proceed under the federal rule for class action procedures -
exactly what the $120 million economic loss settlement specified.
Nothing in that pre-trial order, according to Judge Furman,
"exempts Goodwin from the procedure that now applies to all counsel
seeking a share of the fee award." [GN]


GENERALI US BRANCH: Flanigan Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Amy Flanigan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Generali U.S. Branch, Generali Global
Assistance, Inc. doing business as: CSA Travel Protection and
Insurance Services; Customized Services Administrators, Inc., Case
No. 3:20-cv-01807, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Dec. 18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10708-JGK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Generali US Branch -- https://www.generaliusa.com/ -- operates as
an insurance company. The Company provides wide range of insurance
products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Matthew C. Sostrin, Esq.
          Michael J. Gill, Esq.
          Nathan A. Rice, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP (DC)
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 263-3328
          Fax: (202) 263-5328
          Email: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                 msostrin@mayerbrown.com
                 mgill@mayerbrown.com
                 nrice@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Carmine R. Zarlenga, III, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN - Washington
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 263-3227
          Fax: (202) 263-5227
          Email: czarlenga@mayerbrown.com


GENERALI US BRANCH: Keith Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shelley Keith, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Generali U.S. Branch, Case No.
2:20-cv-02869, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Dec. 18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10713-JGK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Generali US Branch -- https://www.generaliusa.com/ -- operates as
an insurance company. The Company provides wide range of insurance
products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton B McCullough, Esq.
          Ross Alan Appel, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH KHAN
          359 King Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 937-0400
          Fax: (843) 937-0706
          Email: clay@mklawsc.com
                 ross@mklawsc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alice W Parham Casey, Esq.
          WYCHE PA
          807 Gervais Street, Suite 301
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: (803) 254-6542
          Fax: (803) 254-6544
          Email: tcasey@wyche.com

               - and -

          Rita Bolt Barker, Esq.
          WYCHE PA
          200 E Camperdown Way
          PO Box 728
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Phone: (864) 242-8235
          Email: rbarker@wyche.com

               - and -

          Christopher J Houpt, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 506-2380
          Fax: (212) 849-5830
          Email: choupt@mayerbrown.com


GENERALI US BRANCH: Nixon Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Nixon, Kari Nixon, and all others
similarly situated v. Generali U.S. Branch; Generali Global
Assistance, Inc. doing business as: CSA Travel Protection and
Insurance Services; Customized Services Administrators, Inc.; Case
No. 1:20-cv-02670, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on Dec. 21, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10779-JGK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Generali US Branch -- https://www.generaliusa.com/ -- operates as
an insurance company. The Company provides wide range of insurance
products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Stephan Kozlowski, Jr., Esq.
          ESBROOK LAW LLC
          77 W. Wacker Dr. Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 319-7682
          Email: michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com

               - and -

          Robert R Duncan
          James Henry Podolny
          DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
          161 N. Clark, Suite 2550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 262-5841
          Fax: (312) 854-8001
          Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Gill, Esq.
          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Matthew C. Sostrin, Esq.
          Nathan A. Rice, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP (DC)
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 263-3328
          Fax: (202) 263-5328
          Email: mgill@mayerbrown.com
                 aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                 msostrin@mayerbrown.com
                 nrice@mayerbrown.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Moore Sues Over Mislabeled Lip Care Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA M. MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC;
PFIZER INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-09077 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 16, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants falsely and misleadingly label certain
of their ChapStick products in violations of the California the
Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law and the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

The complaint contends that the Defendants' ChapStick products made
these claims: "100% Natural," "Natural," "Naturally Sourced
Ingredients," and/or "100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients" where in
fact the products actually contain numerous non-natural, synthetic,
artificial, and/or highly processed ingredients.

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC produces
healthcare products. The Company offers analgesics, dermatological,
gastrointestinal, respiratory tract, smoking control, natural
wellness support, oral care, and nutritional healthcare products.

Pfizer Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070  
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.co
                  kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

GLENCORE: Averts Aluminum Buyers' Appeal Request for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Scott, writing for USGNN, reports that judges for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have denied several
aluminum buyers' request to appeal a district court's order denying
a motion to certify a class action lawsuit. This is the latest in a
years-long suit against a group of large financial institutions and
aluminum warehouses, which the buyers have accused of intentionally
inflating primary aluminum prices.

The judges ordered to deny the petition because "an immediate
appeal is not warranted." The class action motion was denied by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in July
because Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote that the "[first level
purchasers (FLPs)] have failed to demonstrate that, at a trial on
their claims, common issues would predominate over individualized
ones. The opposite is so."

Background

The aluminum buyers, or FLPs, brought claims in 2014 against six
sets of defendants, three of which traded in primary aluminum and
primary aluminum derivatives on the London Metals Exchange (LME)
during the relevant period (the financial defendants), and three of
which owned and operated LME-certified warehouses for the storage
of metal (the warehousing defendants). The financial defendants are
each affiliated with either Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities plc, or Glencore Ltd.

Each group of financial defendants directly or indirectly acquired
one of the warehousing defendants in 2010, during a glut in the
aluminum market following the 2008 financial crisis. The
warehousing defendants are Metro International Trade Services LLC,
Mitsi Holdings LLC, Henry Bath LLC and Pacorini Metals USA LLC.

In September, the banks and aluminum warehouses submitted a
memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment against
all "umbrella" claims made by the plaintiffs. In the memorandum,
the financial defendants have asked that all but one of the FLPs be
eliminated from the case. The defendants allege that seven of the
plaintiffs purchased all of their aluminum from non-defendant
suppliers and that none acquired any aluminum from a defendant or
an alleged co-conspirator. The eighth plaintiff, Ampal, acquired
all of its aluminum from non-defendant third parties except for
approximately 2,200 metric tons of aluminum it purchased from
defendant Glencore and alleged co-conspirator Century Aluminum,
according to the memorandum. The move has not yet been approved nor
denied. [GN]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 21 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of GoodRx between September
23, 2020 to November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GoodRx investors under the
federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that at the time of the Company's initial
public stock offering (the "IPO"), the Company issued false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on
September 23, 2020, GoodRx completed its IPO, selling about 34.6
million shares at $33.00 per share. The Complaint alleges that
Defendants timed the IPO before Amazon announced its online
pharmaceutical business, making their statements in the
Registration Statement and during the Class Period about GoodRx's
competitive position materially false and/or misleading. The
Complaint also alleges that due to these materially false and/or
misleading statements, GoodRx Class A common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices of more than $64 per share during the
Class Period.

Then, on November 17, 2020, Amazon announced its Prime Rx plan and
a discount card program, which was said to make it "simple for
customers to compare prices and purchase medications for home
delivery, all in one place." Following this news, GoodRx Class A
common stock dropped 23%, from $46.72 per share to $36.21 on
November 17, 2020.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of GoodRx
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
February 16, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of February 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP on Dec. 20 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of GoodRx Holdings,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GDRX) Class A common stock. The class action is on
behalf of shareholders who purchased GoodRx between September 23,
2020 and November 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class
action, you must move the Court no later than February 16, 2021.

The GoodRx class action lawsuit charges GoodRx and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. GoodRx provides consumers with free information and
tools that allow them to compare prices and save on their
prescription drug purchases. The Company provides its users with
these services via apps and websites that display prices and
discounts at local and mail-order pharmacies for both insured and
uninsured Americans.

On August 28, 2020, GoodRx filed with the SEC a Form S-1
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") for its
initial public offering ("IPO"), which was declared effective by
the SEC on September 22, 2020. On September 24, 2020, GoodRx filed
with the SEC its Prospectus for the IPO offering to sell to the
public over 23.4 million Class A shares by the Company (excluding
the underwriters' option to purchase an additional 5.2 million
common shares) and 11.2 million common shares by certain selling
stockholders. On September 25, 2020, GoodRx closed its IPO. In the
offering, the Company and certain existing stockholders sold over
39.8 million common shares for $33 per share, including the full
exercise of the underwriters' option, generating over $1.3 billion
in gross offering proceeds.

The complaint alleges that, at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to
investors, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") was developing and would
soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before
Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate
the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold
therein to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling
stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants' knowledge of
Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business,
their statements in the Registration Statement and during the Class
Period about GoodRx's competitive position were materially false
and misleading when made and caused GoodRx Class A common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices of more than $64 per share
during the Class Period.

Then on November 17, 2020, just weeks after GoodRx completed its
IPO, Amazon announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan
and a discount card program, which, among other things, would
compete directly with GoodRx's platform by making it "simple for
customers to compare prices and purchase medications for home
delivery, all in one place." In response to this news, the price of
GoodRx Class A common stock declined 23%, from $46.72 per share to
$36.21 per share by market close on November 17, 2020.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the GoodRx class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the GoodRx class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the GoodRx class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more
about the case, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com)
at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

                      About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) investors that acquired securities between
September 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.

It is alleged in the complaint that GoodRx issued misleading and/or
false statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to
investors at the time of GoodRx's initial public stock offering
(the "IPO"). Specifically, it is alleged that GoodRx completed its
IPO, selling about 34.6 million shares at $33.00 per share on
September 23, 2020. It is alleged that Defendants timed the IPO
before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business, which
makes their statements in the Registration Statement and during the
Class Period regarding the competitive position of GoodRx
materially misleading and/or false. Due to these materially
misleading and/or false statements, it is alleged that during the
Class Period GoodRx Class A common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices of more than $64 per share.

Then, on November 17, 2020, Amazon announced its Prime Rx plan
along with a discount card program, which was said to make it
"simple for customers to compare prices and purchase medications
for home delivery, all in one place." On November 17, 2020 GoodRx
Class A common stock dropped 23%, from $46.72 per share to $36.21,
following this news.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 21
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GDRX) between September 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
GoodRx investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the GoodRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2011.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.

The GoodRx class action lawsuit alleges that, at the time of the
IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and
would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription
medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly
compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced
before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to
facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the common
shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the
Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO.
According to the GoodRx class action lawsuit, given defendants'
knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical
business, their statements in the Registration Statement and during
the Class Period about GoodRx's competitive position were
materially false and/or misleading when made and caused GoodRx
Class A common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices of
more than $64 per share during the Class Period.

Then on November 17, 2020, just weeks after GoodRx completed its
IPO, Amazon announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan
and a discount card program, which, among other things, would
compete directly with GoodRx's platform by making it "simple for
customers to compare prices and purchase medications for home
delivery, all in one place." In response to this news, the price of
GoodRx Class A common stock declined 23%, from $46.72 per share to
$36.21 per share by market close on November 17, 2020, damaging
investors.

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
16, 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-2011.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.

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]


GOOGLE INC: Genius Media, Nation File Advertising Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paresh Dave, writing for Reuters, reports that online publishers
including Genius Media Group and news website The Nation alleged in
a lawsuit seeking class-action status on Dec. 16 that Alphabet
Inc's Google has unlawfully stifled advertising competition,
hurting their businesses.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California,
resembles an antitrust complaint filed earlier in the day by Texas
and nine other U.S. states against Google.

Genius, which provides song lyrics, and two online magazines the
Nation and the Progressive, said they used Google software to sell
ads but received what they viewed as an unfair split of sales
because the search giant had taken over the market.

"Through its campaign of anticompetitive conduct, Google has
achieved and maintained a monopoly or near-monopoly in (the)
marketplace by erecting a toll bridge between publishers and
advertisers and charging an unlawfully high price for passage," the
lawsuit stated.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but
the company repeatedly has responded to similar accusations by
saying that Facebook Inc and other companies offer competitive
services to media companies.

The plaintiffs ask the court to order Google to divest its unit
that makes the ad-selling software and refrain from competing in
that business. They also seek punitive damages.

The complaint is the latest among several antitrust actions brought
against Google by online advertisers or other businesses that say
they have been affected by Google's growing clout. The Texas-led
lawsuit covers many of their concerns, too, and separately at least
36 states planned to sue Google on Dec. 17 over additional
anticompetitive conduct on the web.

Genius last year in a lawsuit accused Google of breaching a
contract by using lyrics data in search results, but a judge
dismissed the case in August. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Sweepstakes Today Sues Over Digital Ad Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEEPSTAKES TODAY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-08984 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2020) is brought
pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act for
actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and other relief.

The case is an action under, inter alia, the Sherman Act to
restrain the anti-competitive conduct of the Defendants, to remedy
the effects of Defendants' past unlawful conduct, to protect free
market competition from continued unlawful manipulation, and to
remedy harm to digital publishers that make available and sell
space on their Website (or applications) to advertisers. That harm
is allegedly the direct result of Google's efforts to expand its
occupation and control of the online advertising market to the
detriment of publishers, with which it competes to sell ad space.

According to the complaint, for years, Google's goal has been to
maximize profits in the online advertising market by: (1) amassing
and controlling Internet user data, creating user super-profiles;
(2) strategically acquiring companies that strengthen Google's ad
tech capabilities, maximize user and competitor data harvesting, or
decrease competition, (3) controlling the devices and tools with
which users and competitors access the Internet and (4) ultimately
controlling which advertising content is served to and consumed by
Internet users.

Google has achieved monopoly power in a number of overlapping
markets, all with a goal of dominating digital advertising. Since
gaining control, Google has deployed a number of anti-competitive
measures to exclude and disadvantage its rivals in the publisher
end of the inter-mediation chain -- including Sweepstakes Today --
in the supply of advertising inventory. To maximize their
advertising profits, to protect their valuable monopolies against
competitive threats, and to extend their monopolies globally and
across the entire digital advertising chain, Defendants have
engaged in a series of inorganic strategic acquisitions,
anti-competitive contracts and anti-competitive tactics designed to
thwart competition on the merits, the suit says.

Plaintiff Sweepstakes Today is an online publisher and a direct
competitor of Google. Since 2004, Sweepstakes Today has operated a
Website through which it has offered and sold space to digital
advertisers on which they run ads so that visitors to its Website
can view the advertisers' offers.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Mountain View, California. It was created through
a restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015, and became the parent
company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries.

YouTube, LLC is an American online video-sharing platform
headquartered in San Bruno, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          John C. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN JONES LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 504-6555
          Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
          E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com

GOURMETGIFTBASKETS.COM: Sanchez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOURMETGIFTBASKETS.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10676-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.gourmetgiftbaskets.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff.

GourmetGiftBaskets.com, Inc. retail online gifts accessories. The
Company offers greeting cards, gift baskets, holiday decorations,
and birthday cake, as well as gourmet foods such as beer, wine, and
popcorn. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


GREENWICH LOGISTICS: Romero Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARTURO ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GREENWICH LOGISTICS, LLC; AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC; NEED IT NOW, LLC; SOS LOGISTICS, LLC; ASAP COURIER
AND LOGISTICS; LUCKY 2 LOGISTICS, LLC; WDS LOGISTICS, LLC; NEED IT
NOW COURIER OF MD; LEXINGTON LOGISTICS; FASTMILE DELIVERS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20079742, was removed from
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on December 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-09106 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 minimum and overtime wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to indemnify,
failure to pay all final wages, and unfair competition.

Greenwich Logistics, LLC is a carrier company located in Woodside,
New York.

Amazon.com Services, LLC is a provider of web service platforms
based in Seattle, Washington.

Need It Now, LLC is provider of professional courier services based
in Flushing, New York.

SOS Logistics, LLC is a logistics service provider in Jericho, New
York.

ASAP Courier and Logistics is a transportation and logistics
company in Florida.

Lucky 2 Logistics, LLC is a logistics company in Woodside, New
York.

WDS Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Texas.

Need It Now Courier of MD is a courier company in Maryland.

Lexington Logistics is a logistics service provider in Frankfort,
Kentucky.

Fastmile Delivers, LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company based in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
                  
         Max Fischer, Esq.
         Aimee Mackay, Esq.
         Sonia Vucetic, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue
         Twenty-Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                 aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
                 sonia.vucetic@morganlewis.com

                 - and –

         Taylor D. Horn, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: taylor.horn@morganlewis.com

GRIZZLY GRIPTAPE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grizzly Griptape LLC.
The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Grizzly Griptape LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10682 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Grizzly Griptape -- https://www.grizzlygriptape.com/ -- is the
leading griptape company in skateboarding, featuring technical
outdoor and athletic goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAMZEH ALASFAR: Anderson et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRITTNIE ANDERSON, BIANCA F. CURATOLO, and DANIEL TAYLOR,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HAMZEH ALASFAR and TAYSEER ALKHAYATT,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-62567-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 14,
2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum
wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as residential
house cleaners, allege that although they worked hours at the
direction of the Defendants, they were not compensated at the
statutorily required minimum wage rate for all the hours they
worked from August 2017 to the present. In addition, the Defendants
failed to accurately record all of the hours the Plaintiffs and
Members of the Class worked.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as an opt-in collective action
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated residential
house cleaners to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment interest, all costs and attorney's fees incurred, and
any other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

The Defendants are owners of Two Maids & A Mop – Fort Lauderdale
that provides nation-wide residential cleaning service. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel. (Main): (813) 224-0431
          Direct Dial: (813) 321-4086
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com


HANDS OF MERCY: Lindsey Seeks to Certify Health Aide Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKY LINDSEY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. HANDS OF MERCY FAMILY
CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01221-DAP (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of:

      "all current and former hourly home health aide employees
      who worked for Hands of Mercy Family Care, LLC (HoMFC)
      during the period of January 1, 2018 to the present;" and

   2. approving the Notice and Consent Form to be sent to the
      putative class members.

HoMFC is a non medical home care provider based in Fairfax,
Virginia.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification  dated
Dec. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3oOZ55p at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

HAWAII COFFEE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawaii Coffee
Company. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Hawaii Coffee Company, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10695 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Hawaii Coffee Company -- https://www.hawaiicoffeecompany.com/ -- is
the home of some of Hawaii's favorite coffee and tea brands - Lion
Coffee, Royal Kona Coffee, and Hawaiian Islands Tea Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


HCA VIRGINIA: Fleece Amended Class Complaint Nixed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYARA FLEECE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HCA VIRGINIA
HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a HCA VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00396-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne
entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
      dismiss amended complaint for failure to state a claim;

   2. dismissing with prejudice the Amended Complaint;

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification.

The Court said, "The plaintiff asserts that "Defendants have full
knowledge of its intention to levy a hefty Surcharge on unexpecting
emergency room patients, and therefore, had a clear and undeniable
duty to disclose such charges to patients in advance of providing
treatment triggering such Surcharges pursuant to both Virginia
common law and VCPA." Notably absent from this summary of their
theory of duty (as well as from the Amended Complaint) is any
allegation or assertion that the Defendants knew that Fleece was
acting on the assumption that the nondisclosed fact did not exist.
That is the linchpin of the duty found in the cases upon which the
plaintiff relies. And, absent such an allegation, the Amended
Complaint does not state an actionable duty. The plaintiff has been
afforded an opportunity already to amend and has not successfully a
claim and therefore the claim must be dismissed with prejudice."

Keyara Fleece brought the class action against the Defendants
alleging that the Defendants engaged in an unfair, deceptive and
lawful practice "of charging its emergency care patients a
substantial undisclosed and effectively concealed facility fee for
visiting one of the Defendants' emergency rooms.

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ki9bwB at no extra charge.[CC]

HELIX TCS: Kenney Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KENNEY,
individually and as on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HELIX TCS, INC., Defendant v. HRBENEFIX CO, LLC,
Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01755-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying and authorizing him to send
      notice (via mail, email, and text message) to:

      "ALL SECURITY GUARDS, SITE SUPERVISORS, AND/OR OPERATORS
      EMPLOYED BY HELIX TCS, INC. WHO RECEIVED A SALARY AND NO
      OVERTIME COMPENSATION AT ANY TIME FROM SEPTEMBER 13, 2014
      THROUGH THE PRESENT (Putative Class Members);"

   2. approving the Notice and Consent forms, as well as the
      proposed scripts;

   3. authorizing his proposed notice methods;

   4. directing Helix to produce each Putative Class Member's
      contact information to Kenney's Counsel within 10 days;
      and

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
      Members to join the case.

According to the complaint, Mr. Kenney more than satisfies his
minimal burden of demonstrating that he and the Putative Class
Members were the victims of a common policy or plan alleged to
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act -- Helix's uniform exempt
misclassification scheme that deprived Kenney and the Putative
Class Members of overtime compensation. Accordingly, the Court
should grant Kenney's Motion and authorize him to send notice to
the Putative Class Members.

Kenney filed this collective action against Helix on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated Security Guards on July 20,
2017.

Helix bills itself as a "full service security firm specializing in
cannabis." In fact, Helix tells its clients its "motto is,
'security guards protect people, cameras protect property.'" This
is because the highly regulated cannabis industry "require[s]
[distributors] to have a physical security guard on-site to protect
the customers, employees, case, and inventory."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Dec. 14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2LGXsZh at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the potential class members, are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, 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
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

HILLTOP SECURITIES: Faces Fistanic Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PIERRE FISTANIC, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILLTOP SECURITIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOE 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV47743 (Cal. Super., December 14, 2020) brings this complaint
against the Defendants for recovery of civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act and Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order 4.

The Plaintiff asserts the Defendants failed to:

     -- pay him and other aggrieved employees the statutory minimum
wage for all hours worked;

     -- provide them rest periods and pay them rest period
premiums;

     -- furnish them with complete, accurate, itemized wage
statements;

     -- timely pay all final wages and compensation earned by him
and other aggrieved former employees at the time of separation of
employment;

     -- pay them all earned wages at least twice during each
calendar month; and

     -- maintain accurate records.

The Plaintiff sent a notification to the Defendant via certified
mail, and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency via
its website concerning the Defendant's violations of the California
Labor Code. The Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative
requirements for bringing a claim under the PAGA after 65 days
without any response from the LWDA.

Hilltop Securities, Inc. offers financial services to a range of
industries and individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com



HITACHI MAXELL: Indirect Purchasers' Settlements Wins Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IN RE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:

   1. approving the proposed Round 2 Settlements as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate;

      -- The Settlement Fund

         The Round 2 Settling Defendants will pay a total of
         $44.95 million in cash: LG Chem will pay $39 million,
         Hitachi will pay $3.45 million, and NEC will pay $2.5
         million. The settlement funds are non-reversionary to
         the defendants. Inclusive of the settlements previously
         approved between Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' (IPPs)
and
         other defendants in this  case, IPPs have secured
         settlements of $113.45 million for the IPP class;

   2. finding the distribution plan to allocate 90% of
      settlement funds to class members from repealer states and
      10% of settlement funds to class members from non-repealer
      states as to all settlement funds contributed by all
      defendants in this matter to be fair and equitable;

   3. deeming timely all late claims submitted prior to December
      15, 2020;

   4. awarding the IPPs'counsel a total of $33,829,176.00, less
the
      $4,495,000.00  from the Interim Award, together with a
      proportional share of interest earned on the Settlement Fund

      for the time period until dispersed;

   5. reimbursing IPPs for their out-of-pocket expenditures in
      the amount of $6,751,735.84, less the $860,188.50 interim
      award;

   6. paying the class representatives a total service awards of
      $260,000, less the prior 23 interim awards, which
      constitutes a service of award of $10,000 for each of
      individual class representatives and $25,000 for each of
      two governmental entity class representatives;

   7. paying the class administrator an additional
      administrative costs up to $10,000.00 from the settlement
      fund;

   8. setting a compliance deadline of January 29, 2021, at
      which time IPPs are directed to submit a status update on
      the distribution process and guidelines to be provided to
      the class concerning contesting ineligibility, and a
      proposed form of final distribution order; and

   9. directing the IPPs, within 60 days of the final
      distribution, to submit an accounting of the distribution,
      including distribution of interest on the settlement fund.
      Within 30 days thereafter, the IPPs shall certify that
      they have destroyed personal identifying information of
      all class members.

The Court has considered the objections and concludes that they do
not overcome the reasons for finding a 90/10 proportionate
distribution represents the fairest allocation among class members
for all settlement funds in this matter, including the Round 1
Settlement with the Sony Defendants. The Court has discretion to
determine an appropriate plan of allocation without setting aside
its orders or judgments granting final approval of the settlements
themselves, both by the terms of the settlement agreements and
under relevant authorities.

IPPs reached settlement agreements with defendants LG Chem, Ltd.,
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,and NEC Corporation in November 2016, December
2016, and January 2017, respectively. Those settlement agreements
included provisions that the distribution of the settlement funds,
net of attorneys' fees, costs, and taxes, would be distributed to
authorized claimants according to a distribution plan approved by
the Court.

A copy of Court's order granting Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of settlements with Hitachi, LG Chem, and
Nec dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/37WtCay at no extra charge.[CC]  

HOMEAWAY INC: Home Owners Agree to End Suit Over "Travelers Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that short-term home rental business HomeAway Inc.
and property owners who used the service have agreed to permanently
end a more-than-four-year proposed class action against the company
in a Texas federal court over hidden "travelers fees" charged to
vacationers. [GN]



HOTELS.COM: Schaubach Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Schaubach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOTELS.COM, L.P., EXPEDIA GROUP,
INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-02370 (C.D. Cal., December 17, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and
violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to maintain reasonable
security controls and systems appropriate for the nature of the
personally identifiable information (PII) they handle following a
data breach that occurred on or about November 9, 2020. Due to the
incident, PII of the Defendants' customers were exposed as the
personal information was not stored in a hashed or otherwise
secured format. The Defendants also failed to maintain proper
measures to detect hacking and intrusion and did not made public
statement or provided any notice regarding the hack and instead the
public has learned of such hack through public news sources.

As a result of the breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
been injured in several ways because they face an imminent and
ongoing risk of identity theft and similar cybercrimes, will expend
time and money to protect against such cybercrimes, and did not
receive the benefit of their bargain with respect to data privacy.

Hotels.com, L.P. is a company that provides online booking services
for hotel, with its headquarters in Washington.

Expedia Group, Inc. is an American online travel shopping company
for consumer and small business travel, with its headquarters in
Washington.

Amazon Web Services Inc. is a provider of cloud computing services,
with its headquarters in Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         Meghan E. George, Esq.
         Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 twheeler@toddflaw.com

HP INC: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Firmware Updates on Printers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING CORP. and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE & TIRE CENTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HP, INC.
d/b/a HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-09157 (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California
Unfair Competition Law, and for trespass to chattels.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted firmware
updates to its printers over the Internet without authorization.
The updates act as malware which diminishes the capabilities of HP
printers to use competitors' ink and toner supplies.

As a result of the Defendant's malware, HP printer owners who
lawfully use significantly less expensive ink or toner purchased
from third parties are forced to buy HP cartridges, which HP sells
at substantial premiums, or they are deprived of the use of their
printers until third parties can develop work arounds to again
offer products in competition with HP. HP harms competition because
it deprives its printer users of the choice whether to purchase
more expensive HP supplies or the less expensive supplies of lawful
competitors.

Mobile Emergency Housing Corp. is a provider of mobile housing
solutions, with its principal place of business in Farmingdale, New
York.

Track Rat Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Performance
Automotive & Tire Center, is an automobile repair shop, with its
principal place of business in Mesa, Arizona.

HP, Inc., doing business as HP Computing and Printing Inc., is a
multinational information technology company, with its principal
place of business located at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
         JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
         480 S. Ellsworth Ave.
         San Mateo, CA 94401
         Telephone: (650) 781-8000
         Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
         E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

                  - and –

         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
         77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 440-0020
         Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

HP INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of HP
Inc. ("HP" or the "Company") (NYSE: HPQ). Such investors are
advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether HP and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

On June 21, 2016, HP announced an overhaul to its Printing sales
model and revealed that it would reduce the Supplies channel
inventory by $450 million in Supplies revenue over the remainder of
2016. On this news, HP's stock price fell $0.72 per share, or 5.4%,
to close at $12.61 per share on June 22, 2016.

More than four years later, on September 30, 2020, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued a press release,
announcing charges against HP "for misleading investors by failing
to disclose the impact of sales practices undertaken to meet
quarterly sales and earnings targets." Specifically, the SEC stated
that "from early 2015 through the middle of 2016, in an effort to
meet quarterly sales targets, regional managers at HP used a
variety of incentives to accelerate, or 'pull-in' to the current
quarter, sales of printing supplies that they otherwise expected to
materialize in later quarters." The press release further stated
that "HP has agreed to pay $6 million to settle the charges." The
SEC's charges against HP revealed that while the Company's June 21,
2016 announcement had attributed its channel inventory issues and
revenue and margin reductions to unfavorable currency impacts,
competitive pricing pressure, and a change in inventory modeling,
HP had in reality engaged in improper channel inventory management
and sales practices.

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.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Kona EV Owners to File 2nd Class Action Over Fires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. S. Shin, writing for Korea Bizwire, reports that about 100
owners of Hyundai Motor Co.'s Kona electric vehicle (EV), for which
the South Korean carmaker recently made a recall following a string
of fires, are set to file a second class action lawsuit by the end
of December.

The Kona EV owners plan to submit a complaint to the court by the
end of this month, demanding compensation of 2 million won
(US$1,800) per person for the decline in the value of their
vehicles

This class action lawsuit comes after the 173 Kona EV owners filed
the first class action lawsuit against Hyundai last month.

Another reason for the owners' decision to file the class action
lawsuit is a string of battery problems that have continued even
after Hyundai's recall in October.

Some owners are also complaining that the charging time became
excessively long after the battery management system was updated to
strengthen the logic for inspection of safety when recharging
batteries.

Worse, rumors that Hyundai would stop producing the Kona EV are
generating more confusion and frustration among existing and
prospective Kona owners.

Hyundai rolled out a facelifted Kona model in the domestic market
in October but excluded the Kona EV from its lineup. The carmaker
plans to release the facelifted model in Europe.

This move ignited rumors that Hyundai would stop sales of the Kona
EV in the domestic market. [GN]


I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL: Rainge Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.Q. Data
International, Inc. The case is styled as Theresa L. Rainge, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. I.Q. Data
International, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02518-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.,
Dec. 21, 2020).

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

IQ Data International, Inc. -- https://www.iqdata-inc.com/ -- has
been serving the collection needs of businesses and consumers since
1998. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com


IBA BUSINESS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IBA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-11238 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020) is brought by the
Plaintiff as a class action against the Defendant to seek for
damages pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a
result of its negligence and illegal conduct.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of illegally contacting her on
her cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or
around September 2018 in an attempt to solicit her to purchase its
services. The Defendants purported used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" in placing its calls without the Plaintiff's and
other similarly situated consumer's "prior express consent" to
receive such ATDS calls, thereby causing them to incur certain
charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously
paid, and invading their privacy.

IBA Business Solutions, LLC is a business lending company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIENDMAN, 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


IICOMBINED USA: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IICombined U.S.A.
Inc. The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. IICombined U.S.A.
Inc., doing business as: Gentle Monster, Case No. 1:20-cv-10651-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2020).

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

Iicombined -- http://iicombined.com/-- markets optical goods. The
Company sales eyeglasses, contact lenses, and other related
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDUSCO INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indusco
International, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Indusco
International, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10662 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17,
2020).

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

Indusco International, Inc. -- http://www.indusco.com/-- is a
plastic products supplier in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insight Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Insight Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10674 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Insight -- https://www.insight.com/en_US/home.html -- is a leading
provider of computer hardware, software, cloud solutions and IT
services to business, government, education and healthcare
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSU ACQUISITION: Li Sues Over Proposed Merger With MetroMile
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAN LI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INSU ACQUISITION CORP. II; DANIEL G. COHEN; JOHN C.
CHRYSTAL; SHEILA NICOLL; ANDREW HOHNS; and SASSON POSNER,
Defendants, Case No. 657106/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Dec.
17, 2020) is a stockholder class action on behalf of himself and
all other public stockholders of INSU Acquisition Corp. II against
INSU and INSU's Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty
as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell through INSU II Merger
Sub Corp. a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, the Company to
MetroMile, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

According to the complaint, on November 27, 2020, the Defendants
caused to be filed with the SEC the materially deficient
Registration Statement in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote
their INSU shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement is materially deficient and deprives
INSU stockholders of the information they need to make an
intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote
their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Registration
Statement omits and/or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process leading up to
the Proposed Transaction; (b) the financial projections for
MetroMile, provided by MetroMile to the INSU Board and the
Company's financial advisors J.P. Morgan's Equity Capital Markets
group, Wells Fargo, and Allen & Company, for use in its respective
financial valuations; and (c) financial valuation analyses, if any,
that were provided by the Company's Board, and/or J.P. Morgan's
Equity Capital Markets group. Wells Fargo, and Allen & Company.

Insu Acquisition Corp. II operates as a blank check company. The
Company aims to acquire one and more businesses and assets, via a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
and reorganization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626


JAKKS PACIFIC: Facing Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing a purported class action suit entitled, Brown v. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. et al.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Brown v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al) alleging that the Proxy
Statement issued in connection with the shareholder meeting held in
June 2020 contained misstatements regarding the manner in which
broker votes would be counted and that such votes were improperly
included in approving the Company's reverse stock split at the
meeting.

The Class Period is July 9, 2020.

The purported class action seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

JAKKS said, "Since the action was just commenced, however, we
cannot assure you of its outcome and cannot estimate the range of
any potential damage award."

JAKKS Pacific, Inc. develops, produces, and markets consumer and
related products worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Halloween. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Santa
Monica, California.

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Jefferson Capital Systems,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ynetta Johnson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:20-cv-01174 (W.D. Tex.,
Dec. 21, 2020).

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

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://www.myjcap.com/ -- is a
debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JELD-WEN: Bid to Reconsider Order Unsealing Expert Reports Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knight, et al. v.
Jeld-Wen, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-00850-JAG (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge John A. Gibney entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendants' motions asking the Court to
      reconsider its September 3, 2020 Order unsealing the
      plaintiffs' expert reports and related information
      containing information about the defendants' pricing
      practices pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      62.1;

   2. deferring disposition of the various motions to intervene
      for want of jurisdiction;

   3. deferring disposition of the plaintiffs' motions for
      preliminary settlement approval, conditional class
      certification, and approval of proposed notice; and

   4. directing the plaintiffs to resubmit proposed orders that
      preliminarily approve the settlement, conditionally
      certifying settlement classes, and approve the proposed
      notice within 14 days of this Order. The proposed orders
      shall provide for notice that makes the expert reports
      publicly available. The proposed orders shall also contain
      a schedule that includes the final approval hearing date,
      settlement objection deadlines, and the briefing schedules
      for final approval and subsequent motions regarding
      distribution and use of the settlement funds. The
      plaintiffs shall submit PDF and Word versions of the
      proposed orders.;

   5. directing any party wanted to withdraw from the settlement
      should notify the Court within 14 days of this Order; and

   6. directing the parties, within 21 days of this Order, to
      file supplemental briefs summarizing how this ruling
      affects the outstanding motions to seal. The supplemental
      briefs shall not exceed ten pages.

The Knight suit is consolidated in RE: INTERIOR MOLDED DOORS
INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation is related to lawsuit
RE: INTERIOR MOLDED DOORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
3:18-cv-00718-JAG (E.D. Va.).

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37ja1lX at no extra charge.[CC]

JENNIFER MCCOY PC: Maxwell Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE LAW OFFICE OF
JENNIFER MCCOY, P.C. The case is styled as Misty Maxwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER MCCOY, P.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-03239-JPH-DLP
(S.D. Ind., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

The Law Office of Jennifer McCoy --
https://www.jennifermccoylaw.com/ -- is a multi-state, full-service
evictions law firm representing landlords and property managers in
all matters pertaining to landlord/tenant law. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew A. Ault, Esq.
          AULT LAW OFFICE, LLC
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D2
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Phone: (317) 886-0948
          Fax: (317) 608-6294
          Email: andrewaultlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D-1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Phone: (317) 780-8300
          Fax: (317) 217-1320
          Email: John@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


JOLO INC: Bid to Certify Class Granted in Saad FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saad v. Jolo, Inc. d/b/a
Hurricane Betty's, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-11377 (D. Mass. Filed
July 22, 2020), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an order:


   1. granting Motion to Certify Class; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part Motion to Stay and
      Compel Arbitration. The motion is granted as to any and
      all claims arising on or after May 18, 2019, and denied as
      to all claims arising before May 18, 2019.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates an adult entertainment club.

JOYY INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of January 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) investors with losses in
excess of $250,000 to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Apr. 28, 2016 - Nov. 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 19, 2021
Visit: hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JOYY
Contact An Attorney Now: JOYY@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

JOYY Inc. (YY) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that: (1) JOYY had dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (3) the Company utilized these bots to effect a
round-tripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of
revenues; (4) the Company overstated its cash reserves; and (5) the
Company's recent acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to
benefit corporate insiders, including JOYY's co-founder, CEO, and
Chairman David Xueling Li, who set up Bigo.

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
Nov. 18, 2020 when research firm Muddy Waters Capital published a
scathing forensic report, "YY: You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Well .
. . Actually You Can." Muddy Waters accused JOYY of (1) being a
multibillion-dollar fraud, (2) massively overstating reported
revenues by engaging in improper round-tripping transactions, and
(3) massively overstating Bigo-related revenues and Bigo's
valuation to secretly enrich Li when JOYY, in March 2019, paid over
$1.4 billion for the remaining 68.5% of Bigo that JOYY did not
already own.

This news sent the price of JOYY American Depositary Shares
crashing lower on Nov. 18, 2020.

On Nov. 19, 2020 JOYY summarily denied Muddy Waters' report.
Instead of substantively refuting Muddy Waters' allegations, the
company stressed its $300 million stock buyback program and, the
next day, announced an additional dividend. Although these were
attempts to stabilize investor confidence, as at least one
sell-side analyst recognized, the price of JOYY shares has not
recovered.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving JOYY deceived
investors about the Company's true operations and financial
results," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are a JOYY investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding JOYY
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email JOYY@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

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


JOYY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 21 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. 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.

YY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11703&wire=1
KNDI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11703&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Joyy Inc. (NASDAQ:YY)

YY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 28, 2016 -
November 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11703&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Joyy
Inc. made materially 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.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)

KNDI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 15, 2019 -
November 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11703&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kandi artificially
inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party
transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers
that indicated those customers did not have an arms length
relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the
past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties
with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast
doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt
on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a
foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and
valuation; and (iv) 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]


JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, School District Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02383-RDM (M.D. Pa.,
December 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence and violations of the Pennsylvania
Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction and marketed them to vulnerable young population.
JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe. The Defendants also targeted the youth market by placing
vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis.

Riverside School District is a public school district in Lackawanna
County, Pennsylvania.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Enterprises LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Tracy A. Finken, Esq.
         Gregory Spizer, Esq.
         James M. Andris, Jr. Esq.
         ANAPOL WEISS
         One Logan Square
         130 N. 18th St., Suite 1600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 735-1130
         Facsimile: (215) 875-7701
         E-mail: tfinken@anapolweiss.com
                 gspizer@anapolweiss.com
                 jandris@anapolweiss.com

                 - and –

         Raymond C. Rinaldi, II Esq.
         Fred P. Rinaldi, Esq.
         RINALDI & POVEROMO, PC
         520 Spruce Street
         Scranton, PA 18503
         Telephone: (570) 346-7441
         Facsimile: (570) 346-8170
         E-mail: fpr@lawinpa.com
                 rcrii@lawinpa.com

KEVIN DAVIS: Plumbers & Pipefitters Seek Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS
NATIONAL PENSION FUND and JUAN FRANCISCO NIEVES, as Trustee of the
Gonzalez Coronado Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. KEVIN DAVIS and AMIR ROSENTHAL, Case No.
1:16-cv-03591-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund moves this Court for an Order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rules
      23(a), (b)(3) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure, on behalf of:

      "all persons and entities that purchased or acquired the
      common stock of Performance Sports Group ("PSG")
      on the New York Stock Exchange from January 15,
      2015 through October 28, 2016, inclusive,
      and were damaged thereby;"

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants; the officers
      and directors of the Company, at all relevant times;
      members of their immediate families; their legal
      representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any
      entity in which the Defendants or PSG have or had a
      controlling interest;

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class
      Counsel.

This securities fraud class action, brought pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arises out
of the Defendants material misstatements and omissions during the
Class Period concerning the nature and sources of PSG's growth and
attendant risks and adverse material trends.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KpOcIv at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle St., Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357-0370
          Facsimile: (312) 357-0369

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          Megan K. Kistler, Esq.
          Joshua C. Handelsman, Esq.
          1100 New York Avenue N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-3640
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699

               - and -

          Louis P. Malone III, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 362-0041
          Facsimile: (202) 362-2640

KROGER COMPANY: Asks Court to Reconsider Nov. 9 Class Cert. Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER
COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-02320-JM-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Kroger Company
moves the Court for reconsideration of its decision dated November
9, 2020, granting Hawkins's motion for class certification.

The Defendant contends that because the Court's jurisdictional
analysis has been called into question by the Ninth Circuit's
recent decision in Harris and because the Court failed to conduct
the required analysis of Hawkins's experts' testimony under the
Daubert standard, Kroger requests that this Court reconsider its
November 9, 2020 Order and decline Hawkins's Motion for Class
Certification.

The Court's decision dated November 9, 2020, certified a class of:

   "all citizens of California who purchased, between January 1,
   2010 and December 31, 2015, Kroger Bread Crumb containing
   partially hydrogenated oil and the front label claim "0g
   Trans Fat."

The Plaintiff clearly and repeatedly states, under oath, that she
relied on the "0g Trans Fat" label on Kroger's breadcrumbs in her
decision to purchase them. The lack of details as to why, when, and
how much she relied on the "0g Trans Fat" label is not a good
enough reason to conclusively decide, in a motion for class
certification, that Plaintiff is not credible, especially where
Kroger apparently failed to develop the record on this issue.

The Plaintiff purchased Kroger breadcrumbs in San Diego about six
times per year from 2000 to July of 2015. She purchased the
breadcrumbs for use in her weekly family meatloaf. "During much of
the class period," the breadcrumbs were made with partially
hydrogenated oil ("PHO"), but displayed "0g Trans Fat" on the front
label. PHO is artificial trans fat. Kroger admits that because the
breadcrumbs contained PHO, they contained "trace amounts" of trans
fat. Kroger also claims, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that the
back label of the breadcrumbs listed PHO as an ingredient as early
as 2005.

Kroger is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in
1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the United States' largest
supermarket by revenue, and the second-largest general retailer.

A copy of the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of order
granting class certification dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JJAwaU at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant The Kroger Company:

          Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
          Nicole S. Phillis, Esq.
          Heather F. Canner, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: jharper@dwt.com
                  nicolephillis@dwt.com
                  heathercanner@dwt.com

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Capp Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Charles Capp, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JOE W. MAY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KUSHCO
HOLDINGS, INC., NICHOLAS KOVACEVICH, CHRISTOPHER TEDFORD, JIM
MCCORMICK, and CHRIS MARTIN, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired KushCo
securities between July 13, 2017 and April 9, 2019, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, the
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) KushCo made material
accounting errors in connection with its acquisitions of CMP
Wellness, Summit, and Hybrid; (ii) as a result, KushCo's previously
issued financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended
August 31, 2018 and August 31, 2017, included in the Company's
Annual Reports on Form 10-K for such periods, and financial
statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended May 31, 2017,
November 30, 2017, February 28, 2018, May 31, 2018 and November 30,
2018, included in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for
such periods, could not be relied upon; (iii) KushCo's net loss for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2018, was more than twice as high
than previously reported; (iv) KushCo and its management’s
assurances that its financial statements for those fiscal years and
periods were accurate and fairly reported could not be relied upon;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 2, 2020, granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss
with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Capp, et al. v. KushCo
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-56321, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 15, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Charles Capp, Mun Fye Chang and Richard Diamond
Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 22, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 14, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 12, 2021;

   -- Appellants Charles Capp, Mun Fye Chang and Richard Diamond
opening brief is due on March 24, 2021;

   -- Appellees Nicholas Kovacevich, KushCo Holdings, Inc., Chris
Martin, Jim McCormick, RBSM LLP and Christopher Tedford answering
brief is due on April 26, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLES CAPP, MUN FYE CHANG, and RICHARD
DIAMOND, Lead plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
          Gonen Haklay, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046

Defendants-Appellees KUSHCO HOLDINGS, INC., NICHOLAS KOVACEVICH,
CHRISTOPHER TEDFORD, JIM MCCORMICK, CHRIS MARTIN, and RBSM LLP are
represented by:

          Glenn Vanzura, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-5109
          E-mail: gvanzura@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          David Youngwoo Choi, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 415-7206
          E-mail: dchoi@goldbergsegalla.com  

LALICIOUS LLC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LaLicious LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. LaLicious LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10704
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

LALICIOUS -- https://www.lalicious.com/ -- is a thriving luxurious
natural beauty brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


LAND AIR EXPRESS: Chain, et al. WARN Act Class Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR J. CHAIN, JR.,
PETER HAYWARD, GILBERT LEWIS, ANTHONY L. PLATONI, AND OWEN TAYLOR
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NORTH
EAST FREIGHTWAYS, INC. D/B/A LAND AIR EXPRESS, LAX, LLC AND
LAND-AIR EXPRESS OF NEW ENGLAND, LTD., Case No. 7:16-cv-03371-JCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Judith C. McCarthy entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' federal and New York federal
      Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN
      Acts) claims; and

   2. mooting the Defendants' motion to decertify Plaintiffs'
      proposed class.

Judge McCarthy concludes and recommends to the Honorable Vincent L.
Briccetti that the default judgment entered against Land-Air on
August 22, 2016, be vacated and the action be dismissed against
it.

On May 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs commenced the action against
Land-Air seeking damages pursuant to the federal WARN Act, the New
York WARN Act and the New Jersey WARN Act. On August 22, 2016, the
Honorable Vincent L. Briccetti entered a default judgment against
Land-Air for failing to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nIdLTx at no
extra charge.[CC]

LANDRY'S INC: Leger FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RITA LEGER, RAYMOND ALLEN, DIYANA VALKANOVA,
CHRISTINE CHENH, ANTHONY DICH, FELICIDAD RITER, individually and on
behalf of other members similarly situated v. LANDRY'S INC., dba
GOLDEN NUGGET and DOES 1 through 25, Case No. A-20-824753-C, was
removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County,
Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on
December 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Landry's Inc., doing business as Golden Nugget, is an American,
privately owned, multi-brand dining, hospitality, entertainment and
gaming corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Kirsten A. Milton, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Telephone: (702) 921-2460
         Facsimile: (702) 921-2461
         E-mail: Kirsten.milton@jacksonlewis.com

LAUREATE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McDaniel Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYMONE MCDANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE LAUREATE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01870-BHL (E.D. Wis., Dec. 18, 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.

Plaintiff McDaniel was employed by the Defendant as resident aide.

The Laureate Group Inc was founded in 1969. The company's line of
business includes the operation of apartment buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


LEDGER: Users Mull Class Action Over Personal Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Turner Wright, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that the hacker
that breached hardware wallet provider Ledger's marketing database
earlier this year has released personal data for thousands of
users, prompting many to threaten the firm with a class-action
lawsuit.

According to a tweet from network security firm Hudson Rock's Alon
Gal, a hacker allegedly behind the breach of personal data from
hardware wallet Ledger in June has made all the information they
obtained available online. This reportedly includes 1,075,382 email
addresses from users subscribed to the Ledger newsletter, and
272,853 hardware wallet orders with information including email
addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers.

"This leak holds major risk to the people affected by it," said
Gal. "Individuals who purchased a Ledger tend to have high net
worth in cryptocurrencies and will now be subject to both cyber
harassments as well as physical harassments in a larger scale than
experienced before."

In a response on Twitter, Ledger said "early signs" seemed to
confirm that the released information was from the June data breach
that compromised the personal data of many of its users. Following
news of the hack, many Ledger users reported being targeted through
phishing attempts. Some said they received convincing-looking
emails asking them to download a new version of the Ledger
software.

"We are continuously working with law enforcement to prosecute
hackers and stop these scammers," said Ledger. "We have taken down
more than 170 phishing websites since the original breach."

After experiencing months of reports on phishing attacks, many
users were seemingly unsatisfied with Ledger's response.

"If any lawyers want to start a class action suit, I'm sure many of
us will jump on board," said Twitter user Ryan Olah. "This has just
gotten 10,000x worse now."

Though someone's tokens are most likely not in danger of being
siphoned out of Ledger wallets, users could potentially compromise
their own funds by falling for such phishing attempts sent to the
affected emails or phone numbers. Many have reported that such
attacks have been trying to trick them into giving up their seed
phrases, prompting Ledger to reiterate:  

"Never share the 24 words of your recovery phrase with anyone, even
if they are pretending to be a representative of Ledger. Ledger
will never ask you for them. Ledger will never contact you via text
messages or phone call."

However, some Ledger users pointed out that phishing attacks are
just one possible threat they may face now that their physical
addresses are public. People with a large amount of crypto holdings
run the risk of being kidnapped and held until they give up their
tokens, as was the case with Singaporean entrepreneur Mark Cheng in
January.

"This is a serious breach and I am concerned that people now have
our addresses," said Twitter user Paul Smith. "What's stopping them
from knocking on our doors? Saying sorry, frankly, isn't enough."
[GN]


LHC GROUP: Conditional Class Status Partly Granted in Farmer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA FARMER, et al., v.
LHC GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03838-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge James L. Graham entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Pre-
      Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
      Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs
      Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

      -- The Court grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion as it
         relates to conditional certification, and this action
         is conditionally certified as an FLSA collective action
         pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of Named
         Plaintiffs;

      -- The Court overrules the Defendant's objections to the
         Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent in part and
         sustains the Defendant's objections in part and
         therefore denies the Plaintiffs' motion in part
         concerning the proposed Notice and Consent to join
         forms to the Plaintiffs' motion; and

         The parties must meet and confer to produce a Joint
         Proposed Notice and Consent that comports with the
         conditions outlined in this Opinion and Order on or
         before January 8, 2021;

   2. directing the Defendant, within 21 days of this Opinion
      and Order, to provide the Plaintiffs with a roster of all
      putative collective members who fit the following
      definition:

      "all current and former Ohio hourly employees of Defendant
      who have: (1) provided companionship services, domestic
      services, home care, and/or other in-home services; (2)
      traveled to multiple clients' homes in the same day; and
      (3) worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks
      during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion
      and continuing through the final disposition of this
      case;"

      -- The roster shall include putative plaintiffs' full
         names, their dates of employment, job titles, their
         last known home addresses, phone numbers, and their
         personal email addresses; and

   3. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel or their vendor, No
      later than 14 days following the Court's approval of a
      Joint Proposed Notice and Consent, to transmit the Court-
      approved Notice and Consent to Join forms to all putative
      collective members using the putative collective members'
      mailing and email addresses.

The Court said, "The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' proposed
class definition is overbroad, because it includes employees from
all over Ohio rather than just the Columbus and Toledo locations
where the Named Plaintiffs are or were employed. The Court finds
this argument unavailing, as the Defendant is unable to support its
contention that the Court should limit the class to the Columbus
and Toledo locations."

The Defendant owns and operates various entities and businesses
offering in-home healthcare services throughout Ohio and other
states, including Cambridge, Caretenders, Comfort Home Health Care,
and Home Care by Blackstone.

The Defendant employs home health aides (HHAs), Certified Nursing
Assistants (CNAs), State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs),
Registered Nurses (Rns), and other caregiving positions who are
responsible for providing in-home healthcare services, such as
companionship services, domestic services, home care, and other
in-home services.

The Plaintiff Shana Farmer is employed as an HHA for one of
Defendant's business entities, Home Care by Blackstone, in
Worthington, Ohio providing caregiver services for the Defendant's
clients. The Plaintiff Kyna Moore worked as an HHA for Home Care by
Blackstone from December 2018 to February 2020, providing similar
caregiver services in Toledo, Ohio and traveled to and from client
residences in Northwest Ohio. Both Named Plaintiffs work or worked
for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt employees. Both claim that they
and others similarly situated were required, as part of their
employment, to drive to clients' homes to offer in-home caregiver
services. Both further claim that the Defendant failed to
compensate them and others similarly situated for their travel time
between client residences.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Krr10r at no
extra charge.[CC]

LION AIR: Class Action Lawyers Want Jayne to Stop Selling Clothes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerosly Johnson, writing for Screnrant, reports that Erika Jayne's
latest cash grab might get snatched away as a result of her
husband's pending lawsuits. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills
star has been selling luxury pieces from her wardrobe online. But a
judge involved with her embezzlement lawsuit might force her to
shut it down.

It was just in November when the Bravo star filed for divorce from
her husband of 21 years. She and Tom Girardi appeared solid on the
show, despite their 30-year age gap and sharing no children
together. The coupe also had no prenup in place following their
1999 nuptials. While she has remained mum on the reason for their
split, reports have surfaced that claim the couple had an
unconventional marriage and had been living separately for some
time prior to their breakup. Aside from the cheating allegations
that were thrown at both parties, Tom became the center of two
lawsuits over allegations of bank fraud and embezzlement. Not only
was he targeted, but Erika was also named in the embezzlement case
due to allegations she was in cahoots with her husband in spending
money that was supposed to go to the family of plane crash victims.
Now as a result of the accusations, Erika's latest attempt to bring
in some extra dough might be halted.

Edelson PC law firm is representing the victims of the Lion Air
crash class-action lawsuit that recently froze Tom Girardi's
assets. As a result, they're requesting a judge to force Erika to
stop selling her clothes online. In legal documents obtained by
Page Six, the firm cites that, since Girardi's assets have been
frozen, the freeze should also apply to the Real Housewives star
due to the possibility Tom may have purchased the clothes for her.
Despite the couple being in the early proceedings of their divorce,
California's communal property laws still have them beholden
together, meaning anything she owns, the powerhouse attorney also
owns.

According to the recently filed documents, "the Court froze all of
Tom Girardi's assets, and that means all communal property is
frozen too." It continues with the demand that, "Erika Girardi must
stop selling her clothes." The court request comes after the
"XXPen$ive" singer promoted her online collection on Dec. 16
telling fans she was selling designer pieces she has hardly worn on
the secondhand site, Vestiaire Collective. She offered a 10 percent
discount while directing her Twitter followers to the site.

Not only does the law firm want Erika to stop selling the clothes,
but they're also demanding she hand over any money earned from the
sales made after the freeze was put in place. Meanwhile, her
estranged ex-husband is on the hook for three lawsuits: The one
from Edelson PC over alleged embezzlement, a ban fraud lawsuit from
Wells Fargo, and a lawsuit from his former firm partner Robert
Kreese who wants to dissolve their other business, 1126 Wilshire
Partnership. [GN]


LITIES CORP: Conditional Class Certification OK'd in Velasquez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA VELASQUEZ, et al.,
v. LITIES CORP., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04208-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield, entered an order:

  1. granting conditional certification of the collective
     defined as:

     "current and former non-exempt dishwashers, deliverymen,
     pizza-men, cooks, waiters/waitresses, cashiers, and
     managers employed at any time from June 2, 2017, to the
     present by: (1) Lities Corp. d/b/a Munch Time Diner and (2)
     Karikan Donut Corp. d/b/a Munch Time Diner, both located at
     21 E 170th St., Bronx, NY 10452."

   2. directing the Defendants, by December 21, 2020, to provide
     to the Plaintiffs a computer-readable list naming each
     potential member of the collective, including as to each
     the following information to the extent it is available:
     name, email address, last known mailing address, alternate
     address, telephone number, job title and dates of
     employment;

   3. directing the Plaintiffs to provide notice by U.S. mail,
     and in the alternative by email;

   4. directing the Defendants to post the notice in a
     conspicuous location at the Defendants' restaurant; and

   5. directing the parties to meet and confer to discuss where
     notice and the accompanying consent forms will be posted;

The Court said, "The opt-in period shall be 60 days. These
modifications shall be reflected in the Notice of Pendency and
Consent to Sue forms. The consent forms shall be sent to the
Plaintiffs' counsel. The deadline for fact discovery is hereby
extended from February 17, 2021, to March 17, 2021, solely to
permit discovery of opt-in Plaintiffs during the extended period.
For clarity, discovery of the five named Plaintiffs and Defendants
shall be completed by February 17, 2021, and only discovery
concerning opt-in Plaintiffs may take place after that
date up to and including March 17, 2021. A Second Amended CMP will
issue separately reflecting updated deadlines."

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JYpBdU at no extra charge.[CC]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Inaccurate Utility Billings
------------------------------------------------------------------
CNS reports that a man who sued the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power over inaccurate utility billings filed a lawsuit in
federal court today against the city over the way in which the city
attorney's office handled the case.

Antwon Jones, who was a plaintiff in a settlement in 2017 when the
DWP was forced to give refunds to customers after a massive billing
snafu, claims that city officials used him as an "unwitting pawn"
and conspired with Paradis Law Group, which he retained during the
first lawsuit.

The debacle prompted a class-action lawsuit that led to a
settlement requiring the DWP to reimburse customers about $67
million. The billing system in 2013 led to thousands of customers
receiving inaccurate bills, with some being wildly overcharged.

In the new suit, filed in Los Angeles, lawyers for Jones accuse the
city of Los Angeles, City Attorney Mike Feuer and two lawyers from
Feuer's office -- James Clark and Thomas Peters -- of conducting
"an egregious scheme and cover-up which defrauded Jones, violated
his civil rights, and wasted city funds."

Feuer said he hadn't yet reviewed the entire complaint, "but it
just appears to be a rehash of old allegations. I can say
unequivocally that I have always acted with complete integrity, and
any allegation to the contrary is absolutely false. Period."

Jones alleges he was "the victim of fraud, corruption and a massive
government cover-up, which violated his constitutional rights and
cost taxpayers like himself millions of dollars," according to his
attorney, Jeffrey Isaacs.

"He was exploited and betrayed by his own attorneys, who
individually benefited tremendously from their wrongdoing, and who
then conspired with city officials to conceal their malfeasance
from Mr. Jones, the Superior Court and ultimately the public for
the past five years," Isaacs alleged. "Through this lawsuit, Mr.
Jones seeks justice for himself as well as his fellow city
taxpayers."

Jones was among more than a million utility customers who were
overcharged in 2014 by LADWP. The system was implemented by the
global consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which the city had
contracted with in 2013.

At the time, according to the lawsuit, Jones was in his early 20s,
living in a one-bedroom apartment in Van Nuys, without a washer,
dryer, dishwasher or central air conditioning. His average LADWP
bill was $25 to $30 for a month. But in August 2014, he received an
LADWP bill for $1,374 for four months, averaging more than $340 per
month.

After complaining about LADWP online, Jones was contacted in late
2014 by New York attorney Paul Paradis about becoming a plaintiff
in a class- action lawsuit to be brought against the city and
LADWP. Jones signed a retainer agreement with Paradis and his law
firm, becoming their client, the lawsuit states.

Unbeknownst to Jones, Paradis and his co-counsel Paul Kiesel were
simultaneously retained by the city as it began moving forward with
a lawsuit against PwC relating to the implementation of the failed
billing system, according to the suit.

"This massive conflict of interest would be covered up by the
participants for approximately the next five years," Isaacs
alleged.

Jones' proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in April 2015. To
keep his participation in both suits a secret, Paradis recruited
Ohio attorney Jack Landskroner and Los Angeles attorney Michael
Libman to serve as counsel of record for Jones, according to the
suit, which says Paradis ghost-wrote the Jones v. City complaint
himself with the city's input.

The Superior Court approved the settlement in Jones v. City in
2017, with Landskroner and Libman receiving about $11.9 million in
attorney's fees even though they filed no motions, conducted no
discovery and engaged in no litigation, and although the settlement
was advantageous to the city and not particularly favorable to many
members of the settling class, according to the lawsuit, which
alleges Landskroner and Libman's fees were paid by the city.

"As is now well established, Paradis and the city had used Jones as
an unwitting pawn in procuring the fraudulent and collusive
settlement in the Jones v. City case," according to the plaintiff's
attorneys in the current suit. "But due to a cover-up that included
Paradis, Kiesel, Landskroner, Libman, Feuer, Clark, Peters and
others, the collusion and fraud underlying the settlement did not
come to light until 2019, when it was exposed by PwC in the course
of defending itself in City v. PwC.

"As a result of the cover-up, Jones was unaware of Paradis and the
city's malfeasance and the legal actions he would have had against
them until after those claims were barred by the statute of
limitations . . . The city thus deprived Jones of his
constitutional right to access to the courts," Jones' attorneys
allege.

Jones' lawsuit is being brought against the city to recoup the
damages and other monetary relief to which he was entitled and
would have received but for the city's alleged "violation of his
civil rights," according to Isaacs.

"Jones is also suing Feuer, Clark and Peters on behalf of
California taxpayers to require them to reimburse the city for
having caused it to illegally expend and waste taxpayer funds in
concealing and covering up their wrongdoing," he alleged. [GN]


LOVISA AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00598 (S.D. Ala., Dec. 16, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design and operate its Website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination in connection with the unlawful conduct
and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
Website, https://www.lovisa.com/, will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Lovisa America, LLC is a jewelry store in Bloomington, Minnesota
whose Website offers features allowing all consumers to access the
goods and services which it offers in connection with its physical
locations.[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

LUMOS PHARMA: Seeks Rehearing to Reconsider Opinion in Nguyen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumos Pharma Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company filed a
Petition for Rehearing en banc requesting reconsideration of
portions of the opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
and is awaiting the Court's determination concerning the petition.


On March 18, 2020, the Company, formerly known as NewLink Genetics
Corporation, merged Cyclone Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company, with what was then known as Lumos
Pharma, Inc., and has since been renamed "Lumos Pharma Sub, Inc."
and changed the name "NewLink Genetics Corporation" to "Lumos
Pharma, Inc."

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v.
NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545.

Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved
their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the
Securities Action.

On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against NewLink,
NewLink's former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and
NewLink's former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas
Vahanian.

The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to NewLink's
investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 14, 2017.

On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim,
without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018
to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in
their claims. On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities
laws against the Defendants.

Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and
efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused
losses to NewLink's investors.

The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NewLink's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the
Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for
failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case.

On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The
briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July
2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on October 21, 2019.

In an opinion dated July 13, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the second
amended complaint in part, vacated the district court's dismissal
of the second amended complaint in part, and remanded the matter to
the district court for further proceedings.

On August 6, 2020, the Company filed a Petition for Rehearing en
banc requesting reconsideration of portions of the opinion from the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals and is awaiting the Court's
determination concerning the petition.

The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action
vigorously.

Lumos Pharma Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company
operates as a stage biopharmaceutical development company
developing a treatment for CTD patients and their families. Lumos
Pharma offers therapies to patients afflicted with unmet medical
needs in severe, rare, and genetic diseases. The company is based
in Austin, Texas.

LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Lyft, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend two consolidated putative class action suits related to its
Initial Public Offering (IPO) Registration Statement.

Beginning in April 2019, several putative class actions have been
filed in California state and federal courts and a derivative
action has been filed in Delaware federal court against the
Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the
underwriters named in the IPO Registration Statement alleging
violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and other
causes of action in connection with the IPO.

The putative class actions have been consolidated into two putative
class actions, one in California state court and the other in
federal court.

On July 1, 2020, the California state court sustained in part and
overruled in part the Company's demurrer to the consolidated
complaint. The Company filed its answer to this consolidated
complaint on August 3, 2020.

On May 14, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in the California federal court case, and on
September 8, 2020, the federal court granted in part and denied in
part that motion. The Company filed its answer to this consolidated
complaint on October 2, 2020.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

The Company's chances of success on the merits are still uncertain
and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably
estimated.

Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers
ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in
San Francisco California.

MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Brownlee Files Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Management and
Training Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Aaron Brownlee,
Rogelio Regalado, Clifford Morgan, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Management and Training
Corporation, Grady Wallace, in his official and personal capacity,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Case No. 4:20-cv-01352-P
(N.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2020).

The nature of suit is Commerce Other Statutes for Prisoner Civil
Rights.

Management & Training Corporation or MTC --
https://www.mtctrains.com/ -- is a contractor that manages private
prisons and United States Job Corps centers, based in Centerville,
Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se:

          Aaron Brownlee, #2253385
          Rogelio Regalado, #2315237
          Clifford Morgan, #2253095
          Jacksboro, TX 76458
          TDCJ Lindsey State Jail
          1620 FM 3344
          PRO SE


MDL 2262: $68.6-Mil. Deal in Gelboim Antitrust Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Case No. 12-CV-1025 (NRB), MDL
No. 2262, Master File No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York grants the Bondholder Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Settlements with the Settling Defendants.

An action is pending before the Court styled Ellen Gelboim and
Linda Zacher v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., Case No. 1025
(NRB), consolidated in In Re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Litig.,
No. 11-md-2262-NRB ("Bondholder Action").  Gelboim and Zacher have
moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) for an
Order (a) granting final approval to the settlements with Barclays
Bank plc, UBS AG, HSBC Bank plc; Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup Inc.,
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPM"), Bank of
America Corp. and Bank of America, N.A ("BOA"), and The Royal Bank
of Scotland Group plc ("RBS"); (b) certifying the Settlement
Classes; granting final approval of the Plan of Allocation;
appointing Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At Law and Weinstein
Kitchenoff & Asher LLC as Counsel for the Settlement Classes; and
(e) granting final approval of the Notice.

On Dec. 16, 2020, following due notice to the Settlement Classes,
Judge Buchwald conducted a hearing to consider the motion.  She
finds that each of the Settlements is fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all members of the
respective Settlement Classes.  Accordingly, she grants final
approval of each of the Settlements and directs the Settlements'
consummation according to their terms.

She concludes that (i) the aggregate settlement funds totaled
$68.625 million, and consisted of the following: $7.1 million paid
by Barclays, $17.9 million paid by UBS, $11.1 million paid by HSBC,
$7.025 million paid by Citi, $6.25 million paid by JPM; $6.25
million paid by BOA, and $13 million paid by RBS; (i) the
Settlements are the result of vigorous arm's-length negotiations
undertaken in good faith; (iii) the Bondholder Action is likely to
involve contested and serious questions of law and fact, such that
the value of immediate monetary recovery outweigh the uncertain
possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive
litigation; and (iv) the judgment of the Counsel for the Settlement
Classes, and the reaction of the members of the Settlement Classes
to the Settlements, are entitled to great weight.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the
Settlements set forth in the Settlement Agreements.

The settlement class for Barclays is defined as follows: All
persons or entities (other than a Defendant and its employees,
affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries) that owned (including
beneficially in street name) U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Debt
Securities during the Class Period.

The settlement class for UBS is defined as follows: The Settlement
Class will be composed of all persons and entities (other than
defendants in the Bondholder Action and their affiliated persons
and entities) who owned (including beneficially or in street name)
any debt security that was assigned a unique identification number
by the CUSIP system, on which interest was payable at any time
between Aug. 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010, and where that interest was
payable at a rate expressly tied to the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate
(LIBOR-Based Debt Security).

The settlement class for HSBC is defined as follows: All persons or
entities (other than a Defendant and its employees, affiliates,
parents, and subsidiaries) that owned (including beneficially in
street name) U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Debt Securities during the
Class Period. U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Debt Securities means any
U.S. dollar-denominated debt security (a) that was assigned a
unique identification number by the CUSIP system; (b) on which
interest was payable at any time during the Class Period; and (c)
where that interest was payable at a rate expressly linked to U.S.
Dollar LIBOR (USD LIBOR).

The settlement class for Citi is defined as follows: All persons
and entities (other than defendants in the Bondholder Action and
their affiliated persons and entities) who owned (including
beneficially or in street name) any USD LIBOR-Based Debt Security
(defined below); provided, however, that any such securities that
were issued by any Defendant, including its subsidiaries and
affiliates, as obligor, are excluded from the definition of
LIBOR-Based Debt Security.

The settlement class for JPM and BOA is defined as follows: All
persons and entities (other than Defendants in the Action and their
affiliated persons and entities) who owned (including beneficially
or in street name) any USD LIBOR-Based Debt Security.

The settlement class for RBS is defined as follows: All persons and
entities (other than defendants in the Bondholder Action and their
affiliated persons and entities) who owned (including beneficially
or in street name) any debt security that was assigned a unique
identification number by the CUSIP system, on which interest was
payable at any time between Aug. 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010, and
where that interest was payable at a rate expressly tied to the
U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate (LIBOR-Based Debt Security).

The Judge finds that the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied
solely for the purpose of effectuating the Settlements.  The
certification of the Settlement Classes as provided is without
prejudice to, or waiver of the rights of any Defendant to contest
certification of any other class proposed in these actions (i.e.,
the actions included in the MDL).

Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
solely for settlement purposes, Morris and Morris LLC Counselors At
Law and Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC are designated as the
Counsel for the Settlement Classes.

The Class Notice is finally approved.  Upon review of the record,
the Judge finds that the forms and methods of notifying the members
of the Settlement Classes and their terms and conditions
constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances.
The Counsel for the Settlement Classes are awarded attorneys' fees
in the amount of $18,515,286, and reimbursement of expenses in the
amount of $817,237.03.  These amounts will be paid to the Class
Counsel from the Settlement Funds pursuant to the terms,
conditions, and obligations of the Settlement Agreements.

Plaintiffs Gelboim and Zacher are each awarded the sum of $25,000,
plus interest at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Funds,
as reasonable costs and expenses and as a service award directly
relating to their representation of the Bondholder Class.
Epiq is awarded reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$375,000.

The Judge approves and directs the implementation of all the terms
of the Settlements.  Without further order of the Court, the
Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any
of the provisions of the Settlement Agreements.

The Bondholder Action is dismissed, as well as all of the Released
Claims, as against any of the Released Parties by the Releasing
Parties, with prejudice.  The Parties are to bear their own costs,
except as otherwise provided in the Settlements.

The Court says there is no just reason for delay in the entry of
the Final Judgment and Order, and immediate entry by the Clerk of
the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/2LWtbpf from Leagle.com.


MENARD INC: Bid to Toss Consumer-Fraud Claims Denied in Earls Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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, v. MENARD, INC., and JOHN DOES 1–10, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00107-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D.
Peterson entered an order denying Menards' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs 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 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. Menards' arguments regarding these issues don't warrant
dismissal of plaintiffs' consumer-fraud claims, either."

The court granted Menards' motion to dismiss the consumer-fraud
claims in plaintiffs' original complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs failed to satisfy federal pleading standards. The
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as permitted by the court.

This proposed class action concerns promotional vouchers offered by
the Defendant Menards, 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. The
Plaintiffs 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.

A copy of  Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mg4EId at no
extra charge.[CC]

MERCEDES-BENZ: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY PINON, GARY C.
KLEIN, KIM BROWN, JOSHUA FRANKUM, DINEZ WEBSTER, and TODD BRYAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and DAIMLER AG, Case No. 1:18-cv-03984-MHC
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   a. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;

   b. preliminarily certifying a nationwide settlement class of:

      "all current and former owners and lessees of any
      Mercedes-Benz vehicle originally painted with 590 Mars Red
      paint and purchased or leased in the United States;

   c. directing Notice to the Class Members pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(e)(1);

   d. appointing Class Counsel for the Class Representatives and
      Class Members pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3); and

   f. scheduling a Final Approval hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)
      (2).

This motion is not opposed by the Defendants, Daimler AG and
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

The Parties have negotiated a proposed Settlement that offers
monetary reimbursement for Qualified Past Repairs and extended
warranty coverage for Qualified Future Repairs and that provides
direct benefits to current and former owners and lessees of over
72,500 Subject Vehicles sold and/or leased in the United States,
which likely will include over one hundred thousand individuals. In
short, the Pinon Plaintiffs allege that the Mars Red exterior
paint, including the clear coat, on certain Mercedes-Benz vehicles,
is susceptible to the Symptoms Alleged, including peeling, flaking,
bubbling, fading, discoloration, or poor adhesion. Pursuant to the
specified terms, including without limitation that Subject Vehicles
be, in most cases, fewer than 15 years from their original
in-service date or fewer than 150,000 miles, whichever comes first,
the proposed Settlement provides the proposed Class Members on a
sliding scale based on the Subject Vehicle's age and mileage (I)
reimbursement for past out-of-pocket costs for repair of issues
related to the Alleged 590 Mars Red Paint Defect and (ii) a
warranty extension to cover future costs related to the Alleged 590
Mars Red Paint Defect.

Additionally, the proposed Settlement provides a Qualified Future
Repair for proposed Class Members whose Subject Vehicles, on the
Notice Date of the Settlement, exceed the 15 years or 150,000 miles
limitations if the Pinon Plaintiffs or proposed Class Members
submit documentary evidence that they (i) presented the Subject
Vehicle to an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer or body repair
facility for a qualifying repair or provided notice to the
Defendants.

This case involves alleged defects in the manufacture, process,
materials, and workmanship of the Subject Vehicles, and it includes
allegations regarding misleading marketing, advertising,
warranting, selling, and servicing of the
Mercedes-Benz vehicles with 590 Mars Red exterior paint. The Pinon
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants knowingly concealed that the
590 Mars Red paint on the Subject Vehicles has a latent defect that
causes the Symptoms Alleged.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
proposed class action settlement dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pr3zj3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Pinon Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Counsel, are:

          James F. McDonough, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
          Travis E. Lynch, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0869,-0863,-0867
          Facsimile: (205) 326-5502,-5506,-5515
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jmiller@hgdlawfirm.com
                  tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          K. Stephen Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON & TUCKER, PC
          2229 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 252-3535
          Facsimile: (205) 252-3536
          E-mail: steve@jacksonandtucker.com

MERIDIAN PRIME: Timberg Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMEUL TIMBERG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ROSS TOOMBS, and MERIDIAN PRIME, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06060 (E.D.N.Y., December 12, 2020)
brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant
for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
November 4, 2013 as a managing director.

The Plaintiff claims that although he constantly worked in excess
of 65 hours, he was not properly compensated by the Defendants for
all hours he worked. The Defendants willfully and intentionally
failed to pay him minimum wage for each hours worked and overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to pay his wages from October 30,
2018, and then multiple times from January 15, 2019 to October 31,
2019 in the total amount of $53,600;

     -- The Defendants failed to reimburse his expenses associated
with his employment in the amount of $41,091; and

     -- The Defendants failed to repay monies borrowed from him ad
used in association with and for the benefit of the Defendants in
the amount of $11,560.

Meridian Prime operates a wine import business owned and managed by
Ross Toombs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HUI CHEN
             & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Tel: (718) 463-2666


MICHAEL J. ADAMS: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael J. Adams, PC.
The case is styled as Jordan Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Michael J. Adams, PC., Case No.
4:20-cv-04305 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Michael J Adams PC -- https://mjapclaw.com/ -- is a debt collection
law firm providing collection services to its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


MICROSOFT CORP: No Receipts Needed for Class-Action Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that if you bought any PC versions of Microsoft
software between 1998 and 2010, you might be eligible for
compensation. And depending on the size of your claim, you won't
even need a receipt. The lawsuit alleged that Microsoft and
Microsoft Canada were involved in a conspiracy to illegally
increase prices for the company's products. Microsoft agreed to a
settlement -- capped at $517 million -- but denies any wrongdoing
and has not admitted liability. [GN]



MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Hossain FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as MOSHARRAF M. HOSSAIN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-18234-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.,
Dec. 5, 2020).

The case alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and is assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. provides debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Leyland Gentile
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com  

MLS PROPERTY: Bauman Suit Alleges Commission Price Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARY BAUMAN; MARY JANE BAUMAN; and JENNIFER NOSALEK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MLS
PROPERTY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC.; REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.;
HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.; BHH AFFILIATES, LLC; HSF AFFILIATES,
LLC; RE/MAX LLC; and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-12244 (D. Mass., Dec. 17, 2020) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are individuals who sold
their home in Massachusetts using the local multiple listing
service ("MLS") Pinergy. As a condition of listing their home on
this MLS, the Plaintiffs had to include in their listing a single,
set offer of compensation to any broker who found a buyer for their
home (the "Buyer-Broker Commission Rule").

The Plaintiffs then paid that offer amount as a commission in
connection with the sale of their home. This requirement that a
seller must offer a set commission to the successful buyer-broker
in order for their property to be listed on Pinergy is
anticompetitive and causes sellers to pay artificially inflated,
supra-competitive commission rates.

MLS Property Information Network, Inc. provides property listing
solutions for real estate professionals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: dneedham@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  cbarrett@ikrlaw.com


MORGAN & MORGAN: Denial of Bid to Disqualify Affirmed in Hawthorne
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirms the trial court's denial
of the motion for disqualification in the lawsuit styled APRIL
HAWTHORNE v. MORGAN & MORGAN NASHVILLE PLLC, ET AL., Case No.
W2020-01495-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. App.).

A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was
filed in the Court following the denial of a motion that sought the
disqualification of trial court judge Chancellor Jim Kyle. The
Appellate Court affirms the trial court's denial of the motion.

The appeal is an accelerated interlocutory appeal filed pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. It arises out of litigation in
the Shelby County Chancery Court, where the Appellee/Respondent,
April Hawthorne, filed a proposed class action lawsuit asserting
claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent
supervision, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
punitive damages.

The lawsuit was brought against attorneys, who had represented Ms.
Hawthorne and others in a prior class action case in Chancery
Court, one that concerned the mishandling of human remains at the
Galilee Memorial Gardens cemetery. In her first amended complaint
in the Malpractice Suit, Ms. Hawthorne asserted that the named
Defendant attorneys, along with their corporate affiliates,
recklessly considered themselves to be infallible and wielded total
control of the Galilee Class Action and egregiously and inexcusably
refused to entertain, respond to, and accept over $25 million
dollars in settlement offers made by the Funeral Home Defendants
during the trial of the Galilee Class Action.

According to a subsequently-filed second amended complaint in the
Malpractice Suit, wherein it appears that an attempt was made to
recast the amount and nature of the damages at issue in the case,
Ms. Hawthorne specifically charged that the Defendants had
egregiously and inexcusably refused to entertain, respond to, and
accept over $14.475 million in settlement offers made by the
Funeral Home Defendants during the trial of the Galilee Class
Action, leading Plaintiff and the Class Members to suffer
$11,124,250 in liquidated damages.

Although the Malpractice Suit was originally assigned to Part I of
the Shelby County Chancery Court, it was subsequently transferred
to Part II. Of note, Part II of the Shelby County Chancery Court is
currently presided over by Chancellor Jim Kyle, the same
Chancellor, who oversaw the prior Galilee Class Action litigation.
This proved to be a point of contention for the named Defendants in
the Malpractice Suit, who filed a "Motion for Disqualification of
Judge" seeking Chancellor Kyle's recusal.

In pertinent part, the Defendants' motion for disqualification
stated that Chancellor Kyle had personal knowledge of facts, which
were in dispute and that, because of his personal involvement in
the Galilee Class Action litigation, he was likely to be a witness
in the Malpractice Suit. Ms. Hawthorne filed a response in
opposition to the motion, and later, on Oct. 9, 2020, the trial
court judge entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
disqualification.

In relevant part, the denial order held that the trial court is
unable to provide any testimony regarding the attorneys' actions in
negotiating settlements because all of these negotiations took
place outside of the courtroom. Accordingly, the trial court said
it has no personal knowledge of the disputed settlements at issue
in the case. Because a witness may not be called to testify unless
the witness has personal knowledge of the matter, it is the trial
court's opinion that it cannot be called as a material witness in
the case.

The present appeal followed when the Defendants in the Malpractice
Suit, the Appellants, filed a petition for recusal appeal in the
Court on Oct. 30, 2020, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
10B. On Nov. 3, 2020, the Court entered an order directing Ms.
Hawthorne to file an answer to the petition. That answer having
since been filed and, further, being of the opinion that the
parties' submissions are sufficient to foster a review of thie
matter, the Appellate Court proceed to adjudicate the appeal
without oral argument.

In order to prove damages in a malpractice suit, the Plaintiff must
prove that he would have obtained relief in the underlying lawsuit,
but for the attorney's malpractice; consequently, the trial of a
legal malpractice claim becomes, in effect, a trial within a trial,
according to the Appellate Court's Opinion, citing Shearon v.
Seaman (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

No doubt, the assertion in the case is that favorable settlements
in underlying lawsuit would have been achieved absent the
Defendants' negligence, says Judge Arnold B. Goldin, writing for
the Panel. Clearly, therefore, that is part of the case Ms.
Hawthorne must establish in her "trial within a trial."

In the Appellate Court's view, however, the jury is not in a
position to make the determination of whether any alleged
settlements would have been approved in the underlying litigation.
That question is for the court, not the jurors as factfinders, and
therefore, there is no basis to solicit supposed factual testimony
from Chancellor Kyle on the question. He does not need to testify,
Judge Goldin says.

Judge Goldin states that the Panel reached its conclusion on the
issue as a result of the duty that a trial judge has to approve
settlements in class actions. Indeed, it is not within the province
of a jury in the Malpractice Suit to find whether such a settlement
would have been approved because that would not have been a factual
question for the jury in the Galilee Class Action. Judge Goldin
adds that approval of a class action settlement is a discretionary
judicial function, citing In re Pacer Int'l, Inc., No.
M2015-00356-COA-R3-CV, (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2017).

Any approval of settlement offers would have been a discretionary
decision for the trial court to make in the Galilee Class Action,
according to the Opinion. It was a judicial decision, not a factual
determination. As such, the jury has no role in the Malpractice
Suit in determining that particular component of the case.
Therefore, the claimed need for Chancellor Kyle's testimony on the
subject is wholly without support, Judge Goldin adds.

The Appellate Court concludes that Chancellor Kyle will not likely
be a material witness in the litigation. Accordingly, the trial
court's denial of the "Motion for Disqualification of Judge" is
affirmed.

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., and JOHN W. McCLARTY, J., joined.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 17, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaj77v86 from Leagle.com.

Darrell G. Townsend -- dtownsend@howell-fisher.com -- Nashville,
Tennessee, for the Appellants, Morgan & Morgan Nashville
Management, Inc., Kathryn Elaine Barnett, Morgan & Morgan-Nashville
PLLC, Morgan & Morgan PA, and John Bryan Morgan.

John Timothy Edwards -- tedwards@bbfpc.com -- and Frank L. Watson,
III -- fwatson@watsonburns.com -- Memphis, Tennessee, for the
Appellee, April Hawthorne.


MORGAN STANLEY: MS&Co. Still Defends IPERS Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that MS&Co. continues to defend a purported antitrust class
action suit entitled, Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et
al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al.  

In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Iowa Public Employees'
Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number
of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust
laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged
efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based
platforms for securities lending.

The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants.

The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages.

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.

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

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. is a Delaware
limited partnership organized in 1991 to engage primarily in the
speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and
forward contracts, and forward contracts on physical commodities
and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to,
foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and
agricultural products . The company is based in New York, New York.

MV TRANSPORTATION: Bailey BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RENITA L. BAILEY, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated individuals v. MV
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 2020CH06846, was removed from the
Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on December 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07448 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to inform the
Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their biometrics were being
collected and stored, prior to such collection or storage; failing
to inform the specific purpose and length of term for which their
biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and used; and
failing to make a written policy with retention schedule detailing
the length of time for which the biometrics are stored and/or
guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics they store
publicly-available to the Plaintiff and the Class.

MV Transportation, Inc. is a privately-owned passenger
transportation contracting services firm based in Dallas, Texas.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: pmartin@littler.com

               - and –

         Jennifer L. Jones, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: jeljones@littler.com

NATIONAL CREDIT: Henson Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Maisha Henson, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11402 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2020).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc. -- https://www.ncirm.com/ -- provides
customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.
The Company offers outsourcing, including contingency collections,
first and third party, customer relationship management, attorney
network, and skip program services. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
          6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Phone: (310) 997-0471
          Fax: (866) 286-8433
          Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com



NATIONAL CREDIT: Wallace Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anayah Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Credit Control Agency, Inc. and John Does
1-25, Case No. 8:20-cv-02350 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2020) seeks to
recover damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act, arising from the Defendants' deceptive,
misleading and unfair debt collection practices.

According to the complaint, on or about May 6, 2020, the National
Credit sent Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged
debt owed to Barbizon Modeling. The letter states that the
collection account can remain on Plaintiff's credit profile for up
to seven years. The Plaintiff alleges that the statement is
deceptive since the debt can only be reported on a credit report
for seven years from the date of default which was well before May
6, 2020, making it impossible that her account would be reported
for seven years from that date.

The Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants' letter is a
deceptive tactic to coerce a payment on the debt by threatening her
with harm to her credit report for significantly longer than
allowable by law. Since the letter states that she must remit the
full amount to avoid "additional finance charges and further
collection activities," the Defendants misled and deceived her into
the belief that she falsely owed additional fees that were not
authorized by the agreement creating the debt nor permitted by law
when this charge is a violation of the FDCPA.

National Credit Control Agency, Inc. is a debt collection agency in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Nieves Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Recovery
Systems, Ltd. The case is styled as Jacob R. Nieves, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide
Recovery Systems, Ltd., Case No. 8:20-cv-03030-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 21, 2020).

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

Nationwide Recovery Systems (NRS) --
https://www.nationwiderecoverysystems.com/ -- is a nationally
recognized Accounts Receivable Management Company providing
services to the Healthcare, Commercial, and Consumer industries.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


NED LAMONT: Bid to Dismiss Wilkes Amended Class Suit Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS WILKES, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v.
NED LAMONT, GOVERNOR, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00594-JCH (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered an order denying in
part the Defendants' Motion to dismiss amended class action
complaint as to the Defendants' arguments concerning primary
jurisdiction doctrine and Colorado River abstention, and granting
in part as to the Defendants' arguments concerning habeas corpus.
The portion of the complaint petitioning for a writ of habeas
corpus is dismissed.

The court concludes that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust state
remedies should not be excused. On account of this conclusion, the
court need not address whether the plaintiffs' petition must be
brought under section 2241 or 2254. The defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is granted as the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, and the portion of the Amended Complaint petitioning for a
writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice to repleading
if changed circumstances during the pandemic give rise to a good
faith basis for arguing that exhaustion of state remedies should
not be required in this case. The court does not believe that this
aspect of this Ruling is appealable at this juncture in the case,
but the court notes its determination that it will not issue a
certificate of appealability once a final judgment is entered in
the case, because the plaintiffs have not "made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

The Plaintiffs, five people confined in psychiatric hospitals in
Connecticut, bring this action under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, section
1983 of title 42 of the U.S. Code, and section 2241 of title 28 of
the U.S. Code. They seek, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals, various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as a writ of habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs allege
in their Amended Class Action Complaint and Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus that the defendants, various state officials with
authority over the operation of Connecticut’s inpatient
psychiatric facilities, have not adopted adequate measures to
protect plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from the COVID-19
pandemic.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3mNTUBrat no extra charge.[CC]

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Must Face Class Action Over Involuntary ER Stays
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a federal judge has refused to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of psychiatric
patients who have been involuntarily held in hospital emergency
departments.

New Hampshire law requires hearings within three days to determine
whether such patients are dangerous. The state argues the clock
starts when someone is transferred to an inpatient facility. But in
a lawsuit filed in 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union argues
that the clock starts when someone arrives at the emergency room.

A federal judge on Dec. 18 denied the state's latest request to
dismiss the lawsuit, allowing it to proceed. [GN]


NEW JERSEY HEALTH: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.M., S.C., A.N., P.T.,
J.L., R.H., "JOHN DOE", "ROBERT DOE", T.W., M.K., and E.A.
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
v. SHEREEF M. ELNAHAL, M.D., M.B.A., Commissioner, New Jersey
Department of Health, in his official capacity, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-17303-ES-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on December 21, 2020, to enter an order:

   1. approving notice process for proposed class;

   2. preliminarily approving the parties' class action
settlement;

   3. appointing Lisa R. Considine, Esq. as a class counsel;

   4. appointing Ann Portas as class representatives; and

   5. scheduling a final fairness hearing pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).

The parties aver that the Settlement Agreement is the product of
extensive arms'-length negotiations and mediation between the
counsel for the parties in which the parties negotiated in good
faith to achieve the best reasonable settlement for their
respective clients.

The parties have entered into the Settlement Agreement voluntarily
and in order to avoid the expense, uncertainty and burden of
continued and protracted litigation.

The terms of the settlement, as memorialized in the Settlement
Agreement, are fair, adequate, reasonable and equitable to all
proposed Class members and are in the best interests of the
proposed Class.

The Defendants include CAROLE JOHNSON, Commissioner, New Jersey
Department of Human Services, in her official capacity; ELIZABETH
CONNOLLY, Acting Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Human
Services, in her official capacity; VALERIE L. MIELKE, M.S.W.,
Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Division of Mental Health and
Addiction Services, as an individual and in her official capacity;
TOMIKA CARTER, CEO, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, as an
individual and in her official capacity; TERESA A. McQUAIDE, Former
Acting CEO, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, as an individual
and in her official capacity; ROBERT EILERS, M.D., Medical
Director, New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Services, as an individual and in his official capacity; HARLAN M.
MELLK, M.D., Chief of Medicine, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; EVARISTO
O. AKERELE, M.D., Medical Director, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; LISA
CIASTON, ESQ., Legal Liaison, New Jersey Division of Mental Health
and Addiction Services, as an individual and in her official
capacity; SWANG S. OO, ESQ., Deputy Attorney General, State of New
Jersey, as an individual and in her official capacity; JAMES L.
FREY, Employee Relations Officer, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; GURBIR
GREWAL, ESQ., Attorney General, State of New Jersey, in his
official capacity; and PHILIP D. MURPHY, M.B.A., Governor, State of
New Jersey, in his official capacity.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' proposed order for preliminary approval
of a class action settlement dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qUYyk6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          DISABATO LAW
          196 Santiago Avenue
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 762-5088
          Facsimile: (973) 453-0338
          E-mail: lconsidine@disabatolaw.com
          ddisabato@disabatolaw.com


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Document Production in Local 3621 Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION, DC-37, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 4476 (LJL) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' two motions to compel production of documents.

The Plaintiffs, a union (Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO) and two employees of the New York City Fire
Department ("FDNY") bring the putative class action against the
City of New York, the FDNY, the Department of Citywide
Administrative Services, and several John and Jane Does, alleging
that employees in the FDNY's Emergency Medical Services Bureau who
seek promotions above the rank of lieutenant are subject to
disparate treatment and disparate impact based on impermissible
considerations.  The Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981 and 1983, and the New York State and New York City
Human Rights Laws.

Among the numerous disputes concerning class certification
discovery in the case, now before the Court are not one, but two
motions to compel filed by the Plaintiffs demanding that the
Defendants reproduce demographic data from Jan. 1, 2012, to the
present.  The Defendants respond that the Demographic Data they
have produced to date is sufficient for purposes of class
certification discovery and object to the Plaintiffs' demand to
reproduce, merge or reorganize data that has already been
produced.

The Plaintiffs dispute the Defendants' assertion that all of the
requested Demographic Data has been produced, pointing to the Dec.
11, 2020 deposition of the Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) witness,
Kamaldeep Deol. Specifically, the Plaintiffs refer to four open
questions about the Demographic Data discussed during Deol's
deposition: (1) Codes on the spreadsheets for which Defendants have
not provided a legend or description (the Spreadsheet Codes); (2)
235 employees who are included in the promotional history
spreadsheet but not in the snapshots (the 235 Employees); (3) 750
employees included in the annual snapshot spreadsheet but not in
the promotional history spreadsheet (the 750 Employees); and (4)
Duplicate entries in the spreadsheets containing data for ceased
employees (the Ceased Duplicates) (the Spreadsheet Codes, the 235
Employees, the 750 Employees, and the Ceased Duplicates, together,
the "Data Questions").

Magistrate Judge Cave declines to order the Defendants to search
for and produce Demographic Data from yet another database, in yet
another format, compiled by perhaps yet another individual,
particularly given that the Defendants have already made four
productions of Demographic Data.  That the Demographic Data is not
organized in precisely the format that the Plaintiffs would desire
is not a basis for imposing an additional burden on the Defendants
or an additional delay in the case.

Even if the Plaintiffs are correct that relevant Demographic Data
exists in another location or format, the Magistrate Judge finds
that it is appropriate to limit discovery because the Plaintiffs'
request is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative," and has been
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive.

The Magistrate Judge does find, however, that the Data Questions
raised during Deol's deposition are valid questions that the
Defendants should be able to answer without substantial burden.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge orders that the Defendants must
make inquiries about the Data Questions, meet-and-confer with the
Plaintiffs to provide answers to these questions, and provide a
Rule 30(b)(6) witness who must be prepared to testify with
knowledge on behalf of the Defendants about the Data Questions
during a deposition of no more than two hours in length.  The
witness who testifies regarding the Data Questions should not be
questioned about and will have no obligation to testify as a Rule
30(b)(6) witness on any topics other than the Data Questions.

For the reasons she set forth, Magistrate Judge Cave denied the
Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel the Demographic Data to the extent
they seek the production of the Demographic Data in another form;
but granted as to the Data Questions.  The parties are directed to
meet and confer regarding the Data Questions and the scheduling of
the Rule 30(b)(6) witness therefor.  The Clerk of Court is directed
to close the Motions at ECF Nos. 192 and 245.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Discovery Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3nzvJYo from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Pinto Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of New York, et
al. The case is captioned as Police Officer Vincent Pinto,
individually and on behalf of current and former New York City
Police Officers similarly situated and aggrieved by the Defendants
v. City of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-10154-CM (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3,
2020).

The case alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act and is assigned
to Judge Colleen McMahon.

Other Defendants include New York City Police Department; New York
City Police Pension Fund; John Does & Jane does names being
fictitious intended to be
officers/representatives/agents/servants/employees of City of NY,
NYC Police Dept & NYC Police Pension Fund in their respective
official capacity; ABC Agencies/Entities names being fictitious
intended to be agencies, departments, subsidiaries, companies,
organizations, affiliates, associations and/or entities of the City
of New York, the New York City Police Dept & the New York City
Police Dept.; and John Does & Jane Does names being fictitious
intended to be officers/representatives/agents/servants/employees
of City of NY, NYC Police Dept & NYC Police Pension Fund,
individually. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Lloyd Drummond, Esq.
          DRUMMOND & SQUILLANCE, PLLC
          175-61 Hillside Avenue Ste. 205
          Jamaica, NY 11432
          Telephone: (718) 298-5050
          Facsimile: (718) 298-5554
          E-mail: sdrummond@dswinlaw.com

               - and -

          JoAnn Squillace, Esq.
          DRUMMOND & CRAWFORD, P.C.,
          221-10 Jamaica Avenue, Suite 106-108
          Queens Village, NY 11428
          Telephone: (516) 599-8585
          Facsimile: (516) 599-0144
          E-mail: jsquillace.drummondcrawford@verizon.net   

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North America,
Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10677 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Nissan's North American -- https://www.nissanusa.com/ -- operations
include automotive styling, engineering, consumer and corporate
financing, sales and marketing, distribution and manufacturing for
the United States, Canada, and Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Dec. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK) from December 21, 2017
through November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble
Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the
public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project
would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public;
(3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble
Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 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.

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.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:

Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in New Jersey Carpenters' Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the court's order approving
the settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, is still pending.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation (NMFC) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
(affiliated defendants) and several unaffiliated investment banks
and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
alleging that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false
statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for
securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members.


On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the
Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the
court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice
and without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit (the "Appellate Court") reversed the judgment of the lower
court, which had dismissed the case.

Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court
which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class
representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in
which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded
the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers.

The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017. One member of the
settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of
the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not
receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely
opt out of the class.  

After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed
an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings
pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.  

Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum
and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice.

Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019 and their opening brief was filed on June 28,
2019. The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the
objector replied on October 18, 2019. Oral argument was held on
February 19, 2020.

Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final,
which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company
believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."

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

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.

O.J. SMITH: Certification of FLSA/NCWHA Collective, Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying
a combined Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) class action represented by the
Plaintiff Victorino Felix Antonio, defined as:

   "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."

Greenleaf Nursery operates as a plant nursery. The Company owns and
operates nursery's that produce ornamental plants and other nursery
products including broadleaf evergreens, flowering and deciduous
shrubs, ornamental grasses, shrub roses, and fruit trees.

A copy of the joint motion for class certification dated Dec. 14,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37njfxC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          N.C. State Bar No. 10730
          P.O. Box 1828
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1763
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com

Attorneys for the Defendant Greenleaf Nursery Co., are:

          Caitlin M. Goforth, Esq.
          Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq .
          JACKSON LEWIS
          3737 Glenwood Ave., Suite 450
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 760-6460
          Facsimile: (919) 760-6461
          E-mail:Caitlin.Goforth@jacksonlewis.com
          E-mail: Stephanie.adler-paindiris@jacksonlewis.com

OJ SMITH: Court Approves Class Settlement Notice in Gonzalez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Plaintiffs 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, Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:20-cv-00086-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina approves
the Joint Motion by Plaintiffs Antonio, Manuel, and Hernandez, and
Defendant Greenleaf to Approve Notice to Class Action Members and
to Approve Method for Distributing Notice.

In support of their Joint Motion, the three Plaintiffs and
Greenleaf have filed a stipulated notice and method of
distribution.

Judge Flanagan finds that the proposed content and method of
distribution for the proposed Notice to Class Action Members of
Proposed Settlement with Greenleaf Nursery Co., Deadline for
Objections, and Opportunity to Withdraw are consistent with that
previously approved for use in other similar wage actions before
the federal courts of the state and other states.  They also appear
to be reasonably calculated to provide the best notice practicable
under the circumstances of the case.

The Judge, therefore, formally approves the content of the Notice
attached to the Joint Motion, as well as the method of distribution
for the Notices to class action members set out in the Joint
Motion.  The Notice will be distributed to the members of the class
previously certified by the Court within 30 days of the date of the
Order.  In addition, the Judge set the matter for fairness hearing
on the instant settlement on March 1, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2KQuHbU from Leagle.com.


ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ: Class Cert. Partly OK'd in Rizza G.A. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RIZZA JANE G.A., et al., on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated, v. ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05922-ES (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther
Salas entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Petitioners'
      motion for class certification;

   2. denying the Petitioners' motion for class certification
      with  respect to their substantive and procedural due
      process claims;

   3. granting the Petitioners' motion for class certification
      with respect to their claim that Respondents are violating
      the Accardi principle. The certified class shall consist
      of:

      "all individuals who, between commencement of this action
      and the entry of final judgment, are or have been held in
      civil immigration detention at Elizabeth Detention Center;

   4. appointing Rizza Jane G.A., Albert A.B., Hector G.M., Bob
      L.N., Camilo S.H., and Muhamed I.-S. as class
      representatives;

   5. appointing Lauren Major, Alina Das, Leila Kang, and
      Michael P. Daly as class counsel;

   6. directing the parties to file supplemental briefing
      addressing the issues set forth in the accompanying
      Opinion with respect to the remaining class claim that
      Respondents are violating the Accardi principle no later
      than three weeks after the entry of this Order;

   7. granting the motion for leave to participate as amici
      curiae in support of Petitioners' motion for a preliminary
      injunction filed by Mount Sinai Human Rights Program;
      Steering Committee for the New York Lawyers for the Public
      Interest's Medical Providers Network; White Coats For
      Black Lives; and individual health care professionals, Dr.
      Martin Blaser, Dr. Simone Blaser, Dr. Yaniv Fenig, Dr. Kim
      Strong Griswold, Dr. Laura Krinsky, Dr. Susan Lerner, Dr.
      Steven McDonald, Dr. Stephanie Mischell, and Dr. Aakash
      Shah; and

   8. denying in part without prejudice the Petitioners' amended
      habeas petition and motion for preliminary injunctive
      relief, to the individual Petitioners to file separate
      habeas petitions to advance their due process claims and
      obtain individual relief consistent with Chief Judge
      Wolfson's Standing Order 2020-10.

Under the Accardi Doctrine, federal agencies which do not follow
their own regulations or procedures run the risk of having their
actions invalidated if challenged in court.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Rzj8s at no extra charge.[CC]

P&B INTERMODAL: Underpays Mechanics, Smith Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. P&B INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03618-B (N.D. Tex., December 11, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal
Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
April 26, 2019 to approximately July 22, 2020 as a mechanic.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week. Although the Defendant paid him overtime at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked, the
Defendant failed to include bonuses paid to the Plaintiff when
calculating his regular rate of pay.

P&B Intermodal Services, LLC provides container, chassis, spotter,
lift equipment and trailer maintenance and repair services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


P&G AUDITORS: Curry, et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH CURRY, RICARDO
MAZZITELLI, JACQUELINE BROWN PILGRIM, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated, v. P&G AUDITORS AND CONSULTANTS, LLC; GRC
SOLUTIONS, LLC; PGX, LLC; AND APPLE BANCORP, INC. d/b/a APPLE BANK
FOR SAVINGS, Case No. 1:20-cv-06985-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the proposed
      Collective pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. requiring the Defendants to produce, within two weeks
      after the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion, a computer-
      readable list of the names, last known addresses, social
      security numbers, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
      work locations, and dates of employment for all potential
      Collective Members;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send the Notice and Consent
      to Join Form, attached to the declaration of Julia H.
      Klein, by mail, email, and text message;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send a reminder notice;

   5. tolling the statute of limitations on the Collective
      Action Members' claims;

   6. setting a deadline of 90 days following the mailing of the
      Notice for Collective Action Members to join this lawsuit;
      and

   7. granting such further relief as the Court deems just and
      proper.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants deny their anti-money
laundering investigators, antimoney laundering quality assurance
reviewers and team leads overtime compensation in violation of the
FLSA.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion for conditional
certification dated Dec. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/387GH0G at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          KLEIN LAW GROUP OF NEW YORK PLLC
          120 East 79th Street, Suite 1A
          New York, NY 10021
          Telephone: (347) 292-8170

PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Crews Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Recovery
Systems. The case is styled as McKay Crews, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated v. Paramount Recovery Systems, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00864-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., Dec. 21, 2020).

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

Paramount Recovery Systems -- https://www.paramountrecovery.com/ is
a professional debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Raburn, Esq.
          MCCARTY & RABURN, A CONSUMER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2931 Ridge Rd., Suite 101 #504
          Rockwall, TX 75032
          Phone: (225) 412-2777
          Email: jonathan@geauxlaw.com


PATTON STATE: Class Action Seeks Release, Transfer of Patients
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danika Fears, writing for Daily Beast, reports that a new court
filing in a federal class-action lawsuit is demanding the release
or transfer of half the psychiatric patients at Southern
California's Patton State Hospital, where nearly 700 people have
contracted the coronavirus and 10 patients have died since May. In
the documents, lawyers with Disability Rights California and the
law firm Covington & Burling call the San Bernardino facility a
"tinderbox" for COVID-19 cases. "Defendants have failed to conduct
an adequate systematic review of high-risk patients in order to
identify who can be safely discharged to a less dangerous setting;
facilitate the release or transfer of such high-risk patients to
safer, non- or less-congregate settings; or otherwise reduce the
patient population to allow for anything close to adequate social
distancing," reads the court filing. The class-action lawsuit was
filed on behalf of four patients at Patton, who have all contracted
the coronavirus, along with hundreds of other detainees.

In response to the emergency request, state attorneys asked for a
pause on the case, arguing, "DSH anticipates that a sufficient
number of doses of an approved Covid-19 vaccine will be made
available for inoculation of more than half of DSH healthcare staff
in the highest level priority category in early January 2021."
[GN]


PEAK DESIGN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peak Design. The case
is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Peak Design, Case No. 1:20-cv-10705
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Peak Design -- https://www.peakdesign.com/ -- offers everyday bags,
travel bags, camera accessories:. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


PEDIATRIC HOME: Berridge Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAKYA BERRIDGE,
Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated
v. PEDIATRIC HOME HEALTHCARE, LLC (PHH), and THOMAS C. WHEAT, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01025-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class consisting of:

      "all hourly-paid Home Healthcare Workers employed by the
      Defendants who worked over 40 hours in any week after
      November 10, 2017;" and

   2. approving the Distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of
      Contact Information.

The Plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of all hourly-paid
healthcare workers of the Defendants to recover overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a former hourly-paid home healthcare employee of
the Defendants. The Plaintiff and members of the putative
collective action class were/are employed by Defendant as
hourly-paid Home Healthcare Workers on or after November 10, 2017.

PHH is a Texas-based home healthcare company. The Defendant James
C. Wheat is the owner, principal manager officer and/or director of
PHH.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of
collective action dated Dec. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gJMmOA at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Ste 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danielle A. Vera, Esq.
          Alan Dabdoub, Esq.
          LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 292-3640
          Facsimile: (214) 981-3839
          E-mail: dvera@lynnllp.com
                  adabdoud@lynnllp.com

PENSKE LOGISTICS: Taylor Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LADELL TAYLOR, as an individual, on behalf of
himself, and all other persons similarly situated v. PENSKE
LOGISTICS, LLC; PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2022481, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on December 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02623-MCS-KK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including unpaid overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours in one workweek or in excess of eight hours in one day,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
timely pay all wages owed upon separation of employment, failure to
provide required meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum
wages, and failure to maintain accurate records.

Penske Logistics, LLC is a company that provides logistic
management solutions based in Reading, Pennsylvania.

Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. is a company that offers
full-service truck leasing and contract maintenance services,
headquartered in Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Evan R. Moses, Esq.
         Noel M. Hicks, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                 noel.hicks@ogletree.com

                - and –

         Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Preston Commons West
         8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
         Dallas, TX 75225
         Telephone: (214) 987-3800
         Facsimile: (214) 987-3927
         E-mail: paul.maslo@ogletree.com

PENUMBRA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Potential Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE:PEN).

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Penumbra
stock or options and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/PEN 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.

On November 10, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management issued a
research report on Penumbra entitled "Penumbra and its 'Killer
Catheter': A tale of corporate greed and seemingly blatant
disregard for patients' lives[.]"

Then, on December 8, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management
released a follow-up research report entitled "Is Penumbra's core
scientific research authored by a fake person?: The incredible
story of Penumbra's Dr. Antik Bose[.]" The report alleged that some
of the Company's scientific research appear to have been
incorrectly credited or even authored by a fake individual.

On the news of the report, Penumbra's stock price fell $19.95 per
share, or 8.91%, to close at $204.07 per share on December 8,
2020.

Then, on December 15, 2020, after the market, Penumbra announced
that it was voluntarily "recalling its JET 7 Xtra Flex because the
catheter may become susceptible to distal tip damage during use[,
which] may result in potential vessel damage, and subsequent
patient injury or death."

On this news, Penumbra's stock price fell $13.84 per share, or
7.33%, to a close of $174.98 per share on December 16, 2020. [GN]


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Unlawfully Uses Yearbooks' Data, Callahan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEREDITH CALLAHAN and LAWRENCE GEOFFREY ABRAHAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; PEOPLECONNECT INC., a
California Corporation; CLASSMATES MEDIA CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-09203-SK (N.D. Cal., December 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for intrusion upon seclusion, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California Civil Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The case arises from the Defendants' unfair business practices by
knowingly misappropriating the names, photographs, and likenesses
of the Plaintiffs and the class; knowingly using those names,
photographs, and likenesses to advertise their products and
services, including reprinted yearbooks and subscription
memberships to the Website Classmates.com; and knowingly using
those names, photographs, and likenesses on and in reprinted
yearbooks and the Website Classmates.com, without obtaining prior
consent from Plaintiffs and the class.

As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiffs and the
Class have been injured. The Plaintiffs and members of the class
lost the economic value of their likenesses, their exclusive right
to control their likenesses, and their freedom from intrusion upon
seclusion. They also lost the right to refuse consent and protect
their privacy, as guaranteed by California law.

PeopleConnect, Inc. is a company that provides online social
network services, with its headquarters in Seattle, Washington.

Classmates Media Corporation is a company that operates an online
social networking site and loyalty marketing services, with its
headquarters in Woodland Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         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

PETCO ANIMAL: Fesler Sues Over Illegal Access of Customers' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL FESLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC. and
PUPBOX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02474-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal.,
December 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Washington State Consumer
Protection Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
California Consumer Records Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the
sensitive personal and financial information of their customers,
including the Plaintiff, following a cyber-attack on the
Defendants' Website by an unauthorized third party. Information
compromised and captured in the cyber-attack includes customers'
names, email addresses, addresses, and credit card details.
Moreover, the Defendants also failed to provide timely and adequate
notice to the Plaintiff and other class members that their
information had been subjected to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.

As a result of the cyber-attack, the Plaintiff and class members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of
their private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of
their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack.

Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. is a company that owns and
operates pet stores, with its principal place of business at 10850
Via Frontera, San Diego, California.

PupBox, Inc. is a subscription service that sells puppy toys and
treats online, with its principal place of business at 4060 Terrace
Court, San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
                  
         Tammy Hussin, Esq.
         HUSSIN LAW
         1596 N. Coast Highway 101
         Encinitas, CA 92024
         Telephone: (877) 677-5397
         Facsimile: (877) 667-1547
         E-mail: tammy@hussinlaw.com

                - and –

         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         David K. Lietz, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dlietz@masonllp.com

                - and –

         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
         E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

PINNACLE COMMUNICATIONS: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle
Communications International, Inc. The case is styled as Jay
Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Pinnacle Communications International, Inc. doing business as:
www.pinnacleld.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-06134 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17,
2020).

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

Pinnacle Communications International, Inc. --
https://www.pinnacleld.com/ -- operates as an internet marketing
company. The Company designs and builds shopping platforms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


PLANETART LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PlanetArt, LLC. The
case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PlanetArt, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10679
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Planetart, LLC -- https://www.planetart.com/ -- operates as an
online floral and gifting company. The Company delivars wide range
of flowers and gifts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Prcye Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA PRYCE suing
individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION;
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01467-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class action defined as:

      "all 'Eligible Injured Persons' as that term is defined by
      11 NYCRR sections 65-1.1-65-1.3 covered under a policy of
      insurance issued by PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, PROGRESSIVE
      INSURANCE CASUALTY COMPANY, or PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
      INSURANCE COMPANY and subject to the provisions of
      Insurance Law section 5102, who had actual monthly wages
      in excess of two thousand dollars per month, who have
      submitted First Party Benefit claims to, and received
      payment from, one or more of these defendants for First
      Party Benefits that included claims for lost wages, and
      which, after paying at least one month of First Party wage
      benefits, the defendants claim coverage had fully
      exhausted on or after March 13, 2013."

      Excluded from the Class are the defendant companies; any
      entity that has a controlling interest in one or more of
      the defendant companies; current or former directors,
      officers and counsel of the defendant companies; and any
      class member who has already received full compensation of
      his or her lost wages under the applicable insurance
      policy.

   2. appointing herself as the class representative;

   3. appointing her counsel as the class counsel;

   4. directing the parties to submit to the Court proposed
      forms and schedules for providing notice to the class; and

   5. establishing a schedule for notice, fact discovery, future
      motions practice, and trial.

Progressive Corporation is an American insurance company, one of
the largest providers of car insurance in the United States. The
company insures motorcycles, boats, RVs, and commercial vehicles
and provides home insurance through select companies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:

          Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Dirk Marschhausen, Esq.
          MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C.
          73 Heitz Place
          Hicksville, NY 11801
          Telephone: (516) 747-8000
          E-mail: kfitzpatrick@marschfitz.com

               - and -

          John K. Weston, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 925-8200
          E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com

PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Pryce's Bid to Certify Class Stricken
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pryce v. Progressive
Corporation, et al., Case No. (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Raymond J.
Dearie entered an order striking motion to certify class.

In his letter to the Court, the Plaintiff's Attorney John K. Weston
says, "On December 14, we filed a motion for class certification,
and exhibits, as ECF 32. I regret that this filing violated the
Court's motion rules, and I respectfully request that the Court
remove ECF 32, in its entirety, from the docket."

QUEST HEALTHCONNECT: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest HealthConnect,
LLC. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Quest HealthConnect, LLC,
Case No. 8:20-cv-02389 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Quest HealthConnect -- https://www.questhealthconnect.com/ -- works
with health plans to create an effective approach to engage and
connect with members and provides a broad array of professional
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS M. WAJDA
          6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Phone: (310) 997-0471
          Fax: (866) 286-8433
          Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com



QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Helfand Appeals Collins Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Steven F. Helfand filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JUAN COLLINS and JOHN
FOWLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company,
Case No. 1:19-cv-22864-MGC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Plaintiff Collins commenced this action by filing a class action
complaint on July 11, 2019, asserting claims against the Defendant
pursuant to Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The
case involves complex legal claims and defenses brought on behalf
of three million settlement Class members, and includes claims for
complex deceptive trade practices claims and common law unjust
enrichment.

Steven F. Helfand, an attorney who lost his license to practice law
in California and who district court judges have described as a
"serial" objector to class action settlements, seeks a motion to
renew his stricken request. In that motion, Mr. Helfand claims that
he did meet and confer with Plaintiffs' class counsel and defense
counsel by email but they ignored his communications. Assuming that
Mr. Helfand's representation is correct about his conferral
efforts, the unspoken point is that he did not include the required
certificate of conferral in his initial request (which would have
advised the Court that he complied with Local Rules of Civil
Procedure 7.1).

The appellate case is caption as Juan Collins, et al v. Steven
Helfand, Case No. 20-14492, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
December 16, 2020 as to Appellant Steven F. Helfand; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before December 30, 2020 as to Appellee Juan Collins.[BN]

Interested Party-Appellant STEVEN F. HELFAND, of Pembroke Pines,
Florida, appears pro se.

Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and JOHN FOWLER are represented by:

          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM
          2 Alhambra Plaza Ste 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          E-mail: howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          John Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, PA
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300   
          E-mail: _scarolateam@searcylaw.com

R.R. DONNELLEY: Farias BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICIA FARIAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, Case
No. 2020 CH 06765, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of
Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on December 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07468 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by: (1) failing to
inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their biometrics
were being collected and stored, prior to such collection or
storage; (2) failing to inform them in writing of the specific
purpose for which their biometrics were being captured, collected,
stored, and used; (3) failing to inform them in writing of the
specific length of time their biometrics were being captured,
collected, stored, and used; (4) failing to obtain written releases
from them; (5) failing to publicly provide a publicly-available
retention schedule detailing the length of time for which the
biometrics are stored and/or guidelines for permanently destroying
the biometrics they store.

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company is an integrated communications
company that provides marketing and business communications,
commercial printing, and related services, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Kwabena Appenteng, Esq.
         Orly Henry, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com
                 ohenry@littler.com

                - and –

         Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: pmartin@littler.com

RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL: Lima Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL LIMA AND JAVIER GRACE, Plaintiffs V. RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00598 (S.D. Ala., Dec.
16, 2020) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated employees for unpaid overtime against the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as
individual claims for retaliatory termination for exercising their
rights under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs were engaged in the performance of environmental
cleanup for the Defendant. Both Plaintiffs worked from November
2019 until September 10, 2020.

Ranger Environmental Services, LLC is an environmental program in
Creola, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          2100 Southbridge Parkway Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 414-7467
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net

REALPAGE INC: Kelly, et al. Bid for Class Certification Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY, et
al., v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a On-Site, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01706-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the following classes:

   --  All Requests Class:

       "For the period beginning September 26, 2017 through
       November 30, 2019, all natural persons with an address in
       the United States and its Territories who had a Rental
       Report sent or caused to be sent to them by RealPage,
       Inc. through its On-Site operation which did not include
       the name of the private vendor source(s) from which
       public record information in the file was obtained; and

   --  Direct Requests Class:

       "For the period beginning September 26, 2017 through
       November 30, 2019, all natural persons with an address in
       the United States and its Territories who had a Rental
       Report sent or caused to be sent to them by RealPage,
       Inc. through its On-Site operation which did not include
       the name of the private vendor source(s) from which
       public record information in the file was obtained,
       following a documented direct request by the consumer
       to RealPage Inc. and/or RP On-Site LLC."

The Court said, "The superiority analysis and the predominance
inquiry are bound together. The trial of this case will require
substantial individual inquiry, at least at a minimum into the
question of whether a particular class member's file contained a
public record that might have then triggered an obligation to
disclose the vendor that obtained that record for RealPage. A class
action is not a superior method of resolving that issue
because the individual nature of the inquiries would be
time-consuming and inefficient."

The Plaintiffs in this case want to know who's watching them. They
think that Congress requires credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to
tell them. And they claim that the Defendant RealPage Inc. and its
subsidiary RP On-Site LLC fail that mandate because they do not
disclose to consumers the vendors that they use to gather
information about those consumers.

RealPage operates tenant screening businesses, including RP On-Site
LLC, which operates under the brand name "On-Site." When a landlord
requests a report from RealPage, RealPage provides a screening
report, which is a type of "consumer report."

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LNnCJI at no extra charge.[CC]

RELIANT CAPITAL: Wallace Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANAYAH WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-02341 (C.D. Cal., December 11,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Northern Arizona
University some time prior to July 7, 2020.

According to the complaint, Norther Arizona University contracted
with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, the
Defendant sent an initial collection letter to the Plaintiff on or
about July 7, 2020 regarding the alleged debt. However, the
Defendant's collection letter misled and deceived the Plaintiff
because it has included a collection fee that far exceed any
reasonable costs of collection as well as "other charges" which is
unexplained and unauthorized by the agreement creating the debt or
permitted by law.

As a result, the Plaintiff has incurred an informational injury due
to the Defendant's false information provided.

Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA
          Tel: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Judgment on Pleadings in Ford Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MORGAN FORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; ETHAN DEECHER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and GRADY HABICHT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-470
(N.D.N.Y.), Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

According to the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order, as is the
case with so many areas of life, the COVID-19 pandemic drastically
changed the way Defendant Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
("RPI")'s 2020 programs would proceed.  On March 10, 2020, due to
concerns about the spread of the virus, the Defendant cancelled all
university-sponsored events.  On March 11, 2020, it required
students to move out of on-campus housing.  Although the Defendant
eventually issued refunds for Spring 2020 room and board fees after
having required its students to move out early, it reduced these
reimbursements by the net of a reimbursed student's financial aid.
Effective March 16, 2020, it moved all classes exclusively online.
Nevertheless, rising third-year students were still required to
complete the Arch online, even though it would no longer provide
the in-person experience it originally intended.

Now three of RPI's students, Ford, Deecher, and Habicht have sued
the Defendant for breach of contract and other New York torts in
the hopes of recovering in some measure the difference between the
on-campus education they expected and the online schooling they
received.  The Plaintiffs allege that because RPI cancelled all
activities and in-person instruction, they were deprived of the
benefit of the on-campus education, activity fees, housing fees,
and meal allowances for which they had paid in full before the
semester began.

On April 25, 2020, Ford filed the present class action complaint in
the District.  Deecher and Habicht filed their own complaints on
May 4, 2020.  On Sept. 10, 2020, all three Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, the current operative pleading.

The amended complaint states 11 causes of action, eight of which
state putative class allegations: (I & II) breach of contract or in
the alternative unjust enrichment on behalf of a class of those who
paid tuition for students for the Spring 2020 or Arch 2020
semesters; (III & IV) breach of contract or in the alternative
unjust enrichment for a class of those who paid fees for students
for the Spring 2020 or Arch 2020 semesters; (V & VI) breach of
contract or in the alternative unjust enrichment for a class of
those who paid for on-campus housing for students during the Spring
2020 semester; (VII & VIII) breach of contract or in the
alternative unjust enrichment for a class of those who paid for
students' meal plans for the Spring 2020 semester; (IX) conversion;
(X) violation of N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW Sections 349 and 350; and (XI)
promissory estoppel.

On Oct. 9, 2020, RPI answered the amended complaint.  Four days
later, on Oct. 13, 2020, it filed the present motion for judgment
on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).  It
argues five major points: (1) the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
a specific contractual promise defendant breached to sustain their
breach of contract claims; (2) the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims are duplicative of their breach of contract claims and fail
to prove that justice requires plaintiffs to be repaid; (3) the
Plaintiffs' conversion claims are also duplicative and fail to
identify a property interest of which they were deprived; (4) the
Plaintiffs' General Business Law claims fail to allege a deceptive
practice; and (5) the Plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants
breached a clear and unambiguous promise.

On Dec. 3, 2020, the parties presented oral argument.

Judge Hurd says he understands RPI's frustration.  Its shutdown was
necessitated by acts of nature and government well beyond its
control.  But though the Defendant may have been in an impossible
position, the Plaintiffs did not ask for their lives to be
disrupted on a mass scale either.  The purpose of the litigation is
not to apportion blame.  Judge Hurd says it is only to ensure that
the hardship imposed by the present state of the world falls
justly.  To that end, the Plaintiffs' complaint must proceed to
discovery, with the exception of their conversion and New York
General Business Law claims under Counts IX and X, respectively.

Therefore, the Judge grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The Plaintiffs'
Count IX conversion claim and Count X claim under New York General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350 are dismissed.

The Defendant's motion regarding the Plaintiffs' claims under
Counts: (I) breach of contract for the purported tuition class;
(II) unjust enrichment for the purported tuition class; (III)
breach of contract for the purported fees class; (IV) unjust
enrichment for the purported fees class; (V) breach of contract for
the purported housing class; (VI) unjust enrichment for the
purported housing class; (VII) breach of contract for the purported
meal plan class; (VIII) unjust enrichment for the purported meal
plan class; and (XI) for promissory estoppel across all classes is
denied and those claims may proceed to discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Memorandum-Decision &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3mD0Cdi from Leagle.com.

ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, ERIC POULIN, ESQ. -- eric@akimlawfirm.com --
ROY T. WILLEY, IV, ESQ. -- roy@akimlawfirm.com -- in Charleston,
South Carolina, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

LYNN LAW FIRM, LLP, KELSEY W. SHANNON, ESQ. -- kshannon@lynnlaw.com
-- in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff Ford.

TOPTANI LAW PLLC, EDWARD TOPTANI, ESQ. -- edward@toptanilaw.com --
in New York City, Attorneys for Plaintiff Ford.

MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP, JOHN McLEOD BRADHAM,
ESQ. -- jbradham@msbllp.com -- PETER BRYAN KATZMAN, ESQ. --
pkatzman@msbllp.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for Plaintiff
Ford.

DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP., DONALD W. BOYAJIAN, ESQ. --
dboyajian@dblawny.com -- JAMES R. PELUSO, JR., ESQ. --
jpeluso@dblawny.com -- JOSHUA R. FRIEDMAN, ESQ. --
jfriedman@dblawny.com -- in Albany, New York, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Deecher and Habicht.

BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, JONATHAN B. FELLOWS, ESQ. --
jfellows@bsk.com -- SUZANNE M. MESSER, ESQ. -- smesser@bsk.com --
in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendant.

PATTISON, SAMPSON LAW FIRM, MICHAEL E. GINSBERG, ESQ. --
mginsberg@psgglaw.com -- in Troy, New York, Attorneys for
Defendant.


RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: May Face Class Action Over Tuition Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Silberstein, writing for Times Union, reports that a federal
district court has denied Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit seeking refunds for tuition and
fees for spring and summer semesters.

The "breach of contract" claim was filed by engineering students
Morgan Ford, Ethan Deecher and Grady Habich in the U.S. District
Court in May after the pandemic forced U.S. colleges and
universities to shut down their campuses and move instruction
online.

RPI contends that it never promised students an in-person education
and on-campus experience and the campus shutdown was unavoidable
because of the pandemic.

The plaintiffs pointed to RPI's catalog and other publications that
emphasize its "award-winning" CLASS program, which requires
first-year students to be on campus and participate via in-person
activities.

Attorneys for RPI said any materials referring to its mandatory
on-campus programming amounted to "aspirational goals" or a
statement of policy, but it was not a promise.

The court disagreed.

RPI "made some bold claims -- or, plausibly, promises -- about its
in-person programming and hammered repeatedly on the benefits of
those programs in an assortment of circulars and even in its
catalog," U.S. Judge David Hurd wrote.

RPI has another program known as "The Arch," which requires all
second-year students to live on-campus during the summer between
their second and third years in order to take courses and develop
relationships with their professors.

Despite instruction shifting online, students were still required
to participate in "The Arch" over the summer. Anyone who did not
enroll in summer courses or dropped their summer course load would
be forced to take a leave of absence and re-enroll to return to
college, according to RPI's website.

Hurd added that RPI's argument that it was not responsible for the
shutdown "misses the mark by viewing plaintiffs' complaint as an
attack on its decision to shut down. Plaintiffs do no such thing."

When higher education institutions were forced to close abruptly
last spring to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, many,
including RPI, reimbursed students for some or all of their housing
and food plan costs. However, colleges insisted students were
liable for all tuition and fees, despite lectures being through
video conferencing programs, on the phone, or via pre-recorded
video clips.

At many institutions, online courses cost a fraction of on-campus
programming.

The university reopened its doors in the fall, but reduced its
on-campus capacity. RPI's campus de-densification plan kept juniors
on campus during the fall while sophomores studied remotely. For
the spring semester, juniors are studying remotely, while
sophomores were required to be on campus.

However, RPI kept most recreational areas closed and Greek life and
student clubs are prohibited. The lawsuit over tuition and fees for
the virtual program heads to trial at a time when RPI's leadership
is under increased pressure from students who complain about being
forced to be on campus without outlets for social interaction.

Lawsuits over tuition and fees create additional financial troubles
for colleges and universities already reeling from losses
associated with the pandemic, which has set colleges back millions
of dollars. Administrators say federal stimulus funds only make up
a fraction of the burden.

RPI, which serves nearly 8,000 students, has received $4.8 million
in relief aid from the federal CARES Act, with half of those funds
required to go directly to students in the form of grants.

The lawsuit notes that according to RPI's 2018 tax filing, the most
recent available, the college had $591,700,082 in revenues and
total assets worth over $1.5 billion.

A spokesman for RPI declined to comment on the pending litigation.
[GN]


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Dec. 21
disclosed that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR)
("Restaurant Brands") on behalf investors who purchased or acquired
Restaurant Brands common stock between April 29, 2019, and October
28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned
James E. Dorman v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10788, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Restaurant Brands common stock during the Class Period
may, no later than February 19, 2021, 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 visit:
https://www.ktmc.com/restaurant-brands-international-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=restaurant_brands.

Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation and headquartered in
Toronto, Ontario. It is one of the world's largest restaurant
chains with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes
restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. On
April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy designed
to improve performance within its Tim Hortons brand. Specifically,
the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on three key pillars:
restaurant experience; product excellence; and brand
communications. Then, on March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands
announced "Tims Rewards" -- a new loyalty program for Tim Hortons
customers in Canada. Under the Tims Rewards program, customers
would be eligible for a free hot brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked
good after every seventh paid visit to a participating Tim Hortons
restaurant. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it
was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the
United States.

The Class Period commences on April 29, 2019, when Restaurant
Brands filed its financial results for the first quarter ended
March 31, 2019 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported 0.5% system-wide
year-over-year sales growth for Tim Hortons on system-wide sales of
$1.547 billion. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, the defendants repeatedly touted the implementation and
execution of Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan and Tims
Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of Restaurant Brands touting
the benefits of these initiatives, the company completed two stock
offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5, 2019,
collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to
insiders.

However, on October 29, 2019, the truth about Restaurant Brands'
execution of its Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty
program was revealed when the company announced disappointing
financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019.
Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported a 0.1% system-wide
year-over-year sales decline for Tim Hortons -- representing a 1.4%
same-store sales decline -- on system-wide sales of $1.774
billion.

Following this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock
declined $2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of
$68.45 per share on October 25, 2019, to close at $64.86 per share
on October 28, 2019.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable
revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting
promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about Restaurant Brands' business, operations, and
prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

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, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com.

Restaurant Brands investors may, no later than February 19, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 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, LLP 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, LLP 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). For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 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) 887-9500
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


REVOLVE GROUP: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suit Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revolve Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the settlement in a
wage-and-hour suit gets preliminary approval.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
which was filed in May 2019, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest period,
payment of wages at separation, wage statement violations, and
unfair business practices.  

On January 6, 2020, the company and the individual defendant in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case.

In December 2019, the company accrued approximately $1.0 million to
general and administrative expenses which, as of September 30,
2020, still remained accrued within accrued expenses on the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The court preliminarily approved that memorandum of understanding
on September 8, 2020.

Resolution of this matter is pending final approval of the class
action settlement and related class action related settlement
fees.

Revolve Group, Inc. is an e-commerce platform that caters to
millennials and generation Z consumers. The company curates luxury
apparel, footwear, and accessory items, which it sells through a
digital platform. It also owns several private brands. The company
is based in Cerritos, California.

RIDESHARE RENTAL: Continues to Defend Hamlin and Koch Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rideshare Rental, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suit entitled, Jason
Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW)
and William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al, 20-cv-8591
(SVW).

These two actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and September 18,
2020, respectively, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, both cases as purported class
actions.

Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin and William Koch each claim to have
purchased the Company's stock "traceable to the initial public
offering IPO" and bring this securities class action pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's stock.

The complaint alleges that there were materially false statements
and material omissions in the registration statement and prospectus
filed with the SEC and provided to prospective investors in
connection with the Company's IPO on November 13, 2019.

The defendants include directors of the company and the
underwriters of the IPO, Westpark Capital and Aegis Capital Corp.
The federal court has now consolidated the two matters for all
purposes, and an initial status conference has been scheduled and
held.

As with the state court case described above, the Company denies
liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed
all materially adverse facts, events and occurrences in its
IPO-related registration statement and related public filings, and
that the complaint's alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits in federal
court.

The Company was formed on June 21, 2016 as a limited liability
company under the name "YayYo, LLC," which was converted into a
Delaware corporation pursuant to the unanimous written consent of
the company's former manager and members in a transaction intended
to be tax-free under the Internal Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's
liabilities and assets, including its intellectual property, were
automatically assumed by the Company, which now operates as a "C"
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. On
September 11, 2020, YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare
Rental, Inc.

The Company is a holding company operating through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including Distinct Cars, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (Distinct Cars) and Rideshare Car Rentals LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company.

The Company's operating business divisions include (i) an online
rideshare vehicle booking platform to service the ridesharing
economy through Rideshare, and (ii) the maintenance of a fleet of
standard passenger vehicles to be made commercially available for
rent through Distinct Cars Fleet Management). Through Rideshare and
Distinct Cars, the Company seeks to become the leading provider of
a standard rental vehicles to drivers in the ridesharing economy.

RIDESHARE RENTAL: Rung Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rideshare Rental, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the securities
class action suit entitled, Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876, has been voluntarily dismissed by
its counsel.

This action was filed on July 22, 2020, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff
Ivan Rung claimed to have purchased the Company's stock and
purported to bring a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's stock, pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
Company's November 13, 2019 initial public stock offering (IPO).

The complaint alleged misrepresentations and material omissions in
its IPO-related disclosure. In its answer, the Company denied
liability and asserted that it accurately and completely disclosed
all material facts and occurrences, including adverse ones, in its
Registration Statement, related public filings and other public
statements, and further asserted that the Complaint's alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, are baseless.

Plaintiff's counsel voluntarily dismissed this action on August 31,
2020, after admitting that Mr. Rung was not a suitable class
representative.

Instead, plaintiff's counsel is pursuing the highly similar case
brought by Michael Vanbecelaer in Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo,
Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066.

The Company was formed on June 21, 2016 as a limited liability
company under the name "YayYo, LLC," which was converted into a
Delaware corporation pursuant to the unanimous written consent of
the company's former manager and members in a transaction intended
to be tax-free under the Internal Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's
liabilities and assets, including its intellectual property, were
automatically assumed by the Company, which now operates as a "C"
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. On
September 11, 2020, YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare
Rental, Inc.

The Company is a holding company operating through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including Distinct Cars, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (Distinct Cars) and Rideshare Car Rentals LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company.

The Company's operating business divisions include (i) an online
rideshare vehicle booking platform to service the ridesharing
economy through Rideshare, and (ii) the maintenance of a fleet of
standard passenger vehicles to be made commercially available for
rent through Distinct Cars Fleet Management). Through Rideshare and
Distinct Cars, the Company seeks to become the leading provider of
a standard rental vehicles to drivers in the ridesharing economy.


RIDESHARE RENTAL: Vanbecelaere Putative Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Rideshare Rental, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Michael
Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066

This action was filed on July 23, 2020, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, also as a
purported class action.

Plaintiff Michael Vanbecelaere claims to have purchased the
Company's stock "traceable to the initial public offering "IPO" and
brings a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
stock.

The complaint alleges that there were materially false statements
and material omissions in the Registration Statement and Prospectus
filed with the SEC and provided to prospective investors in
connection with the Company's IPO on November 13, 2019.

The Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and
completely disclosed all material facts and occurrences, including
adverse ones, in its IPO-related registration statement and related
public filings and that the Complaint's alleged violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act are baseless.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company was formed on June 21, 2016 as a limited liability
company under the name "YayYo, LLC," which was converted into a
Delaware corporation pursuant to the unanimous written consent of
the company's former manager and members in a transaction intended
to be tax-free under the Internal Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's
liabilities and assets, including its intellectual property, were
automatically assumed by the Company, which now operates as a "C"
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. On
September 11, 2020, YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare
Rental, Inc.

The Company is a holding company operating through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including Distinct Cars, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (Distinct Cars) and Rideshare Car Rentals LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company.

The Company's operating business divisions include (i) an online
rideshare vehicle booking platform to service the ridesharing
economy through Rideshare, and (ii) the maintenance of a fleet of
standard passenger vehicles to be made commercially available for
rent through Distinct Cars Fleet Management). Through Rideshare and
Distinct Cars, the Company seeks to become the leading provider of
a standard rental vehicles to drivers in the ridesharing economy.


RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rivian Automotive,
LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Rivian Automotive, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10678-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Rivian -- https://rivian.com/ -- is an American automaker and
automotive technology company. Founded in 2009, the company
develops vehicles, products and services related to sustainable
transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


S BRAVO SYTEMS: Faces Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTUARDO GOMEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. S BRAVO SYTEMS, INC., a California
corporation and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 20STCV46255 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 2, 2020) seeks to recover civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the state laws
by failing to pay him and other aggrieved employees the statutory
minimum wage for all hours worked, failing to compensate all
overtime wages earned, failing to provide all legally required meal
and rest period premiums, failing to furnish with accurate itemized
wage statements, failing to timely pay all final wages and
compensation earned, failing to pay all earned wages at least twice
during each calendar month, and failing to maintain accurate
records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nonexempt
employee from approximately 2016 through the present, although
Plaintiff has been on a medical leave since approximately November
26, 2019. As a non-exempt production employee, Plaintiff's primary
job duties included manufacturing fiberglass tanks for fuel
companies, such as Chevron and Shell.

S. Bravo Systems, Inc. is a Los Angeles, California-based company
which is part of the architectural & structural metals
manufacturing industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, 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@bollaw.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com

S-L SNACKS: 9th Circuit Rules on Food-Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that we've frequently
criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's
"Article III standing" jurisprudence. We explained why standing is
such an important constitutional concept in a May 2018 Forbes.com
post:

A predictable body of law that confines courts' jurisdiction to
lawsuits alleging actual, redressable harms helps to limit
defendants' -- especially business defendants' -- litigation costs
by facilitating early dismissal of questionable claims.  

We've also criticized the Ninth Circuit's spotty record on reining
in the "Food Court bar's" novel legal theories. And even when the
Ninth Circuit does rule against plaintiffs, the court most often
labels those food-labeling class-action decisions "Not for
Publication," and thus mostly unhelpful to defendants.
rld Children's Day

So we were quite floored to learn of the published December 4, 2020
decision (argued on December 5, 2018) in McGee v. S-L Snacks
National. It was a "what to my wondering eyes should appear" moment
normally reserved for a sleigh and reindeer this time of year.

Background -- Yet Another Trans-Fat Suit

McGee is one of the countless class actions that The Weston Firm
has filed involving partially hydrogenated oil (i.e. trans fat).
The suits have alleged either that trans fat's presence in a food
or a truthful front-of-label "zero trans fat" claim violate
California consumer-protection laws. Ms. McGee claims that the
"nearly half [a] pound" of trans fat she consumed from years of
eating Pop Secret popcorn caused her economic and physical
injuries.

In its motion to dismiss, S-L Snacks argued that the plaintiff
lacked Article III standing to sue and that the lawsuit conflicted
with the FDA's regulation of trans fats and was thus preempted. The
district court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that McGee
could not prove a concrete and redressable economic or physical
harm.

McGee's Appeal

McGee appealed, and the parties addressed both standing and
preemption in their Ninth Circuit briefs. Prior to the December
2018 oral argument, the Ninth Circuit held in two other Weston Firm
trans-fat cases that the plaintiffs overcame the constitutional
standing hurdle. Posed with those decisions, S-L Snacks informed
the court just days before the oral argument in a "28(j) letter"
that it "will no longer contest standing."

Despite that concession, the court dropped a footnote leading into
its legal analysis that explained, "we have an independent
obligation to inquire into McGee's Article III standing." Given the
circuit's general approach to standing, and more specifically the
outcome of the aforementioned 2018 decisions, the discussion that
followed should not have gone well for S-L Snacks. Except it did.

Economic Injury

McGee first argued that because Pop Secret was not the safe,
heart-healthy product she thought she was buying, she didn't
receive the benefit of her bargain. The court reasoned that McGee's
subjective assumptions about Pop Secret were not part of the
bargain. The product labeling contained no assurances of safety,
and absent some false representation about the product's use of
trans fat, McGee could not prevail on this theory of harm.  

Next, the court addressed McGee's argument that she paid more for
Pop Secret than the product's actual worth (which, she claimed, was
$0.00 due to the presence of trans fat). McGee's particular
overpayment theory of harm is novel, the court noted, because she
doesn't claim S-L Snacks misled her into excessive payment.
Deception has been a key element in Ninth Circuit decisions finding
overpayment as a redressable harm.

The court found some support for a no-deception overpayment theory,
but ultimately held that it need not decide if her theory is
viable. Even if it were viable, the court added, the defendant
listed trans fat as an ingredient and, as McGee herself noted in
her complaint, scientific studies dating back to 2008, established
the substance's negative health impact.

Physical Injury

Though the court found that the studies McGee presented were enough
to put her on notice of trans fats' hazards, the studies did not
help her establish a current or future physical-injury claim. She
did not undergo medical testing to confirm the harms she claimed,
so she had to argue that her years of consumption invariably
resulted in physical injury. To make that point, she relied on the
studies, which the court concluded "do not support this inference."
Her current physical-injury claims were thus "too speculative to
support standing, even at the pleading stage." The court applied
the same reasoning to reject her future physical-injury argument.

Analysis

The panel's determination to reject McGee's complaint on standing
grounds is puzzling, especially in light of the two 2018 decisions
S-L Snacks' counsel cited in his 28(j) letter conceding standing.
The McGee panel ignored one of the decisions and faintly
distinguished the second decision in a footnote.

The McGee panel also went out of its way to exactingly parse the
complaint's allegations, an approach that is quite inconsistent
with the Ninth Circuit's normal hostility toward defendants'
pleading-stage attacks. The panel's repeated references to the
Nutrition Facts panel when rebuffing McGee's arguments is
especially intriguing.

S-L Snacks made a winning preemption argument on appeal, and the
McGee panel could have just as easily dismissed the complaint on
that ground. Perhaps the panel did not want to credit federal law's
supremacy over California consumer-protection statutes, even in
this situation where the FDA considered trans fat "generally
recognized as safe" during the plaintiff's years of Pop Secret
consumption.

Whatever the reason, the McGee panel's standing determination is a
positive one for Food Court defendants. Unless it can find a
plaintiff with actual, direct physical injuries, The Weston Firm is
unlikely to overcome a motion to dismiss any future lawsuit
alleging trans fat's mere presence in a food violates California
law. Notably, on December 15, a Weston Firm client dropped her
trans-fat-use claim against Tootsie Roll Industries.

Finally, the court's surprisingly detailed analysis of the
plaintiff's allegations, and its references to the ingredients
list, could prove generally supportive of defendants' motions to
dismiss not just in food-related lawsuits, but in other
consumer-protection litigation. [GN]


SACRAMENTO, CA: $414K Settlement in Coburn Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a
$414,000 class action settlement in the lawsuit styled WILLIAM
COBURN, et al. v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00888-AC (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Coburn, Kristina Marie Mayorga, Khalil Ferguson, and
Alex Lyons bring the putative class action against Defendants City
of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department, County of Sacramento,
and Sacramento County Sherriff's Department alleging
unconstitutional deprivations of federal and state constitutional
rights resulting from unlawful and unconstitutional detentions,
arrests, and uses of force while the Plaintiffs engaged in the
lawful and peaceful exercise of their constitutionally protected
rights by protesting the shooting death of Stephon Clark.

The Settlement Agreement provides that each of those persons, who
was arrested on March 4, 2019, and transported to Cal Expo for
processing incident to a protest of the Sacramento County District
Attorney Office's decision not to file criminal charges against the
Sacramento Police Department police officers, who shot and killed
Stephon Clark, will receive Notice of the Settlement and a Claim
Form to be used to seek reimbursement for medical expenses incurred
within a week of the incident. They will be informed of their right
to opt-out of the settlement and/or to object to the settlement.
Those who do not opt-out of the settlement will be bound by its
terms and all Defendants will be released of all further claims.

Each member of the class of persons arrested and transported to Cal
Expo for processing will receive $4,000; each of the four
Representative Plaintiffs will receive an incentive fee of $7,000;
and The Law Office of Mark E. Merin, class counsel, will receive
$82,800 from a settlement paid by the City of Sacramento in the
amount of $414,000. The City of Sacramento will also pay an
additional amount of $50,000 to establish a medical expense fund
from which reimbursement will be made to the Class Members, who
submit Compensable Claims for medical expenses incurred for
treatment initiated within a week following the March 4, 2019
incident.

Each Class Member will receive an additional amount of $595 from
the sum of $50,000 to be paid by the County of Sacramento. To
qualify for reimbursement of certain medical expenses, the Class
Members will be informed that they must submit a claim form
documenting that the claimant incurred expenses for medical
treatment initiated within one week from the March 4, 2019,
incident. The claim forms will be jointly reviewed by the
Sacramento City Attorney's Office and the Class Counsel and either
approved for payment, denied, or disputed. Disputed claims will be
referred to the Court for final decision on the compensability of
the claims based on the claim forms and any supporting material
provided with the claims.

In the event that the total of approved medical reimbursement
claims exceeds $50,000, payment for medical reimbursement will be
reduced proportionately; if the total of approved medical
reimbursement claims is less than $50,000, the amount remaining in
the fund will be returned to the City of Sacramento. If, after
payment of all claims, a balance remains from uncashed settlement
checks, that residue will be donated to a non-profit corporation
selected by Class Counsel in consultation with Representative
Plaintiffs.

As part of preliminary approval, the Court finds for settlement
purposes only, that the class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
conditionally certifies the class for the purposes of settlement
as:

     All individuals who were detained/arrested on March 4, 2019,
     on the 51st Street overpass and transported to Cal Expo for
     processing and release.

The Court approves and appoints the Plaintiffs as the
Representative Plaintiffs of the Class for settlement purposes
only, subject to Final Approval.  It approves and appoints the
Plaintiff's counsel as the Class Counsel for settlement purposes
only, subject to Final Approval.

The Court finds the proposed class notice and the proposed method
of dissemination reasonably and adequately advises the class of the
information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2)(B), with the exception of the failure to include an
opt-out form. It pproves the proposed class notice contingent on
the filing within 14 days of an appropriate opt-out form correcting
the deficiency.

The Court finds the mailing to the class members' present and last
known address, with safeguards to perform reasonable skip traces of
returned as undeliverable Notice Packets, constitutes an effective
method of notifying class members of their rights with respect to
the proposed settlement. Accordingly, it is ordered that not later
than 21 days from the Court's issuance of a minute order confirming
its acceptance of the opt-out notice as required as satisfying the
contingency and resulting approval of the proposed class notice,
the parties will mail the Notice Packets to each class member.

All the Settlement Class Members, who do not seek to be excluded
from the Settlement by submitting a Request for Exclusion by the
Objection/Exclusion Deadline, are enjoined from proceeding against
the Settling Defendants as to the claims asserted in the Action in
the event the final settlement is approved.

Pending further order of the Court, all proceedings in the matter
except those contemplated by the Order and in the settlement
agreement are stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 17, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8755b7d from Leagle.com.


SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM COBURN, et al., v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00888-AC (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for preliminary approval of class
      action settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying the class for the purposes of
      settlement as:

      "all individuals who were detained/arrested on March 4,
      2019, on the 51st Street overpass and transported to Cal
      Expo for processing and release;"

   3. appointing the plaintiffs as the Representative Plaintiffs
      of the Class for settlement purposes only, subject to
      Final Approval;

   4. appointing the plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel for
      settlement purposes only, subject to Final Approval;

   5. approving the proposed class notice CONTINGENT ON the
      filing within 14 days of an appropriate opt-out form
      correcting this deficiency; and

   6. finding that the mailing to the class members' present and
      last known address, with safeguards to perform reasonable
      skip traces of returned as undeliverable Notice Packets,
      constitutes an effective method of notifying class members
      of their rights with respect to the proposed settlement.

      The Settlement:

      --  This court has found requests of $2,500 per
          representative, in cases involving three
          representatives, to be presumptively reasonable. In
          cases in which the class representative requested an
          enhancement payment of $10,000, this court has
          required evidence of substantial effort throughout a
          protracted case.

      --  An incentive award of $7,000 for each of the four
          representative plaintiffs is a substantial request,
          particularly given the short timeline of this case -
          less than 10 months from filing to the 6 notice of
           settlement.

      --  The proposed settlement includes an attorneys’ fee and

          expense award of $82,800.00 representing 20% of that
          portion of the Settlement Fund.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
defendants City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department, County
of Sacramento, and Sacramento County Sherriff's Department alleging
unconstitutional deprivations of federal and state constitutional
rights resulting from unlawful and unconstitutional detentions,
arrests, and uses of force while plaintiffs engaged in the lawful
and peaceful exercise of their constitutionally protected rights by
protesting the shooting death of Stephon Clark.

On April 30, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
class action settlement. The Defendants City of Sacramento, County
of Sacramento, and the Sacramento County Sherriff's Department
submitted statements of non-opposition.

A copy of the Court's and order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/37EryVPat no extra
charge.[CC]

SAINT LUKE'S: Rohan Seeks to Certify 403(b) Plan Participants Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAGGIE ROHAN v. SAINT
LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., THE SAINT LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEM
RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-25, Case No.
4:20-cv-00179-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying the Plaintiff's proposed Class pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

      "All participants in the Saint Luke's 403(b) Plan from
      March 10, 2014 to December 31, 2017."

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants and members of the
      Committee during the Class Period, including their
      beneficiaries.

   2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP and
      Bailey & Glasser LLP as lead Class Counsel and The Welder
      Firm as local Class Counsel.

Saint Luke's Health System is a non-profit hospital network in the
bi-state Kansas City metro area, located in northeast Kansas and
northwest Missouri.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/34dOetK at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Alex L. Serber, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          8012 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 300
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5446
          Facsimile : (314)-863-5483
          E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  aserber@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Kristie Blunt-Welder, Esq.
          WELDER BLUNT WELDER &
          ASSOCIATES, LLC
          4741 Central St., Suite 514
          Kansas City, Mo 64112
          Telephone: (844) 935-3373
          E-mail: kwelder@welderfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Douglas Needham, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Suit Seeks Claims Managed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BROWN et al., v.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION; and GWENAEL BUSNEL,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs seek to have the
claims of class members managed as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), or in the
alternative for the Medical Monitoring Class, Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).

The class of persons harmed by the actions of the Defendants for
whose claims Plaintiffs seek management as a class pursuant to Fed.
R .Civ. P. 23 includes:

   "all persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
   residential properties with private wells in the Private Well
   Property Owners Class Geographic Area or residential
   properties in the Merrimack Village District Water Works
   (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied household
   water by MVDWW (Property Damage Class).

   Subclass A:

        "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
        residential properties with private groundwater wells
        within the Private Well Class Geographic Area (Private
        Well Property Owners Property Damage Subclass)."


   Subclass B:

        "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
        residential properties in the Merrimack Village District
        Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are
        supplied household water by MVDWW (MVDWW Property Owners
        Property Damage Subclass)."

The Private Well Class Geographic Area is the area defined as:

In Bedford and Merrimack, the geographic area west of the Merrimack
River within three (3.0) miles of the property boundary of the
Saint-Gobain Site; in Litchfield, the Geographic
area bounded by the Merrimack River on the west, Cummings Drive on
the South, extended east to the Merrimack River and west to the
Londonderry Town line, and the Londonderry Town line on the East
and the City of Manchester on the North and East, and the
geographic area in Manchester bounded by Raymond Wieczorek Drive on
the North, Private Well Class Geographic Area Map. The MVDWW Class
Geographic Area is depicted in Appendix B, MVDWW Service Area Map.
Together they are referred to as the "Class Geographic Areas."

The class of persons harmed by the actions of Defendants for whose
claims Plaintiffs seek management as a class pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 also includes:

   "All persons who on or after January 1, 2001 occupied
   residential properties with private wells in the in the
   Private Well Class Geographic Area which obtained household
   water from those wells or occupied residential properties in
   the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class
   Geographic Area which are supplied household water by MVDWW,
   and who during the period from birth up to their 20th
   birthday, consumed household water containing 20 ppt PFOA or
   greater or were breastfed by a mother who consumed household
   water containing 20 ppt PFOA or greater during breastfeeding
   at their residential properties for a cumulative time period
   of one year or more, or who during the period from their 20th
   birthday or after, consumed household water at their
   residential properties for the number of days of consumption
   at specified PFOA water concentrations (Medical Monitoring
   Class)."

In the alternative, if the Court determines that New Hampshire law
requires such an element, for the Medical Monitoring Class, the
Plaintiffs request the court to certify the Medical Monitoring
Class with the following additional criteria:

   and who have had a measured blood serum PFOA concentration
   above .05 ng/mL after consuming water at concentrations and
   periods identified above.

All class members bring claims for liability against the Defendants
based on the same theories of liability: negligence, trespass,
nuisance, negligent failure to warn and respondeat superior. All
class members claims for liability are based on the same conduct:
Defendants release of PFAS chemicals known to be toxic to human
health.

The Plaintiffs and class members further bring claims for two
categories of damages: 1) damages for harm to their real property
interests caused by the contamination and 2) damages in the form of
the cost of diagnostic testing for the early detection of disease
made reasonably necessary by the increased risk created significant
defined significant exposure by the Defendants toxic PFAS.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3abYpmB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. DeCarolis, Esq.
          GOTTESMAN AND HOLLIS, P.A.
          39 East Pearl Street
          Nashua, NH 03060
          Telephone: (603) 318-0445
          E-mail: pdecarolis@nh-lawyers.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7 th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813)-222-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for the Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics Corporation and Gwenael Busnel, are:

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, III, Esq.
          Lincoln Wilson, Esq.
          Rachel Passaretti-Wu, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Three Bryant Park
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York 10036-6797
          E-mail: sheila.birnbaum@dechert.com
                  mark.cheffo@dechert.com
                  douglas.fleming@dechert.com
                  lincoln.wilson@dechert.com
                  rachel.passaretti-wu@dechert.com

Attorneys for the Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance, are:

          Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.
          Jeremy Walker, Esq.
          MCLANE MIDDLETON, PA
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com
                  jeremy.walker@mclane.com

SAN DIEGO USD: 9th Cir. Remands JF Suit to Be Given Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J.F., a minor, by and through Guardians Ad Litem Aron
Feiles and Alexandra Feiles, individually on and on behalf of the
proposed class, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a government entity, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
20-55376 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit:

   (i) affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
       dismissal without leave to amend J.F.'s First Amended
       Complaint in a class action under the Individuals with
       Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") against San Diego
       Unified School District ("SDU"); and

  (ii) remanded with instructions to grant J.F. leave to amend.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court properly dismissed
the action because J.F. should have first exhausted the
administrative process.  It notes that the inadequacy and futility
exceptions to IDEA's exhaustion requirement do not apply to J.F.'s
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Specifically, exhaustion was not inadequate because J.F.'s claims
are not systemic.  Rather, J.F. seeks relief only as to one
component of SDU's special education program--the provision of
one-to-one aides--for only some periods of time.  And the 2017
examples that J.F. alleges support a finding of futility have no
real connection to SDU's alleged failure, beginning in 2018, to
provide aides in accordance with J.F. and the class' individualized
education plans.

Thus, the Appellate Court says, even taking the factual allegations
in J.F.'s complaint as true, exhaustion would not be futile because
SDU could comply with an administrative order to provide the
one-to-one aides.  Requiring J.F. to exhaust would also serve
exhaustion's purposes by giving SDU the "opportunity to correct"
the aide problem before the issue is brought to federal court.

However, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court abused its
discretion in denying leave to amend.  The denial of an opportunity
to amend is within the discretion of the district court, but
outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason
appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is
merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of
the Federal Rules.

When dismissing J.F.'s FAC without leave to amend, the district
court recited the relevant standard, but did not actually apply
that standard or give any reason for denying leave to amend.
Moreover, the record does not clearly dictate denying leave to
amend on futility grounds because J.F. could have alleged new facts
excusing the exhaustion requirement.  The district court did not
appear to know about or inquire into J.F.'s reasons for requesting
leave to amend.

Because J.F. might have added allegations with the potential to
excuse exhaustion, amendment was not futile as a matter of law and
the district court's lack of written findings was an abuse of
discretion, the Appellate Court opines.  J.F. is, therefore,
entitled to leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/3nAD7TB from Leagle.com.


SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA: Tenants Mull Class Action Over Housing Woes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribune reports that imagine going out to eat at a restaurant
back in pre-COVID days and finding standing water in the bathroom,
walls covered in mold and cockroaches skittering across the dining
room floor.

It would leave you sick to your stomach, right?

Chances are, you'd waste no time calling county Environmental
Health Services to complain -- and you'd be doing everyone a
favor.

Now imagine putting up with conditions like that 24/7 -- only
there's no guarantee anyone in authority will do something about
it.

While San Luis Obispo County has a robust restaurant inspection
program that ensures restaurants are following health and safety
rules, there is no local agency routinely checking up on rental
housing.

In some communities, it's hard to even get officials to respond to
complaints of dire circumstances.

Too often, the SLO County rental industry is treated, not as a real
business that should be required to comply with health and safety
codes, but as a side hustle that can be left to its own devices.

That has to stop.

TRIBUNE INVESTIGATION
Bedbugs, cockroaches, mold, broken windows, leaky roofs and zero
heat were among the squalid conditions Tribune reporters Lindsey
Holden and Cassandra Garibay encountered in a nine-month
investigation into substandard rental housing in San Luis Obispo
County.

The investigation included a survey of 200 tenants -- 83% of whom
reported at least one significant problem with their rental units.

One of the worst cases: A mother was unable to bring her baby boy
home from neonatal intensive care because fungus -- described as
mushroom-like growths -- was sprouting around the windows; it
required removal of a wall to get rid of it.

Many renters simply put up with horrible conditions, rather than
report them to authorities. In the SLO Tribune survey, only six of
the 200 renters turned to a government agency for help.

Why stay silent?

Tenants may be afraid the landlord will raise the rent or even
evict them. They may not know how to go about holding landlords
accountable.

Or they may decide it's simply easier to put up with the situation
-- all the while forking over monthly rent -- knowing how tough it
is to find decent rental housing in high-priced San Luis Obispo
County.

Not only has the supply of new mutli-family units failed to meet
the demand, there's also far too little being done to ensure the
existing stock of aging rentals is maintained in livable
condition.

Holden and Garibay found that cities often don't adequately track
complaints to code enforcement; the cities of Arroyo Grande and
Morro Bay reported zero complaints over five years.

Even when officials are aware of problems, there's no guarantee
that action will be taken.

Take the infamous Grand View Apartment episode in Paso Robles — a
worst-case scenario if ever there was one.

The city knew about conditions for years, but took no definitive
action, leaving tenants with no recourse but to file a class-action
lawsuit.

Rather than make necessary repairs, the owners sold the property --
forcing many of the tenants to scramble to find new housing.

Had the city kept on top of the issue in the first place, it might
not have come to that.

So what can be done?

WHAT'S HAPPENING ELSEWHERE
The city of Modesto experienced a problem similar to what happened
in Paso Robles.

A derelict, two-story building in the downtown was divided into
studio apartments that rented for $585 per month. The building had
mold, rats and cockroaches, rotting bathroom floors, holes in walls
and floors, and bad plumbing. The city eventually condemned it,
forcing tenants to vacate.

That served as a catalyst to get the community talking about how to
prevent such situations from happening again. Last year, the City
Council passed a rental inspection program aimed at protecting
tenants -- especially low-income tenants who may be reluctant to
complain.

This happened in Modesto -- not in Berekely or Santa Cruz or other
liberal California enclaves.

In fact, cities and counties in many parts of the state have rental
inspections ordinances -- the list is too long to include here --
but there are no such programs in San Luis Obispo County.

The city of San Luis Obispo did pass a rental inspection ordinance
in 2015, but it was repealed in 2016. Landlords objected to the
cost of the program; tenants worried their rent would be raised or
they'd even lose their housing if the landlords couldn't afford to
make necessary repairs.

The city now operates a complaint-driven program; over the past
five years it tracked 129 complaints of substandard rentals. By
comparison, the county reported receiving just 21 complaints, even
though it has a larger number of rental units under its
jurisdiction.



WHAT HAPPENS TO VIOLATORS
First, code enforcement officers work with landlords to fix the
problem.

If that's not successful, a city can impose fines. In San Luis
Obispo, for example, the fine is $100 for a first violation; $500
for a second; and $1,000 for a third.

There are more drastic remedies as well.

Many years ago, San Luis Obispo County filed criminal charges
against an 89-year-old landlord who repeatedly failed to make
necessary repairs to some rentals in Nipomo. He was placed on
probation, and when that failed, a judge ordered him to spend four
days in jail.

Or consider this more recent case: In 2017, the city of Santa Maria
filed a civil lawsuit against a landlord after inspections
identified more than 4,000 fire, building and code compliance
violations that included plumbing leaks, electrical hazards,
cockroach and bedbug infestations, structural hazards and
dilapidated laundry rooms and common areas.

The properties included 386 apartment units, 95 boardinghouse
units, and 30 mobile home or RV spaces.

Santa Maria eventually settled with the landlord, who agreed to
make necessary upgrades and to pay the city $336,000 to cover its
expenses in the case.

In other words, there are tools available to go after bad landlords
-- but agencies have to pick them up and use them.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

For too long, agencies in San Luis Obispo County have either
ignored or been slow to act on this dirty little secret of
substandard housing.

Now the secret is out, and it's time to demand action on several
fronts:

Education: Local governments, housing organizations, churches,
health agencies, etc., should join forces in reaching out to
tenants to make sure they 1) know their rights 2) know what to do
if landlords violate their rights and 3) have referrals to agencies
and organizations that can help, including tenant organizations.

Cities can start by making sure there is easy-to-find information
for renters on their website in both English and Spanish, and that
it includes a form for reporting problems to code enforcement.

Tracking and enforcement: Every agency in the county should not
only have a robust system to track complaints, it also should
report the outcomes of subsequent investigations. If nothing else,
that would serve notice to landlords that complaints are taken
seriously.

Inspections: Unfortunately, San Luis Obispo's experience with
rental inspections has been treated as a cautionary tale -- a
warning to other cities that they shouldn't even attempt such a
move. That's ridiculous. All options should be on the table,
especially in cities that know they have an issue with substandard
rentals. At the very least, there should be periodic inspections of
properties with a history of health and safety violations.

These steps will doubtless cost money and may even require hiring
additional staff at a time when local governments are struggling.
We strongly urge officials to allocate a portion of new tax dollars
-- voters in six of the seven cities just approved tax increases --
toward the effort.

No one should have to put up with mold, vermin, leaky roofs, faulty
plumbing and heating -- not at a restaurant, and certainly not in
rental housing.

Other California cities and counties have stepped up to protect
tenants and hold bad landlords accountable. It's time to demand
that our agencies do the same. [GN]


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to file a second amended complaint against the Trust is still
pending.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the company (Trust),
SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of
SandRidge, among other defendants.

The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawrence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
(SDR) in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.  

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.

In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SDR, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are
being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust,
but also by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust.

On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the Trust's motion
dismissing claims brought by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations.

On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without prejudice
should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.

Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.

On April 2, 2020, the Trust filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Trust, arguing that
there is no evidence of requisite intent by the Trust, and further,
that the alleged acts and omissions of other defendants are not
properly attributable to the Trust. That motion remains pending.

On August 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint against the Trust. That motion remains
pending.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.

SANOFI SA: Faces Zantac Class Actions Over Presence of NDMA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph H. Saunders, writing for Legal Examiner, reports that in the
fall of 2019 the USDA reported on the existence of NDMA in Zantac
and generic ranitidine products Several months later an order was
issued requiring the recall of every single ranitidine drug on the
market. The discovery of this contaminant in Zantac was extremely
alarming for the estimated 15 million Americans who take the
over-the-counter (OTC) heartburn medication. N-Nitrosodimethylamine
-- NDMA -- is actually much more than a contaminant -- it also is a
carcinogen.

This distressing discovery NDMA in Zantac has brought lawsuits on
behalf of plaintiffs who claim the companies knew of the presence
of NDMA in the medication yet did not disclose that information to
the FDA. These complaints have been filed by individuals diagnosed
with stomach cancer, bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal
cancer and other cancers along the digestive tract, alleging that
ranitidine contained in Zantac breaks down into NDMA inside the
body.

Other studies have also linked NDMA to prostate cancer. An early
study conducted on laboratory animals showed that weekly ingestion
of nitrosamine induced prostate cancer in 5 out of 15 subjects.
Excessive cell growth was also found in the prostate gland of 13
subjects with or without cancer.

Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer. In the
United more than 3 million cases of prostate cancer diagnosed each
year It often grows slowly, and is treatable as long as it is
contained to the prostate. Once it metastasizes to other parts of
the body, the chances of survival are greatly diminished.

Many Zantac lawsuits and Zantac class-action lawsuits have already
been filed in courts around the country. Plaintiffs have claimed
that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the presence
of NDMA in their products but failed to warn consumers or
healthcare providers. Zantac was a popular and widely distributed
drug and at Saunders & Walker we believe that there could be
thousands more potential claims against these companies that are
worth billions in compensation for the consumers harmed by this
dangerous drug.

Saunders & Walker continues to advocate for the welfare of people
who have suffered injury from negligence by the corporate medical
device and pharmaceutical drug industry. If you or a loved one took
Zantac or a generic equivalent and have been diagnosed with cancer,
please contact Saunders & Walker at 1-800-748-7115 for a free
consultation to review your case and help determine your best legal
options for pursuing justice and compensation. [GN]


SARISSA CAPITAL: Goldstein Files Rule 4(d)(c) Statement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEWART N. GOLDSTEIN, M.D., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER
J. DENNER, JOHN G. COX, ANNA PROTOPAPAS, BRIAN S. POSNER, LOUIS J.
PAGLIA, GENO J. GERMANO, JOHN T. GREENE, ANDREA DiFABIO, SARISSA
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, SARISSA CAPITAL DOMESTIC FUND LP, SARISSA
CAPITAL OFFSHORE MASTER FUND LP, and SARISSA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GP
LLC, Case No. 2020-1061 (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 15, 2020), the
Plaintiff filed a statement pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 4
(d)(c) in connection with the service of process pursuant to 10
Del. C. Section 3114.

According to the statement, Defendants Alexander J. Denner, John G.
Cox, Anna Protopapas, Brian S. Posner, Louis J. Paglia, Geno J.
Germano, John T. Greene and Andrea DiFabio served as executive
officers and/or as members of the Board of Directors of Bioverativ
Inc., a Delaware corporation, at the time of the wrongs complained
of in the Verified Class Action Complaint in this matter.

The principal place of business for Bioverativ Inc. outside the
State of Delaware is: Bioverativ Inc. 225 Second Avenue Waltham,
Massachusetts 02451. The Delaware registered agent for Bioverativ
Inc. is: Corporation Service Company 251 Little Falls Drive
Wilmington, Delaware 19808.

The address for Defendant Louis J. Paglia, as listed on Bioverativ
Inc.'s 2017 Annual Franchise Tax Report filed with the Delaware
Secretary of State is: Louis J. Paglia c/o Bioverativ Inc. 225
Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts 02451.

The addresses outside the State of Delaware for Defendants
Alexander J. Denner, John G. Cox, Anna Protopapas, Brian S. Posner,
Geno Germano, John T. Greene and Andrea DiFabio were not listed on
Bioverativ Inc.'s 2017 Annual Franchise Tax Report filed with the
Delaware Secretary of State. Upon information and belief, the
address outside the State of Delaware for Defendants Alexander J.
Denner, John G. Cox, Anna Protopapas, Brian S. Posner, Geno
Germano, John T. Greene and Andrea DiFabio is: c/o Bioverativ Inc.
225 Second Avenue Waltham, Massachusetts 02451. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          John G. Day, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500

               - and -

          R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
          COOCH & TAYLOR P.A.
          1007 North Orange Street Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3810
          
               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP  
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058  

               - and -

          Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203   
          
               - and -

          Brett Middleton, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486

SEASONS FOOD: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages and Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA MARTINEZ and MARISOL MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v.
SEASONS FOOD SERVICE INC. d/b/a FRESHSTART FOOD SERVICE and
DIMITRIOS KAPADOUKAKIS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-07484 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law including failure to
compensate appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay proper
overtime wages, and retaliation.

Plaintiffs Gloria Martinez and Marisol Martinez were employed by
the Defendants as sorters and packers of fruits and vegetables from
April 2014 through January 2, 2020 and from 2014 through December
2019, respectively.

Seasons Food Service Inc., doing business as Freshstart Food
Service, is an operator of wholesale food distributor in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
         BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
         11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 957-9005
         Facsimile: (888) 826-5848
         E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com

SENSIBLE HOUSING: Kajiwara Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sensible Housing
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tracy Kajiwara,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sensible
Housing Solutions LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, True
Freedom Achievers LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Case
No. 2:20-cv-02459-DMF (D. Ariz., Dec. 21, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sensible Housing Solutions LLC is a real estate consultant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Phone: (602) 529-8347
          Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th St.
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com



SENSUALLY YOURS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sensually Yours, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sensually Yours, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10701 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Sensually Yours -- https://www.sensuallyyours.com/ -- is an adult
novelty business and lingerie store that has been in business since
1984. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SERVIS ONE: Richards RESPA & FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANDA RICHARDS, on her behalf individually and on
behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated persons v.
SERVIS ONE INC. d/b/a BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, Case No.
C-08-CV-20-000636, was removed from the Maryland Circuit Court for
Charles County to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland on December 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-03683-PX to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Servis One Inc., doing business as BSI Financial Services, is a
company that specializes in loan servicing and subservicing, loan
review and due diligence, and loan default services, headquartered
in Irving, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Edward W. Chang, Esq.
         BLANK ROME, LLP
         One Logan Square - 130 N. 18th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 569-5342
         Facsimile: (215) 832-5342
         E-mail: echang@blankrome.com

SHAMROCK FOODS: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL LARA DIAZ, individually, on a representative
basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHAMROCK
FOODS CO. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. RIC2004126,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on December 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02610-FMO-SHK 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 failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful
competition.

Shamrock Foods Co. is a manufacturer and distributor of food and
food-related products, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Andrew J. Sommer, Esq.
         Megan S. Shaked, Esq.
         CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP
         870 Market Street, Suite 1151
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Telephone: (415) 268-8894
         Facsimile: (415) 268-8889
         E-mail: asommer@connmaciel.com
                 mshaked@connmaciel.com

SHIFT HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burns Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BURNS, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GABRIEL SCOTT, and SHIFT HOSPITALITY LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10518 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2020)
brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants
for their alleged unlawful policies and practices in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform managerial,
sales and operational tasks from approximately December 2018 until
his employment ended in 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to pay minimum wage compensation for
all hours worked, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in
a workweek, and spread-of-hours premium;

     -- The Defendants failed to provide a Time of Hire Notice
detailing rates of pay and payday;

     -- The Defendants failed to provide a paystub that accurately
and truthfully lists employee's hours along with employee's other
information; and

     -- The Defendants failed to keep accurate and timely records
of Employee's employment.

Specifically, the Defendant of failed to pay the Plaintiff's
lawfully earned wages for a total of $35,695.35, and failed to
reimburse for bounced checks in the amount of $652.26, a return fee
in the amount of $48, and an executive placement fee in the amount
of $18,750.

The Plaintiff seeks for all unpaid wages, liquidated damages and/or
punitive damages, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment fees, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred.

Gabriel Scott owns and operates Shift Hospitality LLC which is a
hospitality business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hui Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HUI CHEN
             & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Tel: (718) 463-2666


SOLARWINDS CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Potential Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company")
(NYSE:SWI).

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in SolarWinds
stock or options and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/SWI 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.

On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed in a Form 8-K that it
had become "aware of a cyberattack that inserted a vulnerability
within its Orion monitoring products which, if present and
activated, could potentially allow an attacker to compromise the
server on which the Orion products run." Further, SolarWinds
provided that it believed the attack was "the result of a highly
sophisticated, targeted and manual supply chain attack by an
outside nation state."

On this news, SolarWinds's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or
16.69%, to close at $19.62 per share. [GN]

SONA NANOTECH: Faces Alperstein Suit Over Decline in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ALPERSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONA NANOTECH INC.; DAVID REGAN;
and ROBERT RANDALL, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11405 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 17, 2020) is a federal securities class action brought by the
Plaintiff and the class who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Sona between July 2, 2020 and
November 25, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies 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.

According to the complaint, on July 2, 2020, the Company issued a
press release announcing positive results of its rapid detection
COVID-19 antigen test and its development plan.

The press release were materially false and misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (1) it was unreasonable for Sona to
represent that it could receive results from field
studies of its COVID-19 antigen test within a month; (2) Sona's
positive statements about its COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded
as the FDA would deprioritize EUA approval of Sona's antigen test
finding it did not meet "the public health need" criterion; (3) it
was unreasonable for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a
short period of time would be sufficient for approval of its
antigen test by either the FDA or Health Canada; (4) Sona would
have to withdraw its submission for Interim Order ("IO")
authorization from Health Canada for the marketing of its COVID-19
antigen test as it lacked sufficient clinical data to support
approval; 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.

Sona Nanotech Inc. provides gold designing and testing services.
The Company produces, researches, and analysis gold nanorods for
diagnostic test products and medical treatment applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SONA NANOTECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Sona Nanotech Inc. ("Sona" or "the Company") (OTCQB:SNANF) 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 July 2,
2020 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 16, 2021.

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. Sona unreasonably represented to the
market that it could receive field studies of its COVID-19 antigen
test within one month. The Company's positive statements about its
antigen tests were unfounded. In fact, the FDA would deprioritize
emergency use authorization approval of the Company's antigen test
stating it did not meet "the public health need." The Company did
not have a reasonable basis to believe that data collected in a
short time would be acceptable to the FDA or Health Canada. 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 Sona, 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]


SONIM TECH: Settlement Reached in California IPO Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company has
entered into an agreement with the Lead Plaintiff in the putative
class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly
purchased stock registered in Sonia's initial public offering (IPO)
filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned Pearson v.
Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564, on behalf of
himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim registered in the
IPO.

On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of
Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action, or the
'33 Act State Court Actions.  

The defendants have asked the Superior Court to dismiss the '33 Act
State Court Actions based on the provision in the Company's Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation requiring stockholders to
file and litigate in federal court any claims under the Securities
Act of 1933. That motion is pending.

On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California or the "33 Act Federal Action. All
four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by
Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and directors
for, among other things, alleged false or misleading statements and
omissions in the registration statement issued in connection with
the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure to disclose
software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged misstatements about
performance characteristics of Sonim's phones.

In July 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with the Lead
Plaintiff in '33 Act Federal Action to settle that case on a
classwide basis for $2.0 million. This settlement is subject to
court approval, as well as stockholders' opportunity to object and
opt-out as provided by the federal court.

As a result, the Company has recorded a $2.0 million accrual as of
September 30, 2020.

Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and
accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones,
such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android
platform that are capable of attaching to public and private
wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote
speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle
hands-free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software
and application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile
phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United
States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December
2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.

SOUTHWEST TRADERS: Gibson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Traders
Incorporated. The case is styled as Michael Gibson, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southwest Traders Incorporated, a California corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010620 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 17,
2020).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Southwest Traders Inc. -- http://www.southwesttraders.com/-- is
headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of specialized foods such as eggs,
poultry, health foods, spices, herbs, coffee, and tea. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          1110 Franklin St Ste 6, Oakland, CA 94607-6528
          Phone: (415) 779-2888
          Fax: (415) 738-7873
          Email: larry@ysleelaw.com


SPARK ENERGY: Court Dismisses ICFA & Breach Claims in Burger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BECKY BURGER, Plaintiff v. SPARK ENERGY GAS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19 C 8231 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Spark Energy's
motion to dismiss Burger's amended complaint.

Illinois has deregulated the retail residential natural gas supply
market, with the expectation that increased competition in the open
market will lead to lower prices for consumers. Many alternative
retail natural gas suppliers ("AGSs"), including Spark Energy,
offer their services to Illinois residents.  Consumers may switch
to an AGS or continue to receive their energy supply from the local
utility.

Plaintiff Burger contracted with Spark Energy for residential
natural gas supply services in the hopes of saving on the cost of
natural gas.  Finding that Spark Energy actually charged her more
than she would have paid if she had remained with her local utility
supplier, Burger filed the putative class action against Spark
Energy, alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") (Counts I and II).  She
also brings claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing (Count III), and unjust enrichment
(Count IV).

As to Counts I and II, Burger claims that Spark Energy violated
ICFA by (1) representing that its variable rates would vary based
on market conditions when in fact it charges variable rates
substantially higher than dictated by market conditions, and (2)
charging a monthly administrative fee despite failing to disclose
that fee in the Terms of Service.  Spark Energy raises numerous
challenges to Burger's ICFA claims

As to Count III, Burger claims that Spark Energy breached its
promise to charge a variable rate that may vary according to market
conditions, as well as its promise not to charge a monthly
administrative fee without prior disclosure in the Terms of
Service.  Additionally, she claims that Spark Energy acted in bad
faith by engaging in price gouging and frustrating Burger's
reasonable expectation that the variable rate would reflect market
prices.  Spark Energy argues that Burger has not sufficiently
alleged that it breached any contractual promise and that she
cannot pursue an independent claim for breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing.

As to Count IV, Spark Energy argues that Burger's unjust enrichment
claim fails because the amended complaint does not adequately
allege that Spark Energy deceived Burger, piggybacking on one of
the arguments it made in support of the dismissal of Burger's ICFA
claim.

Spark Energy has filed a motion to dismiss Burger's amended
complaint.

Judge Ellis dismisses Burger's ICFA claims without prejudice
because she has failed to allege that Spark Energy's alleged
misrepresentations caused her damage.  While Burger has not
sufficiently alleged that Spark Energy breached an express
contractual promise as to how it would determine the variable rate
it charged Burger, she may proceed with a claim for breach with
respect to the variable rate based on the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, as well as a claim that Spark Energy
breached its promise not to charge a monthly administrative fee
unless disclosed in the parties' agreement.

Because an unjust enrichment claim may proceed as an alternative to
a contractual claim without pleading fraud, the Judge does not find
it necessary at this time to consider whether Burger can proceed on
an unjust enrichment claim even if she has not adequately alleged
deceptive conduct.

For these reasons, Judge Ellis granted in part and denied in part
Spark Energy's motion to dismiss.  She dismissed the ICFA claims
(Counts I and II) without prejudice.  She also dismissed without
prejudice the breach of contract claim (Count III) to the extent it
is based on breach of an express provision that the variable rate
may vary according to market conditions.  The Judge denied Spark
Energy's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion
to dismiss as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3h1XvKN from Leagle.com.


SPECIAL TOUCH: Estep Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWNA ESTEP, Plaintiff v. SPECIAL TOUCH NURSING SERVICE, INC. and
A SPECIAL TOUCH IN HOME CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00788 (S.D.W. Va., Dec. 2, 2020) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, seeking to
recover damages due and owing under the federal law known as the
Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay appropriate wages as
required by law.

The complaint contends that the Defendants' conduct violates the
FLSA and entitles Plaintiff to compensation for all hours in which
she was not paid minimum wages, overtime hours worked, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

Ms. Estep began employment with the Defendants, Special Touch
Nursing Service, Inc. and A Special Touch In Home Care, LLC, on
October 1, 2012, and has been continuously employed thereafter.

Special Touch Nursing Service, Inc. is a nursing agency in South
Charleston, West Virginia.

A Special Touch in Home Care, LLC offers individuals and families
with an alternative to nursing homes and other care facilities.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Michael Ranson, Esq.
          Cynthia M. Ranson, Esq.
          RANSON LAW OFFICES PLLC
          1562 Kanawha Blvd.
          East Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 345-1990
          E-mail: jmr@ransonlaw.com
                  cmr@ransonlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Patrick Jacobs, Esq.
          JACOBS LAW OFFICE
          7020 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
          Charleston, WV 25304
          Telephone: (304) 926-6676
          E-mail: pjacobs@bjblaw.com

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Shea Seeks to Certify FDCPA & FCCPA Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SHEA, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C. (SLS), Case No.
8:20-cv-01935-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the following two classes:

      --  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class,
          consisting of:

          "all persons in the United States to whom Specialized
          Loan Servicing L.L.C. conveyed debt collection
          information on or after September 15, 2019 after being
          advised of their representation by counsel"; and

      --  The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA)
          Class, consisting of:

          "all Florida residents to whom Specialized Loan
          Servicing L.L.C. conveyed debt collection information
          on or after September 15, 2018 after being advised of
          their representation by counsel;" and

   2. appointing himself as class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

According to the complaint, SLS violated the FDCPA and FCCPA by
continuing to contact the Plaintiff in connection with the
collection of a debt after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from
the Plaintiff's counsel directing that SLS immediately cease all
contacts with Plaintiff. Notwithstanding this instruction, SLS
initiated no less than fifteen collection calls  to the Plaintiff
and continued to correspond with the Plaintiff concerning the
debt.

SLS operates as a financial company. The company offers residential
mortgages.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
14, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3gTQFXM at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young Kim, Esq.
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 270
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (877) 241-2200
          E-mail: litigation@consumerlawattorneys.com
                  ykim@consumerlawattorneys.com

               - and -

          Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ, P.L.L.C.
          1014 Ontario Street
          Oak Park, IL 60302
          Telephone: (708) 203-5747
          E-mail: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com

SPECIALTY INDUSTRIAL: Faces Meraz Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UMBERTO DAMIAN MERAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SPECIALTY INDUSTRIAL, LLC and WILLIAM CARMOUCHE, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00846-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., Dec. 16, 2020) seeks redress
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for
the Defendants' violations of their rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant beginning in about May
2019 and ending in about September 2020 to perform industrial plant
services in Louisiana, Texas and other states.

Specialty Industrial, LLC provides a variety industrial services to
plants in south Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
          4465 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 336-3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
          E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com

SPECTRUM CHARTERS: Alexander Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Travis Alexander, Jessica Alexander, Doris
Seelye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Spectrum Charters, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-01127, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 21, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01835-SEP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee
Benefits.

Charter Communications, Inc. -- https://official.spectrum.com/ --
is a leading broadband connectivity company and cable operator
serving more than 30 million customers in 41 states through its
Spectrum brand. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Phone: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Reagan, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US, LLP
          3111 W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33607-6233
          Phone: (813) 222-5915
          Fax: (813) 371-1102
          Email: amy.reagan@dlapiper.com


SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) ("Splunk") on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock between October
21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than February 2, 2021, 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/splunk-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=splunk.

According to its filings with the SEC, Splunk "Provides innovative
software solutions that ingest data from different sources
including systems, devices and interactions, and turn[s] that data
into meaningful business insights across the organization." Splunk
states that its "Data-to-Everything platform enables users to
investigate, monitor, analyze and act on data regardless of format
or source."

The Class Period commences on October 21, 2020, when Splunk held a
call with several analysts at the Virtual Analyst & Investor
Session at.conf.20. On this call, Splunk assured investors that
everything was on track for the close of the third quarter, which
was just ten days after the call.

However, the truth regarding its third quarter was revealed after
the market closed on December 2, 2020, when Splunk announced its
financial results for its third fiscal quarter for 2021. In its
announcement, Splunk reported total revenues of $559 million, down
11% year-over-year and which missed estimates by nearly $60
million. Furthermore, Splunk announced quarterly non-GAAP earnings
per share of -$0.07, missing estimates by $0.15, as well as GAAP
earnings per share of -$1.26, missing by $0.24 per share.

Following this news, shares of Splunk common stock fell, closing at
$158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, down over 23% from the
December 2, 2020 closing price of $205.91 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers
in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Splunk investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.

Splunk investors may, no later than February 2, 2021, 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) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com
http://www.ktmc.com[GN]


SPRINGDALE HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA HARRIS; and KYLEE BELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINGDALE HOME CARE
SERVICES, LLC; and LHC GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-05222 (W.D. Ark., De. 18, 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.

Plaintiff Harris was employed by the Defendants as Registered Nurse
Care Manager. Plaintiff Bell was employed as Physical Therapist.

Springdale Home Care Services, LLC is a home health service
provider. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: Lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com


SQUARETRADE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Shuman Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SHUMAN v.
SQUARETRADE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02725-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order granting in part and denying
in part SquareTrade's motion to dismiss unjust enrichment claim and
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim.

The Court said, "The fact that Shuman purchased the service
contract from which his UCL Claim arises in Pennsylvania, Shuman
cannot assert a claim under California's UCL. Therefore, the Court
dismisses UCL Claim with prejudice. Because there are disputes
about the existence and scope of the express contract upon which
Shuman's breach of contract claim is based, the Court declines to
dismiss Shuman's unjust enrichment claim at the pleading stage of
the case.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that
SquareTrade, which sells service contracts for the protection of
consumer goods, consistently fails to provide consumers with the
full terms and conditions of the contract at the time of purchase
and systematically pays reimbursement in an amount that is less
than the purchase price of the covered item when claims are filed.
In his complaint, he asserts claims under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nHJft0 at no extra charge.[CC]

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Jail Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Rivas, writing for The Rolla Daily News, reports that when
Bonne Terre resident Robert Hopple entered the St. Francois County
Detention Center in May 2018, he was placed in a small holding cell
with about ten other men for roughly three days.

Hopple, 49, says the jail staff gave him a urine-soaked mat and a
thin blanket to sleep on the floor -- while some men slept standing
up.

When he was moved to the jail's general population area, conditions
didn't improve.

"I've heard it called 'hell' a few times," Hopple said. "The only
thing I can think to call it is, 'the worst place in the world to
be."

One day in October, the facility was so cold that the sewage from
his backed-up toilet froze on the ground in his cell, he said.
Hopple also "experienced and witnessed" deputies arranging fights
among the inmates for entertainment on Fridays.

His five-month detainment is detailed in a federal class-action
lawsuit filed Monday against St. Francois County, Advanced
Correctional Healthcare, Inc., Sheriff Daniel Bullock, Jail
Administrator Dennis Smith, and nurse Heather Smith.

Hopple had not yet been convicted of crime, and was awaiting trial
in the county jail in Farmington.

The suit claims that Hopple and two other pre-trial detainees --
who joined the lawsuit -- endured "unlawful conditions," including
extreme temperatures, hunger, inadequate medical care, unsanitary
conditions and retaliation by deputies at the jail.

"These conditions, which have been exposed and brought before St.
Francois County officials repeatedly over years by detainees, in
media reports, and through litigation, violate basic standards of
human decency as well as the United States Constitution," the suit
states.

Bullock, who oversees the jail, and the jail's healthcare
contractor, Advancement Correctional Healthcare, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment by The Independent.

The stories of Stefani Rudigier, a 27-year-old St. Louis County
resident, and Shawn Mesey, a 31-year-old resident of Jefferson
City, are also included in the suit.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri by several law groups — ArchCity Defenders,
the Simon Law Firm, Vonne Karraker and Vincent Colianni.

"It is completely inconceivable that the actions of St Francois
County officials have been able to go unchecked in such a pervasive
and systemic manner for so long," said Corrigan Lewis, staff
attorney at ArchCity Defenders.

Rudigier was detained pretrial from March 5, 2017 to March 3, 2019.
She lost 110 pounds during her time there because of the small food
rations.

"You are just treated absolutely terrible before you're found
guilty of anything," said Rudigier, who lives in Maplewood in St.
Louis County. "I just felt like I was truly fighting for my life."

According to the complaint, the jail can house about 170 detainees,
and the average daily population is 136 detainees. However, it
routinely exceeded 200 people, it states.

Since 2005, 27 cases have been filed in the Eastern District of
Missouri regarding allegations of physical violence, denial of
medical care, lack of food, and overcrowding, according to suit.

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice revoked a contract for St.
Francois County jail to detain people with federal charges, noting
several substandard conditions.

ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, has
filed several lawsuits in the St. Louis area on behalf of pre-trial
detainees. Cases are pending against Ferguson, Florissant, St. Ann,
St. Charles County, and St. Louis city.

One of the lawsuits, filed in November 2017, alleges inhumane
conditions at St. Louis' Medium Security Institution, commonly
referred to as "the Workhouse."

Vonne Karraker is an attorney with Malaney, Karraker and Karraker
who lives in St. Francois and is "appalled by the lack of
accountability" at the jail.

"This government has spoiled the reputation of the county,"
Karraker said, "and it's devastating."


STABILIS SOLUTION: Barrett Class Suit vs. Subsidiary Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stabilis Solutions, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
subsidiary M&I Electric Industries, Inc., continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Pelton Ray Barrett, et al. v. Arkema,
Inc., et al.

In January of 2020, the Company received notification that its
subsidiary, M&I Electric Industries, Inc. has been named as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit Pelton Ray Barrett, et al. v.
Arkema, Inc., et al. as the result of a fire on August 31, 2017, on
a site owned or operated by Arkema, Inc. allegedly resulting in
chemical exposure.

Other defendants in the suit, including M&I are alleged to have
been responsible for the installation, repair, design, and/or
maintenance of the electrical, refrigeration and environmental
systems required to mitigate damages from the release of chemicals.


The Company, through its insurance providers, has engaged outside
legal counsel to defend against these claims.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution of this matter will
not have a material adverse impact on the Company's condensed
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity.

Stabilis Solutions, Inc. provides integrated LNG fueling solutions.
The Company specializes in the production and distribution of
liquefied natural gas (LNG), as well as offers technical support
services. Stabilis Solutions operates in North America. The company
is based in Houston, Texas.


STARBUCKS CORP: George Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christopher George, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 19, 2020, and
Judgment dated Nov. 19, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE, JESSICA CHANDRA, LISA JAME, CHELSEA MALEY,
APRIL BODDIE, MICKAEL LOUIS, EDUARDO LEACH, JOSH FOLAN, LOGAN
VAIRO, and BASMA ATTIEH, on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION d/b/a STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-6185, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs allege that the coffee
chain violated New York consumer protection laws by advertising the
quality of its products while employing noxious pesticides at
several of its New York locations.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's
decision, granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss since the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the Defendant engaged in
deceptive practices or false advertising.

The appellate case is captioned as George v. Starbucks Corporation,
Case No. 20-4050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, Dec. 2, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Christopher George, Jessica Chandra, Lisa
Jame, Chelsea Maley, April Boddie, Mickael Louis, Eduardo Leach,
Josh Folan, Logan Vairo, Basma Attieh, and Robert Carobene, on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:

          Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Starbucks Corporation, DBA Starbucks Coffee
Company, is represented by:

          David Jason Lender, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8153
          E-mail: david.lender@weil.com

               - and -

          Bambo Obaro, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Parkway
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 802-3083  
          E-mail: bambo.obaro@weil.com

STATE FARM FIRE: Fox Insurance Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN FOX, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Case No. MRS-L-2230 20, was removed from the New Jersey Superior
Court, Morris County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on Dec. 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-18131-BRM-ESK to the proceeding.

The case arises from insurance contract-related issues and is
assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company of Bloomington operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers automobile, property,
casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. State
Farm Fire and Casualty serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Bronster, Esq.
          17 Wendell Place
          Fairview, NJ 07022
          Telephone: (201) 945-2566
          Facsimile: (201) 945-2688
          E-mail: jbronster@bronsterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda Anne Meehan, Esq.
          David F. Swerdlow, Esq.
          WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF LLP
          120 Albany Street Plaza, Ste 6th Floor
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Telephone: (732) 846-7600
          E-mail: ameehan@windelsmarx.com
                  dswerdlow@windelsmarx.com


STEVEN REAMS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement on Hold
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD
HUNTER, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order holding in abeyance a
decision on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and Appointment of
Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice so that the
parties can supplement their motion.

"The supplemental briefing shall discuss locations for posting
notice within the WCJ in English and Spanish, the location for
sending objections that does not involve the Court, and inclusion
of "past" and "future" inmates in the definition of the class,"
Judge Brimmer says.

On April 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited hearing.
The Plaintiffs later withdrew the portion of their motion seeking a
temporary restraining order. On April 30, 2020, the Court conducted
a hearing on plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. The Court
issued a preliminary injunction that identified actions defendant
had to take to identify and protect medically vulnerable inmates at
WCJ. This preliminary injunction has been extended several times
and is currently set to expire February 5, 2021.

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KriSJi at no extra charge.[CC]

STUDENT LOAN: Threatens Consumers to Pay Debts, Shadrin Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YURY SHADRIN and TANIA BURINSKAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS,
LLC; WILLIAMS & FUDGE, INC.; and FELDMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Defendants, Case No. C-02-CV-20-002123 (Md. Cir., Anne Arundel
Cty., December 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in abusive,
deceptive, or unfair debt collection practices by threatening to
file consumer collection lawsuits against consumers in Maryland for
time-barred debts. The Defendants' illegal actions in attempting to
collect debt caused the Plaintiff to suffer costs, attorney's fees,
inconvenience, plus physical manifestations of emotional distress,
humiliation, familial tensions, and mental anguish.

Student Loan Solutions, LLC is a debt collection company doing
business in Maryland.

Williams & Fudge, Inc. is a collection agency that is doing
business in Maryland.

Feldman & Associates, P.C. is a collection agency that is doing
business in Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq.
         HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
         222 Severn Avenue, Suite 17
         Annapolis, MD 21403
         Telephone: (410) 777-5396
         Facsimile: (410) 777-8237
         E-mail: kat@lawhyland.com

                - and –

         Peter A. Holland, Esq.
         THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
         914 Bay Ridge Rd. Ste. 230
         Annapolis, MD 21403
         Telephone: (410) 280-6133
         Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
         E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com

SUNPRO SOLAR: Baker Files TCPA Suit in D. Vermont
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPro Solar, LLC.
The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SunPro Solar, LLC, a Louisiana
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-00215-gwc (D. Vt., Dec.
18, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sunpro Solar -- https://www.gosunpro.com/ -- is a provider of
rooftop solar in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Borick , Esq.
          DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
          199 Main Street
          P.O. Box 190
          Burlington, VT 05402-0190
          Phone: (802) 863-2375
          Fax: (802) 862-7512
          Email: mborick@drm.com


SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INES BURGOS, et al., v.
SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06910-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
      of class action settlement; and

   2. directing the parties to meet and confer and stipulate to
      a schedule of dates for the following events, which shall
      be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of
      this Order: Deadline for implementing classwide notice
      plan; Deadline for Class Members to object to settlement
      and/or application for attorneys’ fees and costs and
      incentive payment; Filing deadline for final approval
      motion; and Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions.

      Settlement Agreement:

      A. As part of the consideration for this Agreement,
         Sunvalleytek agrees to 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).

      B. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Class Counsel shall make an
         application for an award of Attorneys' Fees for work on
         this case (not to include any work on any related
         cases) not exceeding $315,000. The Defendant may oppose
         that application except that it shall not propose to
         pay an amount less than $45,000.

      C. The Settlement Class is defined as: All consumers who
         have purchased any of the Covered Products in the
         United States.

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 amount of mAh available to charge PEDs
controls how frequently consumers may charge their PEDs and how
much power is available to the consumer for each charge. The
Plaintiffs allege that the products' actual capacities are
substantially lower than what Sunvalleytek represents.

A copy of Court's order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement dated Dec. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWwcnZ at no extra charge.[CC]

SYNCHRONY BANK: O'Neill Suit removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael O'Neill, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 2082CV00993,
was removed from the Norfolk Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-12257-GAO to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Synchrony Bank -- https://www.synchronybank.com/ -- is anonline
bank offering a variety of products including high yield savings
accounts, certificates of deposit and money markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (203) 653-2250 x5500
          Fax: (203) 653-3424
          Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William F. McGonigle , III, Esq.
          ARROWOOD LLP
          10 Post Office Square, 7th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 849-6208
          Email: wmcgonigle@arrowoodllp.com


TELTECH SYSTEMS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELTECH SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ROBOKILLER, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10693 (S.D.N.Y., December
18, 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 has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.robokiller.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alt-text for images; (b) document titles are blank; (c)
frames do not have a title; (d) PDFs are not properly tagged and
therefore are inaccessible to screen reader users; (e) some pages
have the same title, so the title cannot be used to distinguish
pages; (f) form controls have no label and no programmatically
determined name; (g) forms have fields without label elements or
title attributes; (h) Webpages have duplicate IDs which cause
problems in screen readers; (i) Webpages have markup errors; (j)
Webpages have no headings, headings are not nested correctly; and
(k) several links on a page share the same link text, but go to
different destinations.

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

Teltech Systems, Inc., doing business as Robokiller, is an online
consumer and privacy protection service provider, with corporate
headquarters located at 330 West 34th Street, New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10017-6705
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Bartlett Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY BARTLETT and CASSANDRA VAGLIENTY, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Case
No. CGC-20-588293 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 4, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code
including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to
provide required meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate
itemized statements, failure to reimburse employees for required
expenses, failure to provide wages when due, and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees.

Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores headquartered
in Monrovia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmilk, Esq.
          Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232

TRANS UNION: High Court Agrees to Review Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Raupp, Esq., of Husch Blackwell LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that on December 16, the Supreme Court of the
United States agreed to review a case with potential major
implications for data-breach class actions.

Trans Union v. Ramirez arises out of a class action about
inaccurate credit reports. The class representative claimed that
his credit report contained an error indicating that his name
matched someone on the government's list of persons with whom
businesses in the United States are prohibited from transacting.
Mr. Ramirez claimed this error caused him to be unable to obtain
credit when purchasing a vehicle, caused him embarrassment in front
of his family, and caused him to cancel a vacation to Mexico.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Ramirez sued Trans Union on behalf of himself
and anyone who received a notification from Trans Union of a
similar error in their credit report within the relevant time
period (upwards of 8,000 people). Trans Union opposed this class,
arguing that several of the proposed class members did not have
legal standing to assert a claim because it was not established
that their inaccurate credit report was ever sent to any
third-party, much less that it caused them the denial of credit or
any other injury. Indeed, Mr. Ramirez stipulated that over 75% of
the class members had never had an inaccurate report sent to a
third-party. Trans Union also argued that Mr. Ramirez's claims were
not "typical" of those asserted by the rest of the class, another
requirement for a plaintiff to proceed in a federal class action.

The district court rejected Trans Union's arguments and the case
proceeded to trial. The jury awarded approximately $8 million in
statutory damages and approximately $52 million in punitive
damages. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed in
a 2-1 decision (other than slightly reducing the punitive damages
award), allowing the decision to stand. Trans Union has now
appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court has agreed to review
the case.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case could have a major impact
on data-breach cases as well. In many data-breach class actions,
the named plaintiff -- just like Mr. Ramirez -- will allege
personal fraud as a result of a data breach but will seek to
represent a large class of individuals, many of whom have not
suffered fraud themselves. Indeed, in some such cases, it is not
even established that the other class members' information was
taken in the breach, only that access to the information was
possible for a period of time. Defendants in these cases frequently
make the same arguments as Trans Union, especially arguments
claiming a lack of standing. Thus, depending on the outcome of this
case and the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling, the landscape of
data-breach class-action litigation may be in for a change.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by June 2021. [GN]


TRANSTAR INDUSTRIES: Magallon Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN MAGALLON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. TRANSTAR
INDUSTRIES, INC.; TS LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01167609-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on December 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02360 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 minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair
business practices.

Transtar Industries, Inc. is a company that offers transmission and
drivetrain-related solutions, headquartered in Walton Hills, Ohio.

TS Logistics Solutions LLC is a logistics company based in Walton
Hills, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Esq.
         Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 250-1800
         Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
         E-mail: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Stacey.Shim@lewisbrisbois.com

TRITERRAS INC: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Dec. 21 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Ferraiori v.
Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp., et al., (Case No.
1:20-cv-10795) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Triterras, Inc. ("Triterras" or the "Company")
f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. ("Netfin") (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW)
securities between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Triterras 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/triterras-inc/. 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 or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
It operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform
that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from
lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and
Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd., which closed on November 11, 2020.

Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading
business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos
platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were
referred to it by Rhodium.

On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned
a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going
concern.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or 31%, to
close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The Company's warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%, to
close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied
on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the
Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial
liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going
concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer
users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from this notice ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, 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 H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


TRUMAN ROAD: Smith Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to Eight Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Zachary Smith, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ZACHARY SMITH and BRIAN
KAGARICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMAN ROAD DEVELOPMENT, LLC d/b/a NO
OTHER PUB, THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00670-NKL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas
City.

The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its implementing
regulations.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 19, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss
with prejudice of Plaintiffs' remaining individual claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Zachary Smith, et al. v. Truman
Road Development, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-3581, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before January 25, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on February 2, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Brian Kagarice and Zachary Smith is due on
February 2, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Zachary Smith and Brian Kagarice,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          William Charles Kenney, Esq.
          BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 561
          Lee's Summit, MO 64063
          Telephone: (816) 842-2455
          E-mail: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Schuyler R. Ufkes, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 N. LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: movca@edelson.com  
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  sufkes@edelson.com   

               - and -

          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 234-5345
          E-mail: erapp@edelson.com
                  bsilverkorn@edelson.com   

Defendants-Appellees Truman Road Development, LLC, doing business
as No Other Pub, formerly known as Kansas City Sporting and Social
Club, LLC; The Cordish Companies, Inc.; and Entertainment
Consulting International, LLC are represented by:

          William James Foland, Esq.
          Jacqueline M. Sexton, Esq.
          FOLAND & WICKENS
          One Kansas City Place, Suite 2200
          1200 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105-0000
          Telephone: (816) 472-7474
          E-mail: jfoland@fwpclaw.com
                  jsexton@fwpclaw.com  

               - and -

          Glenn Timothy Graham, Esq.
          Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          Whitney M. Smith, Esq.
          KELLEY & DRYE
          One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          E-mail: ggraham@kelleydrye.com
                  lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
                  wsmith@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          David I. Zalman, Esq.
          KELLEY & DRYE
          101 Park Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10178-0000  
          Telephone: (212) 808-7985
          E-mail: dzalman@kelleydrye.com

TRUTHFINDER LLC: Faces Abboud Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUTHFINDER, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02415-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., December 11, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff claims that she received an unsolicited text message
from the Defendants on her cellular telephone number ending in
-3867 beginning on or about November 14, 2018 in an attempt to
solicit her to purchase its products and services. The Defendants
purportedly used an SMS Blasting Platform, which is an "automatic
telephone dialing system" (ATDS), in sending spam advertisements
and/or promotional offers via text messages. In addition, the
Defendants failed to obtain the Plaintiffs "prior express consent"
to receive text messages using an ATDS on her cellular telephone.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated consumers, who received spam
advertisements from the Defendants, were harmed and damaged by
causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for
which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy.

On behalf of himself and the Class members, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory and treble damages, an injunctive relief prohibiting such
conduct in the future, and any other relief that the Court deems
just and proper.

Truthfinder, LLC is a public records search company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIENDMAN, 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


UNC: Agrees to Reinstate Women's Golf Team to Avert Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNCP) has agreed to
reinstate its women's golf team, develop a gender equity plan, and
come into full compliance with Title IX to avoid a threatened class
action sex discrimination lawsuit.  Title IX, a federal civil
rights law passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972,
prohibits sex discrimination at any educational institution
receiving federal funds.

On September 9, 2020, UNCP announced it was "suspending" its
women's golf team for at least two years to save money. On November
24, 2020, Arthur Bryant of Bailey Glasser's office in Oakland, CA,
wrote to UNCP's President on behalf of the team members and said
the "suspension" violated Title IX. The law prohibits educational
institutions receiving federal funds from eliminating (or
"suspending") women's teams for which interest, ability, and
competition are available unless "intercollegiate level
participation opportunities for male and female students are
provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective
enrollments." UNCP's undergraduate enrollment is 60.1% women, but
the school offers women only 36.32% of the opportunities to
participate in varsity sports.

Bryant's letter said he and his co-counsel would file a class
action lawsuit against UNCP for depriving women athletes and
potential athletes of equal opportunities, athletic financial aid,
and treatment unless the school agreed to reinstate the team and
comply with Title IX. The settlement agreement, reached late
Friday, December 18, 2020, avoids the need for the class action.  

"We are delighted that UNCP has agreed to do the right thing:
reinstate women's golf, comply with Title IX, and achieve gender
equity," said Bryant. "It's time for schools across the country to
stop violating Title IX. Under the law -- which is almost 50 years
old -- women are entitled to equal opportunities, financial aid,
and treatment. This agreement will make sure female
student-athletes at UNCP get what Title IX requires. So should all
other female student-athletes in America."

"I am excited the university reinstated the golf team, looking
forward to playing in the upcoming season, and thrilled UNCP is
going to get into compliance with Title IX," said UNCP freshman
golfer Toni Blackwell, who was recruited to start playing this year
after being named Patriot Athletic Conference Player of the Year
all four years of high school in Fayetteville, NC.

UNCP's settlement agreement tracks a similar agreement Bryant and
his co-counsel reached in October with William & Mary College,
which announced the elimination of three women's varsity teams --
gymnastics, swimming, and volleyball -- and then agreed to
reinstate all three, develop a gender equity plan, and get into
compliance with Title IX to avoid being sued.

Under the agreement, UNCP will Immediately reinstate its women's
varsity golf team and develop a gender equity plan no later than
December 31, 2021. The school will solicit input for the plan from
student-athletes for all teams and expressly invite participation
by the women's golf team. It will post the plan on UNCP's athletics
department's website and ensure that UNCP's intercollegiate
athletic program complies with Title IX during the 2023-24 academic
year and beyond. The university will continue to monitor and manage
the plan on an on-going basis (including prior to its official
adoption) to maintain and improve UNCP's Title IX compliance.

Bryant was the lead trial counsel in the first Title IX case tried
against a university for discriminating against its women athletes
and potential athletes. He has successfully represented more women
athletes and potential athletes in Title IX litigation against
schools and universities than any lawyer in the country, including
Brown University, Temple University, UCLA, and many more.

The legal team for the women student-athletes's at UNCP also
includes Bailey Glasser Partner Cary Joshi in Washington, DC; Lori
Bullock of Newkirk Zwagerman in Des Moines, IA; and Daniel K.
Bryson, Jeremy Williams, and Sarah Spangenburg of Whitfield Bryson
LLP in Raleigh, NC. [GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Toloraia Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ioseb Toloraia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Collection Bureau, Inc., LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06130 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2020).

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

United Collection Bureau Inc. -- http://ucbinc.com/-- provides
debt collection and accounts receivable management services to
creditors. The Company offers services to various market sectors
including financial, health care, utilities, communications, and
government. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Congress Plans to Restore Medicaid to Micronesians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Hofschneider, writing for Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that
Congress plans to restore Medicaid access for citizens from Palau,
the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia living
in the U.S., Politico reported on Dec. 20. The change would help
thousands of Pacific Islanders who have been hit hard by the
coronavirus pandemic.

Congressional leaders confirmed to Politico on Dec. 20 that the
change will be included in the omnibus spending bill.

Citizens of the three Pacific nations live in the U.S. through
treaties known as the Compacts of Free Association that give the
U.S. strategic control over the western Pacific Ocean. But Congress
stripped the migrant community of access to Medicaid in the 1996
Welfare Reform Act.

That decision had major implications: even before the pandemic,
Hawaii residents from Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated
States of Micronesia struggled to access health care due to high
costs.

The pandemic has laid bare major health inequities. In Hawaii,
non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders have the highest rates of COVID-19
infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Other states have seen
similar trends. In Arkansas, Politico reported: "The local
Marshallese were more than 71 times more likely to be infected by
Covid-19 than the white population, 96 times more likely to be
hospitalized and 65 times more likely to die."

After Congress stripped Pacific Islander migrants of their access
to Medicaid, Hawaii continued to provide it through state-funded
MedQuest until Gov. Linda Lingle's administration stopped doing so
to save money.

MedQuest access was briefly restored after a class action lawsuit.
But when the state won its appeal, Gov. David Ige's administration
pushed migrants onto Obamacare in 2015. A University of Hawaii
study found that decision correlated with a sharp increase in
mortality in Hawaii's Micronesian community.

When reached by phone on Dec. 20, Hawaii resident Josie Howard said
she was crying tears of joy. Howard, who migrated from Chuuk
decades ago, co-founded the community organization We Are Oceania
in reaction to the lack of access to health care for her people.

"I think this is the best Christmas gift our community has ever got
but it would not be possible without the push and the fight of
Hawaii leadership," she said, crediting Sens. Mazie Hirono and
Brian Schatz and Rep. Ed Case. "I want to deeply thank them from
the bottom of our heart on behalf of our community."

She noted the community has been waiting for more than two decades,
and in the meantime her co-founder and fellow advocate Jojo Peter
died. "I began to lose hope that this may not happen anytime soon,"
she said. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Pinson's Prelim Injunction Bid Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jeremy Pinson v. Unknown Othon, et al.,
Case No. CV-20-00169-TUC-RM (D. Ariz.), the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona (1) granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Vacate
Evidentiary Hearing; (ii) denied a moot the Defendants' Motion to
Continue Evidentiary Hearing; and (3) denied the multiple Motions
to Intervene filed pro se by inmates incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary ("USP") in Tucson, Arizona, seeking to
intervene in the action as to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction .

Plaintiff Pinson, who was confined at USP-Tucson in the Special
Housing Unit ("SHU") until Dec. 4, 2020, brought the pro se civil
rights action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics against
multiple officials at USP-Tucson.

Upon screening of the First Amended Complaint, the Court determined
that Pinson had stated a plausible Eighth Amendment
conditions-of-confinement claim under Bivens against Defendants
Othon, Blondeaux, Dukett, Estrella, Martinez, Kurtz, Ulrich, and
von Blanckensee in Count One and an Eighth Amendment Bivens claim
against Beasley, von Blanckensee, Gonzalez, McWhorter, Merrell,
Segal, O'Brien, and Schneider in Count Two. The Court further found
that Pinson sufficiently stated a claim under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331 against von Blanckensee in her official capacity for
injunctive relief for violations of federal constitutional law.

In her pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Pinson asserts
that she and other prisoners in the SHU are incarcerated under
conditions not consistent with the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention guidelines for preventing transmission of the COVID-19
virus, thereby, placing all of them in danger. For relief, Pinson
requests an order requiring Warden von Blanckensee to provide
masks, soap and hygiene supplies, medical screening and testing of
prisoners and staff, and to restore the Office of Inspector General
COVID-19 Hotline to prisoners. Following additional briefing on the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court issued an Order on
Dec. 1, 2020, that analyzed Pinson's claims for injunctive relief,
stayed a ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and set
an evidentiary hearing on Dec. 17, 2020.

On Dec. 4, 2020, Pinson was transferred from USP-Tucson to
USP-Victorville in Victorville, California.

In their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Vacate Evidentiary Hearing, the Defendants argue
that Pinson's claims for injunctive relief based on
COVID-19-related conditions in USP-Tucson are moot due to Pinson's
transfer out of USP-Tucson. They aver that because the Plaintiff is
no longer incarcerated at USP-Tucson, she no longer has a case or
controversy regarding the actions taken at USP-Tucson in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants further argue that because
Pinson's request for injunctive relief has become moot, the Court
lacks jurisdiction to decide the motion.

Judge Marquez opines that Pinson's transfer out of USP-Tucson
renders moot her claims for preliminary injunctive relief because
she is no longer personally affected by the alleged shortcomings of
USP-Tucson's COVID-19-related precautions. Accordingly, the Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
granted. Because the hearing has been vacated, the Motion to
Continue Evidentiary Hearing is denied as moot.

Also pending before the Court are multiple Motions to Intervene
filed by inmates incarcerated in, or previously incarcerated in,
the SHU at USP-Tucson. The intervenors seek to join in the
Plaintiff's lawsuit and be appointed "a pro bono lawyer" because
they claim that they have a stake in the outcome but are unable to
file separate lawsuits for several reasons, including some
intervenors like Garay-Sierra do not speak, read or write in the
English language and is a native of Puerto Rico. The intervenors
allege that they will be affected by the decision on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction because they too are
subject to the COVID-19-related conditions in the SHU at
USP-Tucson. However, some of the Motions to Intervene raise grounds
for relief, such as individual medical conditions, that pertain
solely to the specific intervenor.

The Defendants oppose intervention because (1) the intervenors have
not shown that they share a common question of law or fact with the
main action; (2) the intervenors have not established that the
Court has jurisdiction over their claims; (3) joining 24
intervenors to the case would pose a significant burden to both the
parties and the Court; and (4) 21 of the 24 intervenors to whom
Defendants responded were scheduled to be transferred out of the
SHU at USP-Tucson, either to general population or to a different
institution altogether, which would render their claims for
injunctive relief as to USP-Tucson SHU conditions moot.

As an initial matter, Judge Marquez says, the Court is denying the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction that is the subject of the
Motions to Intervene as moot. Therefore, the Motions to Intervene
are denied as moot to the extent that they seek to join the action
solely to request the relief set forth in the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. To the extent that the intervenors seek to
join the action separate and apart from the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, the Court exercises its discretion to deny
intervention. The Court finds that granting intervention would
unduly delay the main action and present substantial burdens to the
continued administration of the litigation.

Judge Marquez notes that even if the intervenors were properly
joined, management of pro se multi-plaintiff inmate litigation
presents significant burdens to both the parties and the Court.
During the prosecution of the action, each intervenor would be
required to sign and submit his own motions and notices related to
his claims in the action, and all intervenors would be required to
individually sign any motion or notice filed on behalf of all
intervenors. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that any
additional burden posed to intervenors by the denial of
intervention is minimal, and that the Plaintiff's interest in
timely resolution of her claims is served by denial of
intervention.

Moreover, inmates are subject to transfer at any time to a facility
other than the one where they are currently incarcerated. The
Defendants indicate that the majority of the intervenors in the
case are scheduled to be transferred out of the SHU at USP-Tucson;
those impeding transfers would pose additional burdens to the
intervenors, the parties, and the Court and, as discussed above,
would render moot the claims related to the conditions of
confinement in the SHU of USP-Tucson. Granting intervention under
these circumstances would make the continued administration of the
lawsuit virtually impossible.

As to the intervenors' requests for class certification, the Court
previously denied a motion for class certification and appointment
of the counsel and denies those requests as set forth in the
Motions to Intervene for the same reasons.

As to the intervenors' allegations that they lack access to the
courts sufficient to file their own lawsuits, the Court finds the
voluminous filings in the case evidence of a continued ability to
access the courts. If any of the intervenors seeks judicial review
of the conditions of his confinement in USP-Tucson or any other
facility, he may file his own lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 17, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8v78wzg from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Immigrant Women File Class Action Against ICE
------------------------------------------------------------
Teo Armus, writing for Washington Post, reports that a group of
immigrant women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement is seeking a class-action lawsuit against the agency,
alleging they received subpar gynecological care -- or faced
retaliation for speaking out about it -- while being held at a
facility in Georgia.

A complaint filed on Dec. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia cites sworn testimony from at least 35
detainees at Irwin County Detention Center, who say they were
subject to nonconsensual and invasive procedures by Mahendra Amin,
a physician in Ocilla, Ga.

The 160-page filing also alleges those women and others held at the
facility were placed in solitary confinement, experienced physical
assault and were deported -- or nearly deported -- for speaking up
about Amin, including in an ongoing federal investigation.
According to the document, one unnamed woman has said she
complained to staff at Irwin about him as early as 2018.

Amin has "flatly" denied allegations against him, his lawyer, Scott
R. Grubman, said in a statement to The Washington Post last month,
adding, "Dr. Amin has always treated his patients, including those
who were in ICE custody, with the utmost care and respect."

Neither Grubman nor LaSalle Corrections, the for-profit company
that operates the Irwin facility, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment early Dec. 22. Several employees for the
company or ICE, as well as Amin, are named as respondents in the
complaint.

ICE declined to comment to The Post due to pending litigation as
well as the ongoing federal probe. In previous statements, the
agency has denied allegations of retaliation.

"Any implication that ICE is attempting to impede the investigation
by conducting removals of those being interviewed is completely
false," ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett said last month.

Lawyers and advocates said the Dec. 21 filing underscores the
growing number of women coming forward with allegations against
Amin. Of those included in the filing, some are still detained at
the Irwin facility, some have been released in the United States,
and others have been deported to Nigeria, Canada and Mexico, among
other countries.

Azadeh Shahshahani, the legal and advocacy director at Project
South, one of several groups working on the case, said in an
interview with The Post that the testimonies point to an
institutional pattern of neglect.

"ICE knew about medical abuse and did not do anything," she said.
"In the context of them now trying to retaliate against people that
are speaking up and trying to erase the evidence, it's really quite
egregious."

The filing charges that one detainee, identified as "Jane Doe #35,"
repeatedly brought up concerns about Amin to the warden at Irwin
and an ICE official in the latter half of 2018, but was taken to
see him for treatment anyway.

Irwin became the subject of national attention in September, after
a whistleblower report by a nurse at the facility, Dawn Wooten,
alleged that a doctor -- later identified as Amin -- was subjecting
immigrant detainees to unwanted hysterectomies.

Her claims about widespread unwanted sterilizations quickly came
under scrutiny. The hospital where Amin practiced said just two
women in ICE custody had been referred for hysterectomies.

Yet the allegations against Amin nonetheless generated significant
attention from lawmakers, news organizations and human-rights
groups.

In October, an independent team of medical experts, including nine
board-certified obstetricians, reviewed more than 3,200 pages of
medical records from 19 women at Irwin who alleged mistreatment.
They found what they considered to be a troubling pattern of
inadequate care that included incorrect diagnoses and a failure to
secure informed consent for surgery and other procedures.

After a group of federal agencies launched an investigation into
the matter, lawsuits were filed last month seeking to stop the
deportation of four potential witnesses, all of whom said they were
nearly removed from the United States. The Trump administration
agreed to pause the deportations of those women and those with
similar allegations, although it asked the court to back out of the
agreement.

One former Irwin detainee, Jaromy Floriano Navarro, who was
deported to Mexico the day after Wooten's report came out, said she
hopes President-elect Joe Biden and his administration will do more
to fight the alleged abuse she and other women say they have
suffered.

"The takeaway I want is justice," she said in an interview with The
Post. "For them to bring us back -- those of us who were deported
for speaking up -- and for this to never happen again, in any
immigration facility."

Having lived in the United States for the past two decades, she
added, "I'm an American, and my government treated me like I'm not
from the United States." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Prestige Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prestige Transportation, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION INC.,
SUPERIOR OVERNIGHT SERVICES INC., AMERILOGISTICS GROUP INC., AND
STAM PROPERTIES LLC, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
JOVITA CARRANZA AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SBA, STEVEN MNUCHIN AS
THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, AND
DOES 1 TO 5, Case No. 2:20-cv-08963-SB-RAO, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the unlawful and ultra vires policies, practices, and
rules implemented by the Defendants to carry out the directive of
the CARES Act's Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loans program to
eligible businesses.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 2, 2020, denying their ex parte request for
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction by Judge
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.

The appellate case is captioned as Prestige Transportation, Inc.,
et al. v. U.S. Small Business Administration, et al., Case No.
20-56326, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, December 16, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later
than January 12, 2021;

   -- the answering brief is due February 9, 2021 or 28 days after
service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION, INC., SUPERIOR
OVERNIGHT SERVICES, AMERILOGISTICS GROUP, INC., and STAM
PROPERTIES, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Nicolette Glazer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER
          1999 Avenue of the Stars #1100
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5353

Defendants-Appellees U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; JOVITA
CARRANZA, as the Administration of the SBA; and STEVEN TERNER
MNUCHIN, as the Secretary of the United States Department of the
Treasury, are represented by:

          Timothy Biche, Esq.
          USLA - OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012

UNITED STATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Chad Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
preliminary injunction order in part, vacated it in part, and
remanded so that the district court may immediately address current
circumstances at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Processing Center.

The Plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of noncitizens
detained at Adelanto. These noncitizens are being held in civil
detention in connection with various immigration proceedings, and
many of them have no criminal record. The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as habeas relief. Their
Complaint alleges that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,
Adelanto's failure to implement necessary protective measures
violates detainees' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The Defendants are seeking an appeal of order on sealed motion.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-56329, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 16, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ
ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq.
          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          Michelle Cho, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 417-2211
          Email: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
                 jbansal@aclusocal.org
                 mcho@aclusocal.org
                 mkaufman@aclusocal.org

                     - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          Margaret Allison Upshaw, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com
                 maggie.upshaw@lw.com

                     - and -

          William Friedman, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          500 North Capitol Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 756-8268
          Email: william.friedman@lw.com

Defendants-Respondents-Appellants CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy
Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID MARIN, Director of
the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and JAMES JANECKA,
Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are represented by:

          Daniel Beck, Esq.
          USLA-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-2574
          Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
          Email: daniel.beck@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Hillary Burrelle, Esq.
          AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 South Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 894-2420

               - and -

          Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Robins, Esq.
          Hans Harris Chen, Esq.
          DOJ-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

               - and -

          Scott Grant Stewart, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530

USP CANAAN: Collins, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilfredo Rodriguez, Sean
Collins, Michael Grasso, Marc Hubbard, and Lester Burroughs on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Eric
Bradley in his official capacity as Warden of USP Canaan, Case No.
3:20-cv-02230-MEM-DB (M.D. Pa.), the Petitioners ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 23(b)(2),
      consisting of:

      "all current inmates of United States Penitentiary (USP)
      Canaan, and all current inmates who are in custody within
      the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who share the Middle
      District of Pennsylvania as their court of jurisdiction,
      who have made a request or been approved by the Warden of
      their institution to be transferred to home confinement
      under the CARES Act, but were later denied by the Federal
      Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff, other than their Warden;"
      and other than their Warden;" and

   2. appointing counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g).

The Petitioners are prisoners at the Satellite Camp at USP Canaan
in Waymart, PA. They brought this action to challenge the statutory
construction of title 18 United States Code section 3624 which
pertains to home confinement placement. The Petitioners alleged
that the BOP Central Office has usurped the role of Congress by
adding an additional gatekeeper, and process, to the home
confinement determination.

USP Canaan is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, 20 miles east
of Scranton and 134 miles north of Philadelphia.

A copy of the Petitioners' motion for class certification dated
Dec. 18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Wvj9xD at no extra charge.[CC]

USP CANAAN: Rodriguez, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilfredo Rodriguez, Sean
Collins, Michael Grasso, Marc Hubbard, and Lester Burroughs on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Eric
Bradley in his official capacity as Warden of USP Canaan, Case No.
3:20-cv-02228-MEM-DB (M.D. Pa.), the Petitioners ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 23(b)(2),
      consisting of:

      "all current inmates of United States Penitentiary (USP)
      Canaan, and all current inmates who are in custody within
      the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who share the Middle
      District of Pennsylvania as their court of jurisdiction,
      who have made a request or been approved by the Warden of
      their institution to be transferred to home confinement
      under the CARES Act, but were later denied by Federal
      Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff, other than their Warden;"
      and other than their Warden;" and

   2. appointing counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g).

The Petitioners are prisoners at the Satellite Camp at USP Canaan
in Waymart, PA. They brought this action to challenge the statutory
construction of title 18 United States Code section 3624 which
pertains to home confinement placement. The Petitioners alleged
that the BOP Central Office has usurped the role of Congress by
adding an additional gatekeeper, and process, to the home
confinement determination.

USP Canaan is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, 20 miles east
of Scranton and 134 miles north of Philadelphia.

A copy of the Petitioners' motion for class certification dated
Dec. 18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KNFO5K at no extra charge.[CC]

VALVE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in G.G.'s 1st Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, G.G., et al., Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. C16-1941JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in the proposed
class action on Nov. 29, 2016, in King County Superior Court.  They
alleged on behalf of themselves, their minor children, and all
others similarly situated that Valve supported illegal gambling
through its virtual Steam Marketplace platform and popular video
games such as Counter Strike: Global Offensive ("CS:GO").  Valve
did so by allowing millions of Americans, including the Plaintiffs,
to link their individual Steam accounts to third-party websites and
by allowing third-party sites to operate their gambling
transactions within Valve's Steam marketplace.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Valve set up the gambling system by
creating a virtual currency called 'Skins,' which Valve sells for a
fee through the Steam marketplace.  Each of the Plaintiffs alleged
that their minor children purchased CS:GO from Valve, purchased
Skins, gambled the Skins and lost money, and knew that they could
cash out the Skins for real money prior to losing them while
gambling.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs alleged state-law claims
for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA");
recovery of money lost at gambling under RCW 4.24.070; violation of
the Washington Gambling Act of 1973; unjust enrichment; negligence;
and declaratory relief.

On Dec. 20, 2016, Valve removed the action to the Court, and on
Feb. 13, 2017, District Judge John C. Coughenour denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On April 3, 2017, the Court granted Valve's motion to compel
arbitration of the claims brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and their minor children and stayed this case pending
arbitration.  It upheld the enforceability of the arbitration
clause within the Steam Subscriber Agreement that the Plaintiffs'
children agreed to when they registered their Steam accounts and
found that the claims of the Plaintiffs and their children were
within the scope of that arbitration clause.

On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs submitted a consolidated
arbitration demand to the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").
On Jan. 3, 2018, the arbitrator ruled that the Steam Subscriber
Agreement's arbitration provisions required the Plaintiffs to
pursue arbitration individually in the county where each Plaintiff
lived, and the AAA closed the consolidated arbitration.

On May 3, 2017, Ms. Schoss and Ms. Galloway submitted new
arbitration demands to the AAA.  Mr. Lesko elected to not file an
individual arbitration demand.  On Nov. 29, 2018, Arbitrator Thomas
Laffey held an evidentiary hearing in Ms. Schoss' arbitration.
Arbitrator Laffey ruled in favor of Valve on all of E.B.'s claims,
finding that E.B. had not carried his burden of proof to establish
that Valve was responsible for his gambling losses or should be
required to make the practice changes sought by E.B. under the
applicable law.

On Dec. 13, 2018, Arbitrator Mark Schiff held an evidentiary
hearing in Ms. Galloway's arbitration.  Arbitrator Schiff similarly
found that Ms. Galloway did not prove her case, although he found
evidence of unclean hands on both sides.  He ruled in Valve's favor
and stated that his award fully settled all claims submitted to
arbitration.

After the AAA closed Ms. Schoss' and Ms. Galloway's arbitrations,
Valve moved the Court to lift the stay and dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.  The Court granted Valve's request to
dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs appealed the Court's order and judgment. On April 3,
2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the
Court's order and judgment.  It remanded the claims the Plaintiffs
brought in their individual capacities, to the extent they are
viable.  It affirmed, however, the Court's judgment dismissing the
claims that the Plaintiffs brought on behalf of their children.

On Aug. 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs, with consent from Valve, moved to
amend their complaint to conform their claims to the Ninth
Circuit's decision and to discovery obtained in their arbitrations.
The case was then reassigned from Judge Coughenour to Judge
Robart.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs' agreed motion to amend
their complaint, and the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint
on Sept. 22, 2020.

The amended complaint alleges claims based on both Skins gambling
and Lootbox gambling for violation of the CPA, violation of the
Gambling Act, unjust enrichment, negligence, and injunctive relief,
on behalf of the parents of the minor children whose claims were
dismissed by the Court in its March 26, 2019 Order.

On Oct. 1, 2020, Valve filed the instant motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety.  It argues that the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because (1)
Judge Coughenour's final judgment confirming the arbitrators'
decisions regarding the Plaintiffs' children's claims forecloses
their individual claims under the law of the case doctrine; (2)
claim and issue preclusion bar the Plaintiffs from challenging the
arbitrators' findings regarding the children's claims; and (3)
regardless of the preclusive effects of the arbitrators' decisions,
Plaintiffs cannot state a claim as to any of their causes of
action.

The Plaintiffs respond that their claims survive because (1) under
the law of the case doctrine, the arbitrators' findings actually
work in the Plaintiffs' favor, rather than Valve's; (2) the
arbitrators did not make any findings that would preclude claims
based on the Plaintiffs' new "Lootbox" theory; (3) the arbitrators
did not rule on the Plaintiffs' claims in their individual
capacity; and (4) regardless of any preclusive effects, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged their claims.

Judge Robart begins by analyzing the preclusive effects of the
prior proceedings before considering whether the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently stated their claims.  Valve argues that the
Plaintiffs' claims are foreclosed under three doctrines: the law of
the case, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion.  The Plaintiffs
contend that only the law of the case doctrine applies.

The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs.  First, he concludes that
both parties overstate the arbitrators' findings and their effects
on the litigation of the Plaintiffs' individual claims.  He agrees
with the Plaintiffs that the law of the case does not bar their
claims based on their "Lootbox gambling" theory because that theory
was not litigated in the arbitrations.  But he disagrees with the
Plaintiffs' assertion that the arbitrators determined that Skins
are "things of value" or that Skins gambling is in fact "gambling"
under Washington's gambling statutes.  Although the arbitrators
refer to the conduct by E.B. and J.P. as "gambling," neither
arbitrator analyzed the legal definition of "gambling," nor did
either make an express finding that the teenagers' conduct
constituted "gambling" under Washington law.

The Judge further disagrees with the Plaintiffs' assertion that the
law of the case doctrine does not preclude any of Mr. Lesko's
claims because Mr. Lesko chose not to arbitrate his child's claims.
The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of issues as
well as claims.  There is no dispute that all three Plaintiffs
raised the same issues on behalf of themselves and their minor
children in their original complaint and in the consolidated
arbitration demand.  He concludes, therefore, that the law of the
case doctrine precludes Mr. Lesko from retrying the issues decided
in Ms. Galloway's and Ms. Schoss' arbitrations.

Turning to Valve's motion to dismiss, the Judge denies Valve's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CPA claims (Count I) based on
Valve's alleged support of Lootbox gambling.  He finds that the law
of the case doctrine does not preclude the Plaintiffs' CPA claim
based on alleged unfair or deceptive practices arising out of
Valve's Lootbox feature.  With respect to the Lootbox theory, he
finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Valve's
conduct is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the CPA.

The Judge grants Valve's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CPA
claims (Count I) based on Valve's alleged support of Skins gambling
and on alleged per se violations of WAC 230-06-010 and the Gambling
Act of 1973.  These claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Valve's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for violations of
the Gambling Act (Count II) is granted and those claims are
dismissed with prejudice.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
cannot state a claim under RCW 9.46.200.  He declines the
Plaintiffs' invitation to read into the plain language of RCW
9.46.200 a cause of action for damages arising from unauthorized
gambling, particularly where the Legislature has separately
provided a cause of action to recover losses from illegal
gambling.

The Judge grants Valve's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims (Count III) based on Valve's alleged support for
Lootbox gambling, and dismisses those claims without prejudice and
with leave to amend.  He also grants Valve's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims (Count III) based on Valve's
alleged support of Skins gambling, and dismisses those claims with
prejudice.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts that
plausibly support the first and second elements of their unjust
enrichment claim.  First, they do not plausibly allege that they
provided a benefit to Valve.  Second, even if the funds the
Plaintiffs gave to their children could constitute a benefit to
Valve, the Plaintiffs have not made any allegation that Valve had
an appreciation or knowledge of any benefit bestowed on it by the
parents, rather than by their children.  Finally, the law of the
case doctrine bars the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent they rely
on allegations that Valve facilitated or controlled Skins gambling
on third-party websites.

The Judge also grants Valve's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
negligence claims (Count IV) based on Valve's alleged support for
Lootbox gambling, and dismisses those claims without prejudice and
with leave to amend.  He also grants Valve's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' negligence claims (Count IV) based on Valve's alleged
support of Skins gambling and DISMISSES those claims with
prejudice.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not directed the Court to
any cases that found a duty of care owed by a video game company to
parents of the players of that game.  They have not plausibly
alleged that Valve owed a duty of care to them, as the parents of
CS:GO players.  At most, the allegations might plausibly support a
duty of care owed by Valve to the minor children.  They do not
establish an unusual or high risk of foreseeable harm to the
parents.

Finally, the Judge grants Valve's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claim for injunctive relief (Count V), without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs amending their Prayer for Relief to include the types of
injunctive relief they seek by their complaint and serving the
complaint on the Washington Attorney General.  He agrees with Valve
that there is no separate and distinct cause of action for
"injunctive relief."  The injunctive relief under the CPA is also
not available to the Plaintiffs because they did not serve a copy
of their complaint on the Washington Attorney General in compliance
with RCW 19.86.095.

The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint, if any, alleging
facts that resolve the issues stated, by no later than 20 days from
the filing date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/38ycSXk from Leagle.com.


VAXART INC: Himmelberg and Hovhannisyan Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the court ordered the
consolidation of the class actions Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et
al. and the Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al..

Two substantially similar securities class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
the first, titled Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on
August 24, 2020, and the second action, titled Hovhannisyan v.
Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on September 1, 2020.

On September 17, 2020, the court issued an order that the Putative
Class Actions were related and would proceed as one consolidated
action. The Putative Class Actions both name as defendants certain
of Vaxart's current and former executive officers and directors,
and Armistice.

The complaint claims two violations of federal civil securities
laws, violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, as against all defendants; and
violation of Section 20(A) of the Exchange Act, as against all
defendants except for Vaxart.

The Putative Class Actions allege defendants violated securities
laws by misstating and omitting information regarding the Company's
Operation Warp Speed (OWS) involvement to deceive the investing
public and inflate the market price of Vaxart securities.

The Putative Class Actions seek to be certified as a class action
for similarly situated shareholders and seek, among other things,
an uncertain amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery
and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its
proprietary oral vaccine platform.  The company's product pipeline
includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against
norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It
is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for
cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus.  The
company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed
its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007.  The company was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco,
California.

VAXART INC: Jaquith Putative Derivative and Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported shareholder derivative and class action
complaint, entitled Jaquith v. Vaxart, Inc.

On September 8, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware, entitled
Galjour v. Floroiu, et al.

On October 20, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative and class
action complaint, entitled Jaquith v. Vaxart, Inc., was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The complaints name as defendants certain of Vaxart's current and
former directors, asserting claims against them for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste and seeking, among
other things, an award of unspecified damages, certain equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaints also assert
claims against Armistice.

The complaints challenge certain stock options granted to certain
of the Company's officers and directors between June 8, 2020 and
June 15, 2020 and certain amendments made to two warrants held by
Armistice, as disclosed on June 9, 2020.

Both complaints purport to bring suit derivatively on behalf of and
for the benefit of the Company, and the Jaquith complaint also
purports to assert a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a class of Vaxart stockholders.

Both complaints name the Company as a "nominal defendant" against
which no claims are asserted and no damages are sought.

On October 9, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the Galjour
complaint and to stay the action pending disposition of the Ennis
action in California. On November 9, 2020, the Court denied
Defendant's motion to stay the Galjour action pending disposition
of the Ennis action in California.

On November 9, 2020, the Court also ordered that the parties meet
and confer to consolidate the Jaquith and Galjour actions.

Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery
and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its
proprietary oral vaccine platform.  The company's product pipeline
includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against
norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It
is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for
cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus.  The
company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed
its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007.  The company was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco,
California.

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to its January 2020
initial public offering (IPO).

On July 9, 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
naming the company, certain of its directors, officers and
shareholders and others alleging violations of securities laws,
including making false and misleading statements and omissions in
its offering materials for its January 2020 initial public offering
of the company's common stock.  

The complaints seek unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.  

Velocity said, "We intend to vigorously defend against this
action."

Velocity Financial, Inc. is a vertically integrated real estate
finance company founded in 2004. The company primarily originates
and manage investor loans secured by 1-4 unit residential rental
and small commercial properties, which the company refers to
collectively as investor real estate loans. The company originates
loans nationwide across its extensive network of independent
mortgage brokers which it has built and refined over the 15 years
since its inception. The company is based in Westlake Village,
California.

VERDE ENERGY: Loses Bid to Dismiss or Arbitrate Claims in Panzer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of
Pennsylvania denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss and declines
to compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned as SCOTT PANZER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VERDE ENERGY USA, INC. and OASIS POWER, LLC, Case No. 19-3598 (E.D.
Pa.).

Plaintiff Panzer brought this putative class action against his
former energy suppliers for breach of contract and violations of
various Pennsylvania consumer protection laws.

The threshold issue in the putative class action is whether the
Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims and waived a class action.
The Defendants contend that he agreed to arbitration when he
accepted service from them after receiving two mailings of the
electric service contracts, which included the agreement to
arbitrate. The Plaintiff denies receiving the letters containing
the contract terms.

After discovery limited to the question of whether the parties had
agreed to arbitrate the dispute, Defendants Verde and Oasis renewed
their motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. The Defendants
argue that Panzer cannot rebut the presumption of receipt of the
Defendants' terms of service containing the arbitration agreement
under the mailbox rule. Panzer counters that he has rebutted the
presumption of receipt.

In deciding the issue, District Judge Timothy J. Savage says that
the Court must apply the "mailbox" rule that provides that a letter
properly deposited in the post office mailbox or with the postman
is presumed to have been delivered to the addressee.

According to the Memorandum Opinion, the disputed issue at this
stage raises a question whether Panzer is an adequate class
representative under Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. He essentially claims he is not a member of a class, who
agreed to arbitration. Yet, the class he seeks to represent did
agree to arbitrate. His interests do not align with those whom he
seeks to represent. Therefore, the Court will require the parties
to show cause why the class action allegations of the complaint
should not be stricken.

Judge Savage concludes that genuine issues of material fact
preclude a finding that Panzer agreed to arbitration and waived a
class action. The jury must decide whether he received the
September 2017 or February 2018 letters containing the agreement to
arbitrate. His remaining arguments depend on the jury's
determination.

He holds that Panzer has rebutted the presumption of receipt of the
mailings containing the contracts. With the presumption gone, there
is a dispute whether Panzer received the Defendants' terms of
service containing the arbitration agreement, creating an issue of
fact that precludes a finding that he agreed to arbitration.
Therefore, he denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss and declines
to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 17,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8x6njvy from
Leagle.com.


VF OUTDOOR: Court Allows Transfer of Valencia Suit to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRIANA VALENCIA, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Case No.
19-cv-07090-LB (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued
an order granting the Defendant's motion to transfer.

The Plaintiff filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court on
Aug. 27, 2019, and the Defendant removed it to federal court on
Oct. 28, 2019. In the putative class action, Plaintiff Valencia, a
California resident, sued her employer VF Outdoor (a distributor of
clothing brands) for wage-and-hour violations of the California
Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
wages, failure to provide meal-and-rest breaks, and other claims
predicated on these violations (such as penalty statutes related to
accurate wage statements and paying wages on time, a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, and a violation of
California's Private Attorneys General Act).

The Defendant moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of
California, generally on the grounds that the Plaintiff works
there, there are no class members in the district, and the Eastern
District is the most convenient forum for the parties and
witnesses. The Plaintiff opposed the motion, generally on the
ground that it is untimely, given that the Defendant removed the
case to federal court over a year ago, and the Eastern District is
not the most convenient forum.

The parties agreed to early mediation at the Feb. 13, 2020 initial
case-management conference, planned to conduct it by Aug. 13, 2020,
and conducted it in October. It was not successful. At the parties'
request, the Court set a new case schedule that included the
Defendants' proposal to file a motion to transfer within 30 days.
The Defendant then moved to transfer the case. The court held a
hearing on Dec. 17, 2020. All parties consented to magistrate-judge
jurisdiction.

The parties do not dispute that the case could have been brought in
the Eastern District of California. They dispute only whether
transfer is appropriate based on the timeliness of the motion and
the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest
of justice. The Defendant has made the necessary showing to
overcome the the Plaintiff's choice of forum, and the other factors
weigh in favor of transfer. And, while a delay might ordinarily
militate against a transfer, nothing substantive has happened in
the case because the parties were trying to resolve the case
through mediation, Judge Beeler says. Hence, the Court grants the
Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 17, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8zegwvy from Leagle.com.


Victoria: Families May Consider Class Action Over Hotel Quarantine
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sweeney, writing for Yahoo! News, reports that the Victorian
government could face a class action over the state's failed hotel
quarantine program despite an apology from Premier Daniel Andrews.

Suzanne Agnello's 92-year-old mother-in-law died in the Epping
Gardens aged care home during Victoria's second wave of
coronavirus, which was linked back to failures in the hotel
quarantine system.

Her family is pursuing a class action against the facility and
revealed plans to discuss further legal options after the release
of the Dec. 21 final report into the scandal.

The second wave resulted in more than 18,000 new infections and 800
deaths and was traced back to security guards working at the Rydges
on Swanston and Stamford Plaza hotels.

Retired judge Jennifer Coate found evidence the inquiry didn't
identify any one person decided to engage private security in the
program.

She effectively cleared Premier Daniel Andrews, former health
minister Jenny Mikakos and senior ministers Martin Pakula and Lisa
Neville, finding the decision was not made at a ministerial level.

Mr Andrews apologised on Dec. 21 for the "very clear errors" in
handling the quarantine program and signalled an intention to
implement all of Judge Coate's recommendations.

It was less an issue about who worked in the program, and more a
lack of detailed oversight and daily checks of what was occurring
in hotel quarantine, he said.

The breach and resulting transmission ended in a wave that couldn't
be pulled up without significant restrictions including on family
gatherings and workplaces.

"For that I am sorry, we are sorry," he said.

"My commitment . . . is to learn those lessons and to make sure
that an error like this -- that lack of oversight, that lack of due
diligence to check and double check -- that those things, if a
problem is found, it is found early rather than being found too
late."

Ms Agnello has called for a royal commission into the bungle and
told the decision maker to "man up and tell the truth".

"Somebody must have known who wrote the cheque, somebody must have
known who gave the permission to bring in the security people," she
told Melbourne's 3AW radio.

She said a class action "had to happen" and that they would be
speaking to their lawyers on Dec. 21.

"You can't run a state and not know who's responsible," she said.

Victorian Greens health spokesman Tim Read said vaccinating hotel
quarantine staff and incoming travellers should be prioritised over
arguing about what happened in the past.

"The Coate inquiry will provide many lessons for the government on
how to act in future pandemics, but right now we need to focus on
staying ahead of the pandemic we're currently in," he said.

Opposition leader Michael O'Brien compared the failings to Black
Saturday, and joined calls for a royal commission. He also urged Mr
Andrews to resign.

"If a private sector business was responsible for such damage the
directors would be held accountable," he said. [GN]


VMSB LLC: Tevez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VMSB, LLC. The case
is styled as Estella Noemi Tevez, and all others similarly situated
v. VMSB, LLC (doing business as Casa Casuarina), Case No.
1:20-cv-25179-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Villa Casa Casuarina, Miami Beach --
http://vmmiamibeach.com/hotel/-- is a luxury hotel nestled in
South Beach. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          Samuel C. Gold, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Ste. 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: (305) 865-6766
          Fax: (305) 865-7167
          Email: Zabogado@aol.com
                 samgold.zidell.law@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caitlin Marie Trowbridge, Esq.
          Andrew Bryan Zelmanowitz, Esq.
          BERGER SINGERMAN LLP
          350 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-9900
          Fax: (954) 523-2872
          Email: ctrowbridge@bergersingerman.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Conroy Files Product Liability Suit in D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group Of
America, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as KATE CONROY, NOREEN
CONROY, GERALD PRECOURT, JUN PIDLAOAN, NATHANIEL BIVENS, and IVY
VILLALTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. and VOLKSWAGEN AG, Case No.
2:20-cv-17837-BRM-ESK (D.N.J., Dec. 2, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from product liability related-issues.

The case is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.

Volkswagen AG, known internationally as the Volkswagen Group, is a
German multinational automotive manufacturing corporation
headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany and indirectly
majority owned by the Austrian Porsche family. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Schelkopf
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com

WABASH COUNTY, IN: Copeland et al., Renew Bid for Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY COPELAND, et al., v.
WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00154-JD-MGG (N.D.
Ind.), the plaintiffs Jerry Copeland and John Whitt ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action, with the class defined
      as:

      "all persons currently confined, or who will in the future
      be confined, in the Wabash County Jail;" and

   2. appointing themselves as representatives of the class, as
      original plaintiff James Dutton is no longer in the
      facility.

On February 19, 2020, Copeland and Whitt, along with plaintiff
James Dutton, filed their motion to certify this case as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure with the proposed class defined as "all persons
currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the
Wabash County Jail."

On September 16, 2020, the Court issued its Opinion and Order
denying the motion without prejudice and allowing plaintiffs to
file a renewed motion with evidence to support their argument that
the proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

A copy of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion in Support of Motion for Class
Certification dated Dec. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/34ap3bpat no extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for the plaintiffs and the putative class, are:

          Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
          ACLU OF INDIANA
          1031 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 635-4059
          Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
          E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org

WALTON COUNTY: Markulin FMLA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEREK MARKULIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALTON COUNTY, Case No. 19-CA-228, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the First Judicial
Circuit, in and for Walton County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida on December 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06004-MCR-HTC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged disability
discrimination and retaliation under Florida Statutes and
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act and the
Rehabilitation Act.

Walton County is a county located on the Emerald Coast in the
northwestern part of Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Eric A. Krebs, Esq.
         William G. Warner, Esq.
         WARNER LAW FIRM, P. A.
         501 W. 11th Street, Suite A
         Panama City, FL 32401
         Telephone: (850) 784-7772
         E-mail: pleadings@warnerlaw.us

WALWORTH COUNTY, SD: Bid to Certify Class in Agard Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MEGAN MARIA AGARD, CHICO
BAKER, ROBERT DESERSA, KARA JANE LOGG, DEBORAH LOOKING BACK,
PRAIRIE ROSE WHITE BUFFALO, PHILLIP LOUIS YOUNG HAWK, v. WALWORTH
COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, JAMES HOUCK, WALWORTH COUNTY COMMISSIONER, IN
HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; KEVIN HOLGARD, WALWORTH
COUNTY COMMISSIONER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES;
SCOTT SCHILLING, WALWORTH COUNTY COMMISSIONER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; MARION SCHLOMER, WALWORTH COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; AND DAVIS
MARTIN, WALWORTH COUNTY COMMISSIONER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, Case No. 1:20-cv-01018-CBK (D.S.D.), the
Hon. Judge Charles B. Kornmann entered an order denying as moot the
following motions:

   --  motion for permanent injunction;

   --  motion to certify class;

   --  motion for preliminary injunction;

   --  motion to expedite hearing;

   --  motion for order shortening time;

   --  motion to strike jury demand; and

   --  motion to dismiss.

The Court said, "The parties have advised that this case has been
settled and should soon be dismissed. There are a number of pending
motions, all of which should now be denied as moot."

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qTdcbw at no extra charge.[CC]

WEBMD LLC: Time to Reply to Narvaez Complaint Extended to Feb. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY NARVAEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WEBMD LLC and MOUSEFLOW, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02305-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Troy L.
Nunley has issued an order granting the parties' stipulation to
extend WebMD's time to respond to initial class action complaint to
Feb. 4, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 17, 2020 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yatblmde from Leagle.com.


WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Australians Sue Over Unpaid Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that when 93-year-old Maisie Weston recalls the early
years of her working life, she often uses the word "lonely".

At 16 years of age, she was sent to work as a domestic servant, the
beginning of years of working in houses on farms across Western
Australia's south-west.

"You do the cooking, you do housework such as it was. Just every
day work, you did it," she said.

"It was a lonely life, I did practically everything."

Weston is one of thousands of Aboriginal people who worked across
Western Australia under wage control legislation, which allowed the
State Government to withhold wages from Aboriginal people over a
period from the late 1800s until the early 1970s.

She was born near Katanning, a Goreng woman of the Noongar nation
in Western Australia's Great Southern.

As a child she lived in a number of government-run settlements for
indigenous people, before being sent to her first job, working for
who she describes as an English man and his Australian wife.

"I had to get up very early and get the breakfast ready," she
said.

"I was a strong kid at 16, I was able to do a lot of work."

Weston's wage was seven shillings and sixpence a week, and she
recalled asking for permission to spend additional money she had
earned.

"If you wanted to buy anything more you had to write a letter."

She said she felt helpless to change or improve her situation and
wished she could have received a more formal school education.

"Aboriginal children were not allowed in the state schools. They
didn't worry about giving you an education, they just sent you to
work," she said.

The fight for compensation
More than 2000 people, including Weston, have so far joined a class
action launched against the Western Australian Government in the
hope of claiming compensation and lost earnings for the decades of
unpaid labour forced on indigenous people until 1972.

The class action was launched by Shine Lawyers, which estimated
millions of dollars in stolen or unpaid wages could be owed to
people who worked in a range of industries, from stockmen and
laundry assistants to kitchen hands and domestic workers.

It recently conducted the first case management hearing with the
next hearing scheduled for May next year.

Marda Marda man Steve Kinnane is a writer and researcher working
for the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre.

His grandmother, Jessie Argyle, also worked as a domestic servant.

By chance in 1988, while working as a courier, Kinnane stumbled
across a file of records kept on his grandmother stored at an old
library.

"There are 18,000 personal files still in existence . . . on
Aboriginal people such as my grandmother and mother and other
family members," he said.

"The [files] are a rich source of information about exactly how the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs, later the Native Welfare
Department, controlled people's lives."

Kinnane said his grandmother's file covered her working life from
1918 until 1948.

"It documents some 320 pages of letters, judgments, surveillance,
trust accounts, her desire to access her money," he said.

"As an example, my grandmother was keen to purchase clothing. That
would have to be a request that was made to [Chief Protector] Mr
Neville.

"Mr Neville would then decide on what that clothing would be, and
there are items such as underwear, aprons, shoes, stockings, all
these things had to be applied for through the department, through
her own trust account for money that they held in trust for her.

"But they decided whether or not she got to access it or not."

Kinnane said he hoped the class action filed against the Government
would be treated with honesty and a sense of justice, and would
lead to broader truth telling, education, and acknowledgement of
how Aboriginal people were treated.

'We worked very hard'
Wajarri elder Len Merry, 71, was born on a station in the Murchison
region and went on to live and work on a number of properties in
the area.

He remembers his younger years with fondness, but also remembers
working hard, long hours building fences, droving sheep and cattle,
mustering, and shearing.

"We never had an easy time, we worked very hard," he said.

In the early days most work was completed on horseback. Merry
started work when he could get his foot in the stirrup at about 10
years of age or younger.

"No school. If we heard a Land Rover coming we'd run for the bush,
don't come back until midnight, that's the way our father wanted us
to grow up," he said.

He fondly remembers the strong community of Aboriginal people who
lived in the region, and reflected sadly on losing that community
when equal wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers were phased in
from December 1968.

"It was really bad, you start losing your family, they start going
away, moving to town, that's where they all died really," he said.

"The station owners couldn't pay them money. They used to just give
them tucker. They'd work for tucker and a bit of meat and they were
very happy for that. A little bit of money, not much.

"When the wage came up they had to move on."

Merry hoped the class action would compensate Aboriginal people for
retained wages held in full or part.

"It wasn't easy, and we loved it, but I'd like to see something
back from it," he said.

"I still can't work out why they worked us so hard. You can still
live now without doing that work, it was very hard.

"When I was working I was getting up at three o'clock in the
morning and knocking off at nine o'clock at night."

The Queensland Government settled a long-running stolen wages case
for $190 million in July 2019, with thousands of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Island people seeking to recover wages earned over
three decades.

The Western Australian class action is expected to be settled out
of court. [GN]


WESTJET: Supreme Court Approves Class Action Over Travel Credits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryse Zeidler, writing for CBC News, reports that British
Columbia's Supreme Court has approved a class-action lawsuit
against WestJet's policy of issuing travel credits with a one-year
expiry date.

The decision says the primary issue in the case is whether the
airline's travel bank program, which gives customers credits for
things like cancelled flights and lost luggage, counts as a gift
card.

Most provinces prohibit expiry dates on gift cards or prepaid
purchase cards.

The decision certifies the class-action lawsuit to go forward, but
makes no decision on the merits of the claim itself and whether it
is likely to succeed.

Thousands of customers affected
The plaintiff, Vancouverite Tiana Sharifi, maintains that tens of
thousands of people have had their WestJet credits expire or have
had to pay fees to extend them.

Sharifi claims that the travel credits meet the legal definition of
a gift card and that consumer protection legislation prohibits them
from expiring at all. WestJet disagrees.

Air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs says he was thrilled to
find out the class action had been certified.

"Airlines are unjustly enriching themselves by taking the money of
passengers and after 12 months, just pocketing it without providing
any services in return," Lukacs said.

WestJet declined to comment because the matter is before the
courts.

Credit for cancelled flights
According to the notice of civic claim filed as part of the case,
Sharifi booked round-trip flights for her and her travelling
companion from Vancouver to Paris in January 2018.

She cancelled the trip in May 2018, and was issued a $993.23
credit. WestJet imposed a one-year expiry on the credit, which was
issued to her travel bank account.

Sharifi used part of her WestJet travel bank credit on a trip to
Calgary, but when the credit expired she lost the approximately
$400 remaining in her account.

The notice and the decision explain that WestJet travel bank
credits can be transferred or sold to third parties and can be used
to purchase travel.

Hard and soft credits
The decision says the company distinguishes between "hard credits,"
which are issued for flight changes or cancellations and can be
extended for another year for a fee of about $20, and soft credits,
which are issued for things like promotions and to maintain
customer satisfaction. Soft credits cannot be extended.

WestJet argues its hard credits are part of its refund policy and
its soft credits are part of its promotions, and both are exempt
from gift card legislation.

It's not the first time an airline customer has tried to file a
class-action lawsuit because of expiring travel credits.

In 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled on a case filed against
Air Canada charging that the company's flight passes met the
definition of a prepaid card and shouldn't have an expiry date.

The court decided that differences in consumer protection laws
between provinces prevented the case from meeting the criteria for
a class-action certification.

However, that decision was recently overturned by Quebec's Court of
Appeal, which approved the class-action lawsuit.

The B.C. Supreme Court judge said a class-action lawsuit's
likelihood of success is irrelevant to the decision to certify it
in this province. [GN]


WHITE STALLION: Roberson Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, In re WHITE STALLION ENERGY, LLC, et al., Debtor. TREVOR
ROBERSON and JAMES WHITE on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHITE STALLION ENERGY, LLC; WHITE
STALLION HOLDINGS, LLC and AMERICAN PATRIOT ENERGY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-13037-LSS (D. Del., Dec. 8, 2020) seeks to
recover from the Defendants damages in the amount of 60 days' pay
and ERISA benefits by reason of their violation of the Plaintiffs'
rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the other similarly
situated employees are "aggrieved employees," as defined by the
WARN Act, who are affected by the mass layoffs and/or plant
closings at the facilities ordered by Defendants on or about
December 2, 2020. The Defendants violated the WARN Act by failing
to give the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of
the Defendants at least 60 days' advance written notice of
termination, as required by the WARN Act. As a consequence, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants
are entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendants
their wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been
paid.

On or about December 2, 2020 Defendants filed with this Court a
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code.

White Stallion Energy Center, LLC provides marketing services. The
Company offers social web, email, and internet marketing, as well
as tracking results and reporting services. White Stallion Energy
Center serves clients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Huggett, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          300 Delaware Avenue Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-1112
          Facsimile: (302) 888-1119

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122  

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.  
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com


WILLIAM MCFARLAND: Class Certification Nixed in Fyre Festival Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FYRE FESTIVAL LITIGATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-03461-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel
entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff Daniel Jung's motion to certify a
      class of:

      "all persons who purchased tickets to and/or made travel
      arrangements in connection with Fyre Festival" pursuant to
      Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P;" and

   2. denying plaintiff Jung's motion for a default judgment
      but will conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issues
      outlined herein. Within 14 days, the plaintiffs shall
      submit a proposed witness and exhibit list.

The Court declines to certify the class because Jung has not
demonstrated typicality. He has not satisfied the Court that as a
foreign national residing 3,600 miles away, he would adequately
represent the class on these state law claims. He has not
demonstrated that questions common to the class predominate over
individual questions. Nor has he demonstrated that classwide
adjudication is superior to individual suits.

Plaintiff Jung moved for the entry of default judgment against the
defendant William McFarland. Mr. Jung asserted that he and the
members of the putative class were injured by fraudulent statements
of Fyre Media, Inc. promoting the Fyre Festival as a luxurious
event with premium accommodations, fine cuisine, amenities, and
performing artists. He further asserts that McFarland directed and
caused these statements to be made.

A copy of Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IOIXBs at no
extra charge.[CC]

WINS FINANCE: Continues to Defend Kamau Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wins Finance Holdings Inc said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a shareholder class action suit initiated by Samuel
Kamau.

On July 24, 2020, Samuel Kamau filed a shareholder class action
complaint in the District Court for the Central District of
California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged
violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the period from October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020 against
Wins Finance Holdings Inc., Renhui Mu, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled
Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No.
2:20-cv-06656).

Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other things, that
Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by failing to
disclose that the repayment of a RMB 580 million "loan" to Guohong
Asset Management Co., Ltd. was "highly uncertain," and that the
resignation of the Company's former independent auditor was
"foreseeably likely" given the non-payment of the foregoing loan as
well as alleged material weaknesses in the Company's control over
financial reporting.

As of this date and to the best of the company's knowledge, neither
Wins Finance nor the individual Defendants have been served or have
agreed to accept service of the summons and complaint. As of this
date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service with the
Court concerning service upon any Defendant.

In accordance with procedural rules applicable to such securities
class actions, motions for appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and
lead counsel were filed on or before September 24, 2020, following
the Court's resolution of which it is common for the
newly-appointed lead plaintiff(s) to amend the complaint and
allegations underlying the claims.

The Amended Complaint does not specifically allege the damages
purportedly suffered by the class, and the company is not yet able
to provide a reliable estimate of any such damage claim.

Wins Finance said, "We believe that the claims from this proceeding
are without merit and basis, we are vigorously defending this
proceeding."

Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the
People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and
leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and
agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The
company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation
Limited.

WINS FINANCE: March 22 Hearing on Desta Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wins Finance Holdings Inc said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that a final settlement
approval hearing has been set for March 22, 2021, in the action
entitled, Desta v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.

As of June 30, 2018, the Company and certain of its executive
officers have been named as defendants in one civil securities
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Courts.

On April 20, 2017, Michel Desta filed a securities class action
complaint in the District Court for the Central District of
California seeking monetary damages against us, Jianming Hao,
Renhui Mu, Peiling (Amy) He, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled Desta v.
Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No.
2:17-cv-02983).

On June 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel, and on August 25, 2017 lead plaintiffs
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. The Amended Complaint
(which did not name Peiling (Amy) He as a defendant), alleges a
claim against the company for securities fraud purportedly arising
from alleged misrepresentations concerning Wins' principal
executive offices (which alleged misrepresentations resulted in
Wins being added to, and then removed from, the Russell 2000
index).

On October 24, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim as against us.

On March 1, 2018, the District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
Thus, the civil action has proceeded to the fact gathering
"discovery" stage in respect to the Company.

As a result of a private mediation conducted in November 2018, the
Company agreed in principle to settle the class action, on behalf
of all remaining defendants.

The full terms of that settlement remain confidential (but include
certain contingencies concerning shareholder participation in the
settlement and required court approvals).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement by order
entered on March 4, 2019.

Wins Finance said, "Given that the Company has not yet received the
necessary approvals from Chinese regulators as to the transfer of
the settlement funds from China to the United States, the Court
entered an Order dated October 13, 2020 setting a final settlement
approval hearing for March 24, 2021."

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

Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the
People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and
leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and
agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The
company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation
Limited.

WORLD RUGBY: Faces Suit Over Players' Concussion-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Heagney, writing for Rugbypass, reports that Ethienne Reynecke
is taking no pleasure that time has proven him right about
concussion. It was May 2016 when he put his head above the parapet,
suggesting in a website column that rugby faced a legal and
financial ticking time bomb due to the issue.

"I want to discuss a ticking time bomb that is situated inside
rugby. It's so intertwined and part of rugby that you can make the
insensitive comparison to cancer. The malignant type. We know it is
there, we just choose to ignore it," wrote the former South African
Super Rugby hooker whose European spell featured pitstops at
Saracens and Connacht.  

Four-and-a-half years later the 'cancer' is finally no longer
hiding in plain sight. The initiation of a concussion lawsuit
against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby
Union by ex-players suffering early-onset dementia has rattled the
sport.

The concussion situation greatly saddens Reynecke, a 38-year-old
who himself knows about life adversity only too well. He was nearly
dead on three occasions in 2018, surviving a stroke, gunshot to the
head and a ruptured spleen. He fought back to become a South
African MMA amateur champion just last March.

That's a story he compelling relayed to RugbyPass over the phone
last May from Johannesburg. Now the topic of discussion is
concussion, something Reynecke had his own problems with during a
no-holds-barred career where his aggressive style of play earned is
share of painful blows.  

"I had five big concussions," he explained. "There are scales or
grades to concussion. With some I remember a bit, with others I
don't even remember playing that day. Before I played
professionally there were no people that could assess the
concussion using the Glasgow Coma Scale.

"Most people think concussion only happens when someone is knocked
out so bad they lie on the ground without moving, or with arms
stiffened like they were enduring an epileptic fit. My first one
was when I was 15. Obviously, there was no duty of care to look
after us at that time.

"I kept playing and on the bus back people were laughing at me
because I was acting funny and puking. I remember when I moved my
eyes to the right or left the field of vision moved slow-motion and
delayed to where I was looking.

"I had one proper whiplash at university, one at training when
professional and two games that I don't even remember. The worst
was in one of those games I kept playing for about ten to 20
minutes before they realised I was not all there."

When Reynecke retired from playing he tried to take on a hands-on
role in investigating head injuries, putting his degree in
chemistry and biochemistry to use in trying to get a concussion
biomarker business off the ground in 2016. It didn't work out but
his research was informative.

"I read about the two protein biomarkers in a medical article, GFAP
and UCH-L1, even though that was in the early stages as the focus
was on a point of care hand-held instrument. I approached the
company in San Diego for the exclusive rights for the reagents in
Africa to run the assays on basic lab equipment to run an ELISA
test for concussion while they develop the point of care further.

"The findings were actually shocking. I used it in the presentation
of my business plan. My research wasn't focussing on rugby alone.
In South Africa, the mortality rate for traumatic brain injury is
six times higher than developed countries and that includes
automobile accidents, falls, sports-related injuries and assault.

"In terms of rugby, these were the research stats I found: In the
highest level of competition for 13-, 16- and 18-year-old the
incidence of concussion is 6.8-10.5/1,000 playing hours. That is
one concussion per four matches and one in six school players
experienced a concussion during a season involving 420,000 active
players in South Africa.

"Stats from BokSmart documents show there were 13 catastrophic
traumatic brain injuries from 2001 until 2014 across school and
club rugby. These 13 resulted in disability or fatality. Since then
I know of two fatalities in school rugby.

"When people heard about the concussion testing, I also had parents
calling me, telling me horror stories of their kids who suffered
concussion. The coaches didn't take it seriously and let them keep
playing or training. These kids had to repeat their academic year
as they suffered long-term neurodegenerative consequences. The
parents had no idea what concussion was, so how could they have had
a duty of care."

It is from this disturbing concussion background that Reynecke is
taking a keen interest in the goings-on in the UK where the
harrowing stories of Steve Thompson, Alix Popham and others have
fuelled the media spotlight around the concussion lawsuit which
took its first step on Dec. 17 with the delivery of a pre-action
legal letter to three of the sport's governing bodies.   

How it plays out in a court of law if it gets there remains to be
seen. One thing that is definite, though, is how rugby can't afford
a payout of the staggering size that occurred in America where a
2012 class action by 4,500 ex-players with serious medical
conditions linked to repeated head trauma resulted in the NFL
agreeing to a settlement of $765million settlement.

"As I said four years ago, a billion dollars might be a drop in the
ocean for a big American corporation like the NFL, but I doubt if
World Rugby or a governing body like the RFU or WRU can take such a
financial hit," said Reynecke, who has an LLM masters qualification
from his time playing in England.

"In saying that, if class action does happen in the UK it will be a
long, ugly case. And rugby is going to lose. Rugby is not the NFL.
NFL is a big corporate machine rooted in capitalism. Rugby is not.

"I foresaw this class action happening. There have been other
players in the UK that have tried to sue the clubs individually.
When the news broke about the planned class action, there were a
lot of chats, opinions and historical stories on a rugby WhatsApp
group," explained Reynecke, who worries about the costs involved
for the ex-players taking the test concussion case.

"Damages-based agreements (DBAs) are rarely used in England and law
firms are usually reluctant to fund counsel fees. The players will
have to fund this. That is why they are getting the news in the
media so more players are added. Unfortunately, if this happens, it
will be an expensive exercise that will take years.

"The court jurisdiction would not want that pandora's box opened,
especially without proper proof. So the players will have to fund
this costly litigation and as the case goes on for years, some
players will say they don't have the funds for it anymore and will
want to pull out but will be told if you want to get your money
back, you either stay until the end to get the prize or lose the
money that you funded so far.

"The defence will probably carve some of the plaintiffs to pieces.
As an example, as much as I was unhappy with TBI and concussion not
being taken seriously in 2016, I will personally not do anything to
hurt rugby.

"As well, the defence would firstly ask if my MMA was the reason
for any long-term neurodegenerative consequences, even though the
concussion I experienced during rugby was way worse than any
training or competing in MMA.

"The defence for the class action can get ugly as well. Don't you
think they will ask some of the people with early-onset dementia if
it's not from alcohol or perhaps cocaine use when partying in
London?

"The NFL case was over 65 years and bonafide research that showed
CTE, Alzheimer's disease or moderate dementia. The thing was that
the NFL tried to cover scientific research and hid the risks of
repeated concussions in order to return players to the field.  

"The big focus (for rugby) will be negligence, but I can't see it
being successful. And even more important, there is not going to be
a settlement like the NFL class-action. My heart goes out to former
players out there that suffer from depression, alcoholism, anxiety
and memory that is starting to become a problem.

"I know old players and friends that struggle with depression and
alcoholism. I know that problems are probably the roots of some
brain disease or disorder. But there are millions of people that
struggle with that as well and didn't do a contact sport. So, the
answer will only be revealed when extensive research on old rugby
players is done."

Reynecke's parting shot is reserved for rugby's head injury
assessment, something he most certainly feels isn't fit for
purpose. "Even though the HIA protocols have become stricter in the
four years after I wrote that article, the HIA protocol is still
inadequate. I still think the ten-minute HIA window to assess and
to recuperate is a f***ing joke." [GN]


WRIGHTENBERRY HOSIERY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wrightenberry Hosiery
Mills, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Wrightenberry Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06147 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Wrightenberry Hosiery Mills, Inc. -- https://www.wrightsock.com/ --
is a Manufacturer of Double Layer socks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ZOOM VIDEO: Deaf Charged for Closed Captioning Service, Kane Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL KANE; & CHRISTOPHER MYERS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZOOM VIDEO
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06136 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disability Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant requires hearing-impaired
individuals to purchase additional technology to participate fully
in the services it offers. While the Defendant already possesses
the technology to support the closed captioning software, the
services can cost $2000 per hour or higher. Defendant permits
third-party software companies to integrate a closed captioning
service into its software. This is the only tool for the Plaintiffs
to fully participate in the use of Defendant's services.

By failing to make its services accessible to hearing impaired
persons, the Defendant, a public accommodation subject to Title III
of the Americans with Disability Act, deprives deaf and
hearing-impaired individuals of the full benefits of the
Defendant's services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among the Plaintiffs and the Class.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. develops a people-centric cloud
service that transforms real-time collaboration experience. The
Company offers unified meeting experience, a cloud service that
provides a 3-in-1 meeting platform with HD video conferencing,
mobility, and web meetings. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (412) 857-5350
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  ben@nshmlaw.com

               -and-

          Alison Bernal, Esq.
          Margaret Parker, Esq.
          NYE STIRLING HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 W. Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          E-mail: alison@nshmlaw.com
                  meg@nshmlaw.com


ZOOM VIDEO: Kane Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoom Video
Communications, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Russell Kane,
Christopher Myers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Does 1-10,
Case No. 2:20-cv-06136-ENV-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2020).

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

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. -- https://zoom.us/ -- is an
American communications technology company headquartered in San
Jose, California. It provides videotelephony and online chat
services through a cloud-based peer-to-peer software platform and
is used for teleconferencing, telecommuting, distance education,
and social relations. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          201 Milwaukee Street, Ste. 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Phone: (646) 964-9600
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com


[*] AICD Calls for Substantial Securities Class Action Reform
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mirage News reports that the Australian Institute of Company
Directors (AICD) has backed calls by an influential Parliamentary
Joint Committee for substantial reform to Australia's securities
class action settings.

The Committee found that shareholder class actions are 'generally
economically inefficient and not in the public interest' with
shareholders in net terms no better off.

AICD Managing Director and CEO, Angus Armour, said, "Australia has
become a lucrative market for litigation funders capitalising on
our strict liability disclosure settings to reap major financial
rewards. We welcome the Committee's finding that reform is needed
to re-balance the no-fault disclosure laws driving the outcomes.

"These changes do not equate to a 'watering down' of disclosure
requirements. The reckless or negligent director, and the
individual who knew that disclosing information would affect the
share price and said nothing, is still on the hook and they should
be."

"Rebuilding the economy post-COVID will require an environment that
encourages investment and risk-taking while building business and
market confidence. Australia's current securities class action
regime works against these goals," Mr Armour said.

"Our securities class actions settings are out of step with
comparable jurisdictions and encourage cases motivated by profit
not public interest."

The AICD argued that the COVID-19 temporary move to re-introduce a
fault element in continuous disclosure laws should become
permanent, a view backed by the Committee.

The AICD has also called for similar reform of misleading and
deceptive disclosure thresholds contributing to securities class
action claims. Such reforms would preserve Australia's strong
continuous disclosure rules and continue to hold accountable
companies and boards that knowingly or recklessly breach them.

The Committee has also recommended reforms to the broader class
action and litigation funding market that would improve its
operation and outcomes for claimants.

"The AICD recognises the role that litigation funders can play in
access to justice, especially in product liability, consumer
protection and employment claims," Mr Armour said.

"But securities class actions are different - driven by funder
returns rather than the interests of claimants, with adverse
economic and market consequences. Legislative reform on securities
class actions should be a new year priority for the Government."
[GN]


[*] Global Legal Panel Examines Trends in US, EU Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
ICLG.com reports that the penultimate panel of Global Legal Group's
Global Class Actions Symposium examined current trends in US and EU
class actions, as well as how the Morrison decision has impacted
global disputes.

Steve Cirami, head of corporate and class actions at Broadridge
Financial Solutions chaired the panel. He underlined the recent
adoption of global class action laws globally and how laws
intersect in various jurisdictions.

THE US PICTURE

Setting the stage for a discussion on the United States, Professor
Maria Glover, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law
Center, Washington, DC, highlighted some key recent developments in
class actions, starting with the duties of objectors. "Objectors
are troublesome because they have the power to hold up or interfere
with the settlement and they can derive significant leverage to
extract rents from class counsel." The US Court of Appeal
sanctioned an objector in Pearson v Target, which was "important
because it was the first time a court expressly stated that an
objector is a fiduciary of the class. This new standard will be
really influential and may well become the standard going forward"
she said.

Another issue is incentive payments to class representatives.
Glover highlighted a recent case which "invalidated district
courts' approval of a class settlement because the settlement
included a modest incentive for the class representative". Such
payments compromise the independence of class representatives,
although they can be upheld, if they are modest. However, the court
carved out a new concern in this case, "the stirring up of needless
litigation". The decision may be used in future to wipe out small
value class actions.

The next issue was securities class actions filings, which have
fallen since the fourth quarter of 2019. She compared this to suits
against foreign issuers which are rising at an all-time high pace,
with 20% of such actions relating to cryptocurrency offerings.
Citing Morrison v National Australia Bank, Glover said that the
decision did not actually change the type of litigation brought
against foreign issuers. Morrison makes extraterritorial companies'
liability exposure in the US proportional to their US presence.

A further development is a "new negotiation class" which may align
with how class actions are being constructed overseas, as well as
"the renewed interest in whether there can be personal jurisdiction
over absent plaintiffs", following Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v
Superior Court of California (BMS).

EU DEVELOPMENTS

DLA Piper partner and head of the global class actions practice
Jeremy Sher said EU law developments pose a stark contrast with the
US. In much of Europe, "class actions are not a traditional part of
the legal landscape", and disclosure and legal examination "are not
part of the legal tradition", he said. He noted "a civil law
continental split" between the Netherlands, on one hand, which is
striving to be the centre of class actions, and Ireland.

Europeans are learning to bring claims, albeit not on US or
Australian levels, and scandals such as Dieselgate, and data
breaches are "driving a change". Procedural changes have emerged in
the United Kingdom and Netherlands, and other EU member states may
follow suit after the new Collective Redress Directive.

Under "the influence of the US and Australia", Sher said, we may
see "a pan-European system of collective redress". However, some
states like Germany are taking more restrained approach while other
countries are on the "US spectrum".

The EU Collective Redress Directive diverges from the US law. It
provides that claims may only be brought by a qualified entity, and
that both damages and injunctions can be sought. "You will be
extending collective proceedings into markets where it has never
been part of their legal system," said Sher. There will also be
disclosure requirements and a capacity to strike out claims at an
early stage. "Individual member states retain significant
discretion over the implementation of rules", he said. It also
becomes critical, with the introduction of the directive, that
litigation funding is transparent.

An impact of the directive's implementation is that "Australian and
American players are piling into Europe, bringing with them
substantial expertise", said Sher, though there exists uncertainty
on how experiences in North America may be replicated in the
European system.

REST OF THE WORLD

Senior manager of collective redress at Omni Bridgeway, Noah
Wortman, addressed worldwide class actions developments. He
highlighted an "entrepreneurial spirit" seeking out litigation
funding across the US and EU in recent years.

Wortman emphasised that a "natural evolution" on moral and business
responsibility has taken place, with plaintiffs' changing attitudes
driving the shift in class actions law. "Years ago, people were
only filling passive claim forms anonymously, and waiting for a
cheque to show up." This even applied overseas, until the Morrison
judgement in 2010 "threw a major kink into the works". Those
claimants needed another avenue to pursue redress, he said, but for
those trading outside the US, there wasn't necessarily access to
the US courts.

He continued: "Part of the driver in an expansion of regimes across
the world, including Asia, Australia and the EU, is politics and
the context of how people have experienced these cases. In the US,
you're bound by the settlement . . . unless you opt out, but in the
majority of jurisdictions elsewhere, this isn't the case, so you
can't sit by the curb side and expect to receive something."

The US influence on a changing class action legal landscape across
the EU and rest of the world is not only being driven by people
increasingly "crossing oceans" said Wortman; the markets are now
more sophisticated. Some jurisdictions are still at an early stage,
but this does not mean a plaintiff will not have access to a
solution "by creatively litigating in other jurisdictions".

Some emerging trends include environmental, social and governance
(ESG) issues which are increasingly cropping up in global class
actions, said Wortman.

Glover added that class action litigation has become more creative,
however "the US is contracting access to justice in the class
action and collective action space, where the global need makes so
clear that perhaps there's never been a time in history where it's
so much more obvious that we need these sorts of mechanisms".

Sher, praising the US system for its sophistication, added: "We are
seeing a globalisation of the class actions market. There will be
knowledge transfer from North America, and everyone testing the
boundaries to deliver asset returns that funders are looking for."

He concluded by saying that the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) and data may see the most prominent growth for class actions
in the coming future. [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 ***