/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210111.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 2

                            Headlines

38TH JUDICIAL: McFalls Files Petition in Commonwealth Ct. Pa.
AGA SERVICE: Bauer Seeks 8th Circuit Review in Insurance Suit
AGRI STATS: GNEMI Files Suit Over Inflated Turkey Prices
ALIERA COMPANIES: Seeks 8th Cir. Review in Kelly Insurance Suit
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces Borger Suit Over Unsolicited Calls

AMERICAN GENERAL: Cozen O'Connor Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
ARZZ INTERNATIONAL: Brooks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ASSIST ON CALL: Faces Cabanez Suit Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
BLACKBAUD INC: Eisen Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to D.S.C.
BLACKBAUD INC: Estes Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to D.S.C.

CANNA CLOUD LLC: Nieman Slams Unsolicited SMS Ads
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Song Ruling in Consumer Fraud Suit to 8th Cir.
CHINESE NAIL: Li Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices, Retaliation
CKR LAW: Savoji Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Non-Equity Partners
CLAY & DOMINGUE: Welders Slam Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay

COSTCO WHOLESALE: City of Charleston Sues Over Mislabeled Wipes
CURT FAUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Damron Suit Says
DASH LUBE: Court Won't Decertify Wage Statement Class in Moreno
DIVERSIFIED HEALTHCARE: Tate Disputes Collection Letter Validity
DOMINION VOTING: Faces Election Class Action Lawsuit in Colorado

DUCLAC INCORPORATED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bustamante Says
ECO-VILLAGE: Former Walden Eco-Village Residents File Class Action
ELTON CORPORATION: Bid to Sever Parties From Wright Suit Denied
EMZ SOLUTIONS: $200K Settlement in Rosario Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
ENERGY TRANSFER: Del. Court Won't Accept Appeal in Twin City Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Gross Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Jacobson Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
ENVISION CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ERIN ENERGY: Bids to Substitute & for Relief Denied in Lenois Suit
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Romaniak Files Suit Over Breach of Contract

FEIN SUCH: Celestial Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
FINNEY'S VENTURA: Gresham Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
FLYING HORSE: Underpays Truck Drivers, Pang Suit Alleges
FORMA GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Desalvo Says
GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Ratliff Alleges

HD AND ASSOCIATES: Taylor Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fifth Circuit
HOUSE OF SALADS: Resto Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
I LOVE THIS BAR: Young FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Turkish Nationals
J&D POWER LISTINGS: Loftus Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls

J.B. PRITZKER: Most Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
JACK RABBIT: Hammond Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
JESSE J. GUIDO, INC: Fails to Pay OT to Line Cooks, O'Hara Claims
KENNETH COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid Wages
KONICA MINOLTA: Cezus Balks at Age Discrimination in the Workplace

LA JOLLA: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
LA LIBERTAD MARKET: Candelario Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Wages
LABRADOR FRANCHISES: Blind Can't Access Website, Brooks Suit Says
LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Says
LAZER SPOT: Thomas Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Info

LEHR BROTHERS: Faces Alamo Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
LG ELECTRONICS: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in Faulty Refrigerators Suit
LONGVIEW ACQUISITION: Nair Sues Over Butterfly Merger Deal
LOUISIANA: Ryan Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Louisiana
MAINE: Faces Suit Over Mismanaged Foster Children's Mental Health

MANTECH INT'L: Plan Members Suit Assert Employee Fund Mismanagement
MARCHELLO'S GARDEN: Herrera Sues Over Bussers' Unpaid OT Wages
MDL 2738: Beniamen's Talcum Powder Suit Transferred to N.J.
MDL 2804: 15 Opioid Suits Transferred to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2875: 4 Suits Over Hypertension Meds Moved to D. N.J.

MDL 2885: 3M Suit v. TCA Transferred to N.D. Fla.
MDL 2924: Generic Manufacturers & Repackagers Win Dismissal Bid
MDL 2924: Innovator-Liability Claims in Zantac Litigation Tossed
MDL 2924: Master Personal Injury Complaint Tossed in Zantac Suit
MDL 2924: Retailers & Distributors Win Dismissal From Zantac Suit

MEDICAL FINANCIAL: Settlement Class Status Sought in FDCPA Suit
MINNESOTA: Tyler Seeks 8th Cir. Review in Rights Violation Suit
NEVADA: Judge Lifts Contempt Against State Unemployment Office
NEW YORK: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in Nnebe v. TLC Denied
NORTH MIAMI, FL: Jockey Club Sues Over Unlawful Water Utility Bills

NOVABAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Phelps Dunbar Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
NSBC GROUP: Faces Almonte Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PENNSYLVANIA: Taggarts Ruling in Foreclosure Suit to 3rd Circuit
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bonilla Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices

PRIMAL FORCE: Hoffman Serves as Both Class Rep and Class Counsel
QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION: Gowda Sues Over 41% Drop in Share Price
RIVER JETTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Desalvo Claims
SALAS CONCRETE: Cavazos Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
SELECT MEDICAL: Arends Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California

SNOW TEETH WHITENING: Kraus Says Teeth-whitening Light a Scam
SOLARWINDS CORP: Shareholder Files Securities Class Action
STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Seeks Second Cir. Review in Fraud Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: N.D. California Refuses to Remand Anderson Suit
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Wins Bid to Junk Cella Suit Over Tax Map Fees

THE TROXEL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Jones Suit Claims
TRADER JOE'S: Kong Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to Ninth Circuit
TRINITY HEALTHSHARE: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Kelly Insurance Suit
UNITED STATES: Missouri River Landowners File 5th Amendment Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Prelim. Injunction Denial in Hall v. USDA Affirmed

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Breach of Duty Claims in Riskin Tossed
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Riskin Claims v. Heppenstall, UPMC Nixed
V.K. KNOWLTON: Underpays Construction Workers, Latronico Claims
VERITA TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Faces Green Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
VIRGIN ISLANDS: Morton Suit Seeking Pay Under CARES Act Dismissed

VIVINT INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Petrozzino Suit
WESTWEGO, LA: Patton Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Louisiana
XTO ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Stayed in Kriley Suit
[*] 1,548 Workplace-Related Class Action Rulings Set New Record
[*] Maurice Blackburn Mulls Business Insurance Class Action

[*] Securities Lawsuits v. Non-U.S. Cos. on Track for Record High
[*] Squire Patton Releases 2021 TCPA Class Action Predictions

                            *********

38TH JUDICIAL: McFalls Files Petition in Commonwealth Ct. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 38th Judicial Dist.,
et al. The case is styled as Amy McFalls, Jason Crunetti Vincent
Esposito, Gregory Jackson, and Brenda Lacy, on behalf of themselves
and all persons similarly situated, Petitioners v. 38th Judicial
District, Hon. Thomas DelRicci, President Judge (in his official
capacity) Michael R. Kehs, Esq. Court Administrator (in his
official capacity), and Lori Schreiber, Clerk of Courts (in her
official capacity), Respondent, Case No. 4 MD 2021 (Pa.
Commonwealth Ct., Jan. 5, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Equity."

Montgomery County --
https://www.montcopa.org/1396/Judges-Contact-Information -- is the
38th Judicial District of the Unified Judicial System of
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          John James Grogan, Esq.
          David Aaron Nagdeman, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.
          1717 Arch St Ste 4020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2846
          Phone: (215) 320-5662

               - and -

          Mary Catherine Roper, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
          Po Box 60173
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 592-1513

               - and -

          Seth F. Kreimer, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF PENNA LAW SCH
          3501 Sansom St
          Philadelphia, PA 19104-6253
          Phone: (215) 898-7447

               - and -

          Andrew Chapman Christy, Esq.
          ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
          PO Box 60173
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 592-1513


AGA SERVICE: Bauer Seeks 8th Circuit Review in Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Logan Bauer filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
his lawsuit entitled LOGAN BAUER, individually and behalf of ) all
others similarly situated v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY, D/B/A ALLIANZ
GLOBAL ASSISTANCE and JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:20-cv-03138-MDH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Springfield.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of individuals
to whom Jefferson and/or AGA issued an insurance policy or policies
providing trip cancellation coverage who sustained loss as a result
of the cancellation of their trip due to a stay-at-home mandate or
quarantine order issued by governmental authority to stop the
spread of COVID-19, and who have not received payment by Jefferson
and/or AGA in connection with such loss.

Mr. Bauer is seeking an appeal to review the District Court's order
dated November 24, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Logan Bauer v. AGA Service
Company, et al., Case No. 20-3711, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Dec. 29, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on February 8, 2021;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Logan Bauer is due on February 8, 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]

Plaintiff-Appellant Logan Bauer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Derek A. Ankrom, Esq.
          Jason C. Smith, Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          2144 E. Republic Road, Suite B300
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Telephone: (417) 888-1000
          E-mail: dankrom@spencerfane.com  

Defendants-Appellees AGA Service Company, doing business as Allianz
Global Assistance, and Jefferson Insurance Company are represented
by:

          Matthew J. Antonelli, Esq.
          Thomas S. Schaufelberger, Esq.
          SAUL & EWING
          1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 550
          Washington, DC 20006-3434
          Telephone: (202) 295-6608
          E-mail: matt.antonelli@saul.com
                  tschauf@saul.com  

               - and -

          Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          E-mail: pkenny@atllp.com

               - and -

          James A. Morsch, Esq.
          BUTLER & RUBIN
          1800 Three First National Plaza
          70 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: jim.morsch@saul.com

               - and -

          Matthew Duff Turner, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
          3405 W. Truman Boulevard, Suite 210
          Jefferson City, MO 65109-0000
          Telephone: (573) 636-8394     
          E-mail: mturner@armstrongteasdale.com

AGRI STATS: GNEMI Files Suit Over Inflated Turkey Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
GNEMI, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Agri Stats, Inc., Butterball LLC,
Cargill, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Cooper Farms,
Inc., Farbest Foods, Inc., Foster Farms, LLC, Foster Poultry Farms,
The Hillshire Brands Company, Hormel Foods Corporation, Hormel
Foods, LLC, House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Perdue Farms, Inc.,
Perdue Foods LLC, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. and
Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07371 (N.D.
Ill., December 11, 2020), is a class action complaint that seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to various
federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws
and unjust enrichment laws.

Butterball, Cargill, Cooper, Farbest, Foster, Hormel, House of
Raeford Farms, Perdue and Tyson are turkey integrators that
collectively control approximately 80 percent of the wholesale
turkey market in the United States. Agri Stats provides information
exchange services to companies in a variety of agricultural
sectors, including pork, chicken and turkey.

The Integrators have allegedly entered into an agreement from at
least 2010 to January 1, 2017, to exchange sensitive information
through Agri Stats regarding their production and sales of turkey.
Gnemi operates as Logan Farms, a restaurant and deli located in
Jackson, Mississippi. It allegedly paid artificially inflated
prices for turkey claiming that such prices exceeded the amount
they would have paid if the price for turkey had been determined by
a competitive market instead of being influenced by an exchange of
information through Agri Stats regarding the turkey market. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES PC
      120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com
             smm@cliffordlaw.com

             - and -

      John Barrett, Esq.
      David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
      Sarah Sterling Starns, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      404 Court Square
      Lexington, MI 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Fax: (662) 834-2628
      Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
             dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
             sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING, LLP
      30 East Seventh Street Suite 2800
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 312-6518
      Fax: (651) 312-6618
      Email: sraiter@larsonking.com


ALIERA COMPANIES: Seeks 8th Cir. Review in Kelly Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Aliera Companies, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled GEORGE T. KELLY, III, and
THOMAS BOOGHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-05038-MDH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Joplin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
have filed their second amended class action complaint against
Defendants Aliera and Trinity alleging Defendants sold unfair and
deceptive health care plans to Missouri residents and failed to
provide the coverage the purchasers believed they would receive.
The Plaintiffs allege the plans sold by Defendants qualify as
insurance under both federal and state law. The Defendants contend
their plans are Health Care Sharing Ministries and therefore do not
qualify as insurance.

The Aliera Companies is seeking an appeal to review the court's
order dated November 23, 2020, denying its motion to dismiss case
or alternatively, to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as George Kelly, III, et al. v. The
Aliera Companies, Inc., Case No. 20-3702, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Dec. 29, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on February 8, 2021;

   -- BRIEFS OF APPELLANT The Aliera Companies, Inc. and Trinity
Healthshare, Inc. are due on February 8, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees George T. Kelly, III and Thomas Boogher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jay Angoff, Esq.
          Chaim E. Bronstein, Esq.
          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET
          1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          
               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Ann E. Merryfield, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (202) 223-0303
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  ann@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com  

               - and -

          Michael D. Myers, Esq.
          MYERS & COMPANY
          1530 Eastlake Avenue East
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 398-1188
          E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com     

Defendant-Appellant The Aliera Companies, Inc., formerly known as
Aliera Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is represented
by:

          Joshua Boyd Christensen, Esq.
          KUTAK & ROCK
          300 John Q. Hammons Parkway, Suite 800
          Springfield, MO 65806
          Telephone: (417) 720-1410
          E-mail: joshua.christensen@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Craig, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-2626
          E-mail: scraig@burr.com   

               - and -

          Robert H. Rutherford, Esq.
          Elizabeth B. Shirley, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN
          420 N. 20th Street, Suite 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203-0000
          Telephone: (205) 251-3000  
          E-mail: rrutherford@burr.com  
                  bshirley@burr.com

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces Borger Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN BORGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL NETWORK INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00016 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2021) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

American Financial Network, Inc. provides finance services. The
Company offers loan for buying homes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

AMERICAN GENERAL: Cozen O'Connor Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Miller, Esq., and Charles J. Vinicombe, Esq., of Cozen
O'Connor, in an article for Lexology, report that after years of
pursuing life insurers with Cost of Insurance (COI) class actions,
we are now seeing a new life insurance secondary market investor
strategy -- suing life insurers on a class action basis for not
paying enough interest.

On December 21, 2020, in what appears to be the first of these
cases, LSIMC, LLC (a Delaware limited liability company that
allegedly has operated in the business of administering and
acquiring life settlement contracts) commenced a purported class
action against American General Life Insurance Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
District).

According to LSIMC, American General promised to calculate interest
on universal life account/accumulation values "based only on
expectations of future investment earnings" but that American
General instead has been basing its calculations on
"shareholder-driven profit targets and the 'competitive
environment.'" As a result, according to LSIMC, American General
has been paying only the minimum 3 percent credited interest rate
on policies like those owned by LSIMC, when American General and
other insurers have "for the past several years, typically
projected and earned returns between 5 and 6.5%." LSIMC further
alleges that, by paying the minimum interest rate (despite the
existence of what LSIMC describes as a "Single Factor Credited
Rate" provision), American General also avoids paying "persistency
bonus" rates of interest, accrues increased premium charges, and
induces policy lapses and surrenders.

LSIMC purports to prosecute its case on behalf of an "Investment
Earnings Only California Class" that is alleged to consist of
"hundreds of consumers of life insurance" who have allegedly been
short-changed. LSIMC asserts claims for breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violations of Section 17200 et seq. of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

LSIMC admits that most of the policies in question were issued
between 10 and 20 years ago. Importantly, sophisticated secondary
market life insurance investors like LSIMC own a large percentage
of the high face amount universal life insurance policies issued
during this time period, and many of those policies have been (or
may be) the subject of insurable interest challenges. Not
surprisingly, nowhere in the complaint is there any mention of an
individual insured or family.

Other insurers should be on alert for similar cases and claims and
may want to review their policies to evaluate whether their
contracts fall into the so-called "Single Factor Credited Rate"
category described in the investor's complaint. Obviously, there
are strong defenses to these claims, including that the interest
rates have been properly calculated and statutes of limitations. Of
course, as noted in prior Alerts, there are also multiple defenses
to the class action components of cases like this including that
many of the policies that these professional investors have
acquired over the years are subject to challenge on the
individualized basis of lack of insurable interest. [GN]


ARZZ INTERNATIONAL: Brooks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARZZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a SCHUTZ, a Delaware
corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-02511-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, 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 Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because of the unlawful conduct and
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants'
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that their
Website, https://schutz-shoes.com/, will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.

Arzz International, Inc., d/b/a Schutz, a Delaware corporation,
offers the Website to the public. The Website provides consumers
with access to information about new arrivals, handbags, boots,
sneakers, sandals, pumps, mules, flats, and sale items. [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

ASSIST ON CALL: Faces Cabanez Suit Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROY CABANEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSIST ON CALL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-09470 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged illegal "straight time for overtime" policy in violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in April 2020 as a
caregiver providing in-home services to the Defendant's clients.

The Plaintiff claims that he normally worked more than 40 hours in
a week, but he was not paid overtime at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, the Defendant only paid the same rate regardless of the
numbers of hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Assist on Call, Inc. supplies in-home caregivers and caregiving
services to its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Tel: (713) 999-5228
          Fax: (713) 999-1187
          E-mail: matt@parmetlaw.com


BLACKBAUD INC: Eisen Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Philip Eisen, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Blackbaud, Inc., Lead Case No.
3:20-mn-02972-JMC, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina on Dec. 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-04358-JMC to the proceeding.

The case alleges breach of contract against the Defendant and is
assigned to the Honorable Judge Michelle Childs.

Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Rutledge Young, III, Esq.
          DUFFY AND YOUNG LLC
          96 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 720-2044
          Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
          E-mail: ryoung@duffyandyoung.com

               - and -

          Ronald Irvin Raether, Jr. Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          5 Park Plaza Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 622-2722
          Facsimile: (949) 622-2239
          E-mail: ron.raether@troutman.com

               - and -

          Tambry L. Bradford, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3427
          Telephone: (213) 928-9805   
          E-mail: tambry.bradford@troutman.com

BLACKBAUD INC: Estes Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Mamie Estes and Shawn Regan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Lead Case No. 2:20-cv-08275, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-04357-JMC to the proceeding.

The case alleges breach of contract against the Defendant and is
assigned to the Honorable Judge Michelle Childs.

Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          16748 McCormick Street
          Encino, CA 91436-1020
          Telephone: (917) 471-1894
          Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
          E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          217 Lucas Street, Suite G
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Rutledge Young, III, Esq.
          DUFFY AND YOUNG LLC
          96 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 720-2044
          Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
          E-mail: ryoung@duffyandyoung.com

               - and -

          Ronald Irvin Raether, Jr. Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          5 Park Plaza Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 622-2722
          Facsimile: (949) 622-2239
          E-mail: ron.raether@troutman.com

               - and -

          Tambry L. Bradford, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3427
          Telephone: (213) 928-9805   
          E-mail: tambry.bradford@troutman.com

CANNA CLOUD LLC: Nieman Slams Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Nieman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Canna Cloud, LLC and Does 1 through 10,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11333 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Nieman claims to have received text messages that lead to
"cannaclouddelivery.com." He was never a customer of Canna Cloud.
[BN]

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
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Song Ruling in Consumer Fraud Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jennifer Song, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER SONG and SCOTT
WERTKIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP, Case No.
0:18-cv-03205-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Jennifer Song and Scott Wertkin are dog owners who allege that they
were misled by claims made on packages of dog food manufactured and
distributed by Defendants Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion
Petfoods LP. The Plaintiffs bring a wide array of fraud‐based
claims against Champion.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's order
dated Dec. 22, 2020 by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Song, et al v. Champion
Petfoods USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-3689, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Dec. 28, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before February 8, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due February 16, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Jennifer Song and Scott Wertkin is due on
February 16, 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 Jennifer Song and Scott Wertkin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS & DEVALERIO
          P.O. BOX 67101
          Chestnut Hill, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 999-6473
          E-mail: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com                 

               - and -

          Steven M. McKany, Esq.
          ROBBINS, LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: smckany@robbinsarroyo.com  

               - and -

          Michelle Perkovic, Esq.
          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER & WALLACE
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222  
          E-mail: mpl@wexlerwallace.com
                  mjt@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com  

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          ROBBINS & ARROYO
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com   

Defendants-Appellees Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. and Champion
Petfoods, LP are represented by:

          Elisa Hevia Baca, Esq.
          David A. Coulson, Esq.
          Robert S. Galbo, Esq.
          Jared R. Kessler, Esq.  
          GREENBERG & TRAURIG
          333 S.E. Second Avenue, Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0500
          E-mail: bacae@gtlaw.com
                  coulsond@gtlaw.com
                  galbor@gtlaw.com
                  kesslerj@gtlaw.com  

               - and -

          William C. Penwell, Esq.
          SIEGEL & BRILL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 1300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 337-6100
          E-mail: ChrisPenwell@siegelbrill.com   

               - and -

          Rick L. Shackelford, Esq.
          GREENBERG & TRAURIG
          1840 Century Park, E., Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          E-mail: shackelfordr@gtlaw.com
  
               - and -

          Blake Shepard, Jr., Esq.
          STINSON, LLP
          50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 337-6114
          E-mail: BlakeShepard@siegelbrill.com

CHINESE NAIL: Li Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
WEIDONG LI, Plaintiff v. THE CHINESE NAIL SALON ASSOCIATION OF EAST
AMERICA INC. and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06390
(E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2020) brings this complaint collectively on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees against
the Defendants for its alleged violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a long-time worker in the nail industry, working
at various nail salons as a nail technician from about 2004. The
Plaintiff has sued nail salons 4 times in federal court for unfair
and abusive labor practices of not paying wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully and maliciously
directed the Association's members not to hire him specifically and
explicitly because he had sued 4 nail salons.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment; an injunction against
the Association, its owners, officers, agents, successors,
employees, representatives, and all persons acting in concert with
them as provided by law, from engaging unlawful practices and
policies; lost wages and liquidated damages equal to lost wages;
pre-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs; and other legal
or equitable relief as the Court may deem necessary, just, and
proper.

The Corporate Defendant is a trade association for Chinese nail
salon owners and workers throughout the eastern U.S., including in
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Tel: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


CKR LAW: Savoji Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Non-Equity Partners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farzaneh Savoji v. CKR LAW LLP, JASON FRAZIER, JEFF RINDE, MICHAEL
MALONEY, and, DOES 1-25, Case No. 20STCV47829 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 14, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated aggrieved employees arising from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The Defendants violated the state laws due to their failure to
provide rest and meal periods, unpaid wages and overtime, waiting
time penalties, wage statement penalties, failure to pay wages owed
every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records, unfair
competition, wrongful termination and breach of contract.

Mr. Savoji was hired by the Defendants as a non-equity partner on
approximately March 13, 2017 to September 3, 2019.

CKR Law is a global law firm operating through various separate and
distinct legal entities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmine A. Duel, Esq.
          DUEL LAW FIRM
          270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-7095
          Facsimile: (310) 846-8549
          E-mail: jasmine@duellawfirm.com

CLAY & DOMINGUE: Welders Slam Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Munoz, Juventino Castillon and James Eric Short,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Clay & Domingue, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01414
(W.D. Tex., December 11, 2020), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and all other available remedies
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiffs worked for Clay & Domingue, LLC and Darrin Clay as
welders. They claimed that they were misclassified as independent
contractors despite the fact that they worked exclusively for them.
They typically worked at least 10-12 hours per day, often seven
days per week; paid on an hourly basis, same hourly rate for each
hour worked, and thus never received overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     BORSELLINO, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Tel: (817) 908-9861
     Fax: (817) 394-2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: City of Charleston Sues Over Mislabeled Wipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON (d.b.a.
Charleston Water System), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY; TARGET CORPORATION; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
and WAL-MART, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00042-RMG (D.S.C.,
Jan. 6, 2020) seeks relief from recurring damage caused by the
Defendants' deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design,
marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sale of wipes labeled as
"Flushable Wipes."

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that absent the Defendants'
actions and marketing tactics, Flushable Wipes would not be
discarded in toilets and, in turn, would not damage, clog, and
disrupt pump stations, lift stations, sewer lines and wastewater
treatment plants' systems. As long as Defendants continue to claim
that Flushable Wipes are "flushable," consumers will continue to
use them in accordance with Defendants' instructions and many may
never realize the property damage and risks to public health and
the environment caused by flushing Flushable Wipes.

Through the ordinary and directed use of the Defendants' Flushable
Wipes, Plaintiff and similarly situated entities that own and
operate sewage or wastewater conveyance and treatment systems,
including municipalities, authorities, and wastewater districts
(collectively, "STP Operators") experienced and will continue to
experience clogging and other disruption of their sewage or
wastewater treatment plants, pump stations, lift stations, and
sewer lines due to consumers flushing Flushable Wipes as directed
by Defendants. Flushable Wipes will continue to create excessive
maintenance and repair-related expenses borne by STP Operators, and
ultimately, the public, the suit says.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates wholesale membership
warehouses in multiple countries. The Company sells all kinds of
food, automotive supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry,
electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well as other
goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          F. Paul Calamita, Esq.
          AQUALAW PLC
          6 South Fifth Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 716-9021
          Facsimile: )804) 716-9022
          E-mail: paul@aqualaw.com

               -and-

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
          Sarah E. Delaney, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  vserra@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdelaney@rgrdlaw.com


CURT FAUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Damron Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DAMRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURT FAUS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00008 (D. Haw., Jan. 5, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Damron was employed by the Defendant as laborer.

Curt Faus Corporation was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the construction of nonresidential buildings.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James D. DiPasquale, Esq.
          DIPASQUALE & SUMMERS, LLP
          1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1260
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 240-4771
          Facsimile: (808) 240-4765
          E-mail: james@ds-lawoffices.com

               -and-

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MN 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


DASH LUBE: Court Won't Decertify Wage Statement Class in Moreno
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued an order denying joint motion
to decertify the wage statement class in the lawsuit entitled
ROBERTO MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DASH LUBE, GHARDASH ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP.,
collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH and POYA PAUL
GHARDASH, Case No. 18cv1922 DMS (AHG) (S.D. Cal.).

On Dec. 13, 2019, the Court certified the following class on the
Plaintiffs' wage statement claim: "All current and former hourly
service technicians who worked for Defendants at any of their Jiffy
Lube automotive oil change shops at any time from Aug. 17, 2014
through judgment."

After that ruling, the parties engaged in numerous and lengthy
settlement negotiations, and on July 24, 2020, they filed a Notice
of Settlement. In that Notice, the parties reported they would be
filing a joint motion to decertify the Wage Statement Class within
10 business days after execution of the formal settlement
agreement. That motion was filed on Nov. 4, 2020. After reviewing
the motion, the record, and the relevant legal authority, the
motion is denied.

The legal basis for the parties' motion is Rule 23(c)(1)(C) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that an order that
grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended
before final judgment. The parties argue that under the Rule, a
court may decertify a class upon a showing of good cause, lack of
prejudice, and no undue delay. They also assert that
decertification is appropriate where materially changed or
clarified circumstances have been shown that would make the
continuation of the class action improper.

The parties contend that the Defendants' precarious financial
condition, in combination with the very real possibility that they
would prevail on the issue of liability, establish that good cause
exists with respect to the Parties' request to decertify the wage
statement class.

Judge Sabraw notes that there is some authority to support the
parties' position that a defendant's limited financial resources
support decertification of a class (citing Barnett v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 307 (E.D. Tex. 2006);
Gradisher v. Check Enf't Unit, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 392 (W.D. Mich.
2002)). However, in each of those cases, it appears there was
independent evidence of the defendant's precarious financial
condition.

In the instant case, Judge Sabraw finds, the only evidence of the
Defendants' financial condition is the Declaration of the
Plaintiffs' Counsel Rod Johnston, who states that during
Court-supervised settlement negotiations, the Defendants
represented to both the Plaintiff's Counsel and the Court that due
to the Defendants' precarious financial condition, they would be
unable to satisfy a class-wide judgment. Mr. Johnston also suggests
that the settlement agreement itself, which calls for the
Defendants to pay the Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs a total
of $42,000 with 15-month payment terms, is evidence of the
Defendants' precarious financial condition.

Although the Court has no reason to doubt Mr. Johnston's
credibility, it finds the evidence insufficient to warrant
decertification of the Wage Statement Class. Just as with a motion
for final approval, the Court finds that a stronger showing of the
Defendants' financial hardship is required before the Court will
consider decertification.

The other basis for the present motion, namely the Plaintiffs'
apparent reconsideration of the merits of their wage statement
claim, is also insufficient to warrant decertification, Judge
Sabraw holds. Indeed, other than the argument concerning the
Defendants' financial condition, the parties fail to explain why
the wage statement claims of the Named Plaintiff and the 12 opt-in
plaintiffs are susceptible to settlement but the claims of the
other 100-plus Class Members are not.

Having initially requested and then obtained certification of a
class, the named Plaintiffs were duty-bound to represent the common
interests of all the class members, Judge Sabraw writes quoting
Hanzly v. Blue Cross of W. New York, Inc., No. CIV-86-35E (W.D.N.Y.
Apr. 3, 1989). It is unclear to the Court whether the parties'
settlement agreement fulfills those duties.

Considering these responsibilities against the present record, the
Court denies without prejudice the parties' joint motion to
decertify the Wage Statement Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3wnyhny from Leagle.com.


DIVERSIFIED HEALTHCARE: Tate Disputes Collection Letter Validity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydiah Tate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified HealthCare Services, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00945 (E.D. Tex.,
December 11, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Diversified HealthCare Services is a debt collector who was
assigned to collect an obligation owed by Tate. It sent a
collection letter that failed to advise Plaintiff that upon the
consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt
collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of
the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOMINION VOTING: Faces Election Class Action Lawsuit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Goodland, writing for 9News, reports that one of the
organizers of the most recent failed recall effort against Gov.
Jared Polis has a new project: a federal class-action lawsuit
against Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems, Facebook and its
founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and the governors of four states and
their election officials, seeking $160 billion in damages and to
declare Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
unconstitutional.

The election lawsuit was filed Dec. 22 in the U.S. District Court
of Colorado by attorney Gary Fielder of Denver, who is on two years
probation tied to financial misconduct.

The plaintiffs include Lori Cutunilli of Breckenridge, who was one
of the organizers of the Recall Polis campaign that did not turn in
any signatures by its Nov. 13 deadline. The group filed for an
extension for turning in signatures in Denver District Court.

Section 230, which protects social media companies like Twitter and
Facebook from liability for the content its users post, has become
a favorite target of President Donald Trump, who recently tried to
get Congress to toss the provision.

Trump followed through on a threat to veto the National Defense
Authorization Act if Congress did not take action on Section 230.
Both the House and Senate later voted to override Trump's veto of
the NDAA, which funds the Defense Department. [GN]


DUCLAC INCORPORATED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bustamante Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MA LIDIA MUNOZ BUSTAMANTE a/k/a MARIA BUSTAMANTE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUCLAC
INCORPORATED d/b/a T&W CLEANERS; and KEVIN L. CHAU, Defendants,
Case No. 9:21-cv-80018 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 5, 2020) to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Bustamante was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Duclac Incorporated d/b/a T&W Cleaners operates a dry cleaning
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3039
          E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com


ECO-VILLAGE: Former Walden Eco-Village Residents File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Symons, writing for SentinelSource.com, reports that former
residents of the Walden Eco-Village are suing their landlord over
their recent displacement from the Peterborough sustainable-living
community.

Corinne Chronopoulos, Griffin Kelley, Michelle O'Mahony and Sarah
Trento filed the suit Dec. 30 in the Manchester branch of
Hillsborough County Superior Court, claiming -- on behalf of all
displaced tenants -- that Eco-Village landlord Akhil Garland is
required by state law to help them obtain and afford alternative
housing, among other financial obligations.

The group is suing Garland, the Garland Family Realty Trust that
owns the Eco-Village property, and Utopia Living, a business owned
by Garland that the lawsuit states was a party to some residents'
leases. Class action means anyone similarly harmed can join the
lawsuit and receive compensation, if it succeeds.

Chronopoulos, Kelley, O'Mahony and Trento were among the 25
Eco-Village residents ordered by town officials to vacate their
homes near Middle Hancock Road last month. The order resulted from
a Dec. 10 inspection of the site by Peterborough Code Enforcement
Officer Tim Herlihy and Fire Inspector Lt. Scott Symonds, who
reported finding unapproved gas and electrical connections and nine
tiny homes unauthorized as permanent residences.

Herlihy told Garland in a cease-and-desist letter the following day
that the utilities violations posed an immediate danger to
residents. He said residents were required to leave their homes by
Dec. 16, giving them just five days to move out, and that Garland
was responsible for providing alternative housing "until [the]
structures are properly permitted."

Some ended up in hotel rooms provided by Garland. Others have been
living with family members or found different temporary shelter.

Chronopoulos and others argue in their lawsuit that by failing to
secure proper permitting, Garland breached their respective leases
and defied a state law prohibiting landlords from "willfully
violat[ing] a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy."

They claim that Garland is therefore obligated, under RSA 540-A:4,
to provide alternative housing, compensate them for all moving
expenses and also finance their rent at any new lodging for the
remainder of their Eco-Village lease. The latter provision would
cover rent higher than what residents paid monthly at the
Eco-Village, which ranged from $445 to $1,472, according to Jason
Bielagus, a Peterborough attorney representing the group.

"They don't have the luxury of time," he said on Jan. 4. "They need
to find a place quick, and with that urgency, they could end up
paying a lot more."

Garland declined to comment on Jan. 5, citing pending litigation.
He said Dec. 29 that he had continued efforts to help tenants find
and afford housing options but that he was receiving fewer
responses, which he attributed to the likelihood of an imminent
legal challenge.

The lawsuit also seeks to recoup the plaintiffs' security deposits
from Garland, which it states equaled one month's rent.

The outstanding deposits totaled $8,747 on Dec. 9, according to a
memorandum that Bielagus filed with the lawsuit. That figure is now
lower because Garland has since returned some of them, Bielagus
said on Jan. 4.

"These people are going to need their deposits back in order to
move on [to new housing]," he said.

A hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 7, though Bielagus said
it is unlikely that Eco-Village residents will be awarded damages
so quickly.

In addition to alternative housing, the plaintiffs are demanding
the return of all rent payments made by any Eco-Village tenants who
lived on the site when its structures were unpermitted.

"If . . . [Garland] represented that he was leasing habitable
structures to them, then he did not fulfill his responsibilities,"
Bielagus said.

He did not know on Jan. 4 how many people may be eligible for
compensation based on that claim because it is unclear when the gas
and electrical connections were installed at the Eco-Village and
when each of the unpermitted tiny homes, known as "casitas," were
built.

Peterborough officials approved the cottages as "transient housing"
for staff at the nearby Well School -- without gas or electrical
connections -- when they were constructed in the mid-2000s,
according to a Dec. 14 news release from the town. The casitas were
added to the site beginning in 2009, Eco-Village resident Mark
Wilson said last month.

Thirteen former Eco-Village residents, all of whom were among those
forced to leave last month, had joined the class-action suit as of
Jan. 4, according to Bielagus. [GN]


ELTON CORPORATION: Bid to Sever Parties From Wright Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a
motion to dismiss or sever parties and for leave to amend the
complaint filed by Plaintiff T. Kimberly Williams in the lawsuit
titled HELENA DUPONT WRIGHT, JAMES MILLS, JOSEPH WRIGHT, and T.
KIMBERLY WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants v. ELTON
CORPORATION, GREGORY FIELDS, FIRST REPUBLIC TRUST COMPANY OF
DELAWARE LLC, and M.C. DUPONT CLARK EMPLOYEES PENSION TRUST,
Defendants/Counter Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. JAMES B.
WYETH, Solely as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate
of Phyllis M. Wyeth, MARY MILLS ABEL SMITH, CHRISTOPHER T. DUPONT,
and KATHARINE D. GAHAGAN, Counterclaim Defendants/Third-Party
Defendants, Case No. 17-286-JFB (D. Del.).

The lawsuit is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief
involving the Mary Chichester duPont Employee Pension Trust an
employee benefit Trust set up by Mary Chichester duPont ("Settlor")
in 1947. In an earlier order, the Court determined that the Trust
became governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") when ERISA took effect in 1976.

The action was originally filed in the District of Maryland by
Plaintiffs duPont Wright and Mills ("Employer Plaintiffs") the
grandchildren of the settlor who employ domestic employees, against
Elton Corp. (a former trustee) and Gregory Fields (administrator)
as fiduciaries of the Trust, seeking equitable relief to bring the
Trust into compliance as an ERISA plan.

The Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to add First Republic
Trust Co. of Delaware (the current trustee) and the Pension Trust
as Defendants. In response to a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing, the Plaintiffs later filed a second amended complaint
adding two Employee Plaintiffs, T. Kimberly Williams and Joseph
Wright (no relation to duPont Wright). Williams had been employed
by Plaintiff Helena duPont Wright as a personal accountant and
Joseph Wright had been employed by Plaintiff Mills as a personal
assistant. Both Employee Plaintiffs are participants in the Pension
Trust and worked for the Plaintiffs for over 10 years.

In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for
a declaration that the Trust at issue is an ERISA plan (Count I);
an ERISA claim for equitable relief on the part of the Employer
Plaintiffs (Count II), an ERISA claim for equitable relief on the
part of Participant Plaintiffs (Count III), an ERISA claim of
breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions on the part of
all Plaintiffs against all Defendants (Count IV), and a claim for
clarification of their right to future benefits under the plan by
the Participant Plaintiffs (Count V). The relief the Plaintiffs
seek is an injunction ordering the Defendants to bring the plan
into compliance with ERISA.

The action was transferred to the district in March 2017. The case
was then bifurcated for purposes of scheduling, and the
determination of ERISA coverage was considered first. The remaining
claims were stayed pending the resolution of Claim I. The Court
granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on Count I, finding the
Pension Trust was an ERISA plan, and lifted the stay on discovery
with respect to the other claims.

Plaintiff Williams now seeks leave to file a third amended
complaint in which the claims of the other three Plaintiffs would
be severed from her claim or dismissed. She also seeks leave to add
another domestic employee as party Plaintiff and proposed class
representative.

Williams contends that the interests of Employer Plaintiffs duPont
Wright and Mills have diverged from the interests of Employee
Plaintiffs. Also, she alleges a putative class action and seeks to
add a claim for failure to disclose documents, which would result
in penalties under ERISA Section 502(c) against all the Defendants
and an individual claim for retaliation in violation of ERISA
Section 510 against Helena duPont Wright. She seeks as well to add
the estate of a deceased third-party Defendant, to drop the Pension
Trust as a Defendant, and to make technical corrections.

The Employer Plaintiffs object to any amendment. They contend that
realignment would be unjust and would significantly affect their
ability to defend themselves, noting conflicts of interest. They
contend, among other things, that the addition of a party and
claims will necessitate further discover and will prolong the
litigation.

In reply to those arguments, Williams disputes that the additional
claims, new party Plaintiff and proposed class action status would
necessitate new discovery or additional delay. She points out,
among other things, that ERISA Section 409 authorizes plan-wide
relief regardless of whether a class is certified and argues that
the proposed fiduciary breach claims involve the same facts,
identical discovery, and identical relief regardless of whether the
claims proceed as individual or as class claims.

Though the Court finds the opposing parties' contentions of
prejudice and delay to be somewhat overstated, it nonetheless finds
that the motion for leave to amend should be denied. It is late in
the action to allow amendment of pleadings. Denying the motion to
amend will not deprive the Plaintiffs of an opportunity to make
their case.

The Court finds the allegations of a putative class action would
not serve any useful purpose because the action can be properly
disposed of as it is presently configured. Permitting the action to
proceed as a class action would add little to the case since the
number of putative plan participants is relatively small and
ascertainable and the relief afforded in the action would apply to
them in any event. The Plaintiffs concede that the remedy imposed
in the action would operate to benefit the plan and plan
participants even if it continues as an individual proceeding. The
beneficiary of any eventual relief will be the plan and its
participants, no matter how they are portrayed. The Plaintiffs'
concerns about the identity and or location of plan participants
can be addressed in discovery.

As to the retaliation claim, the conduct underlying the claim
relates to the recent filing of a state court action and the claim
is directed against only one party, says Senior District Judge
Joseph F. Bataillon. Although some issues may be interrelated, a
new claim against one party should not be allowed to derail, delay,
or lengthen the rest of the case. Since the conduct is a recent
development and there are no statute of limitations concerns, a
separate action asserting that claim can be filed independently
against that the Defendant.

Also, although the claim for failure to disclose is portrayed as a
new claim, the failure to properly disclose the existence and/or
specifics of the Trust are part of the alleged breaches of duty
outlined in the Second Amended Complaint and can be addressed in
the context of an equitable remedy.

As far as realigning the parties, the Court agrees that interests
of the Plaintiffs may be at odds. The Court finds it may make sense
to realign the parties. However, since this is a bench trial, it is
not necessary to do so formally. The pretrial order will supersede
the pleadings and issues and claims can be clarified at that time.
The same result can be achieved in the context of the pretrial
order and by adjusting the order of proof. The Court will structure
the presentation of the case accordingly.

Although the proposed third amended complaint clarifies, restates,
and fleshes out the Plaintiffs' claims and adds statutory
citations, it makes no real substantive changes outside the class
action, disclosure, and retaliation allegations, Judge Bataillon
finds. The gravamen of the complaint is, and has always been,
equitable relief for breaches of duty in connection with the
administration of an ERISA plan, no matter how characterized.
Employers, plan sponsors, administrators, and fiduciaries are
accountable under ERISA. Any new allegations in the proposed
amended complaint relate to the same factual and legal scenario
presented in the second amended complaint.

Judge Bataillon notes that the case has been pending for over three
years and the parties are aware of the claims and defenses.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Williams' motion to dismiss or sever parties
and for leave to amend the complaint is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 31,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2hjhy93 from
Leagle.com.


EMZ SOLUTIONS: $200K Settlement in Rosario Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of their
revised settlement agreement in the lawsuit captioned as JOHN
ROSARIO, LUCAS CARRERA, and MARIO ALVAREZ, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. EMZ SOLUTIONS LLC,
ARNOLD ROTH, YAAKOV ROTH, and EDWARD FORKASH, Case No. 18-CV-3297
(RPK) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.).

Under the Settlement, the Defendants would provide $200,000 for
about 100 construction workers, $10,000 in service awards, and
$66,666 in attorneys' fees, plus costs and expenses.

Plaintiffs Rosario, Carrera, and Alvarez brought the action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated employees. They named as
Defendants EMZ Solutions, Arnold Roth, Yaakov Roth, and Forkash.
The Plaintiffs alleged that they were employed by the Defendants as
construction workers, and that they were underpaid; the Defendants
had a time-shaving policy where they rounded down hours to the
nearest half hour and then paid employees only for rounded hours
rather than actual hours worked.

The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment; an order enjoining
these unlawful practices; an award of unpaid overtime compensation;
an award of unpaid wages; an award of liquidated and punitive
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; costs; and fees.
They also sought relief as a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as a collective action under
Section 16(b) of the FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt construction
workers employed by the Defendants within the last six years. They
sought to have the action designated as a class action and the
named plaintiffs designated as representatives.

The parties requested that the action be referred to mediation.
That request was granted, and the parties reached a settlement.
Under the settlement, the Plaintiffs and the class members who did
not opt out would release their claims. In return, the Defendants
would provide $200,000 for about 100 construction workers. The
three named Plaintiffs would each receive $10,000 in service
awards. The Plaintiffs' counsel would receive $66,666 in attorneys'
fees, plus costs and expenses.

Soon after, the parties moved for preliminary approval of their
proposed class settlement. Upon referral, Chief Magistrate Judge
Cheryl Pollak recommended that the motion be denied. Judge Pollak
concluded that the parties had satisfied the prerequisites for
conditionally certifying a class under Rule 23, and the parties had
satisfied the prerequisites for conditionally certifying a
collective action under the FLSA.

Judge Pollak also found probable cause to think the proposed
settlement procedurally fair. But she concluded that the parties
had not provided the Court with the information necessary to
evaluate the substantive fairness of the proposed settlement. Judge
Frederic Block, to whom the case was then assigned, adopted Judge
Pollak's recommendation and denied the motion for preliminary
approval.

The parties filed a supplemental letter further detailing the basis
for the settlement. They also modified the settlement to address
Judge Pollak's concerns. The parties then filed a second motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. That motion was
referred to Judge Pollak for another report and recommendation.

Judge Pollak recommends that the second motion for preliminary
approval be granted. She again concludes that the parties have
satisfied the prerequisites for conditional certification under
Rule 23 and the FLSA, and that the revised settlement is
procedurally fair. This time, Judge Pollak also finds that the
revised settlement is substantively fair. She concludes that
several factors counsel in favor of settlement rather than
litigation; that $200,000 is a reasonable sum given the range of
recovery; that a service award of $10,000 to each named plaintiff
is reasonable; that a $20,000 administrator's fee is reasonable;
that $66,666 in attorney's fees is reasonable; and that the
proposed mechanism for providing notice to potential members be
approved.

When no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation,
the recommendation is reviewed, at most, for "clear error." Clear
error will only be found only when, upon review of the entire
record, the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.

District Judge Rachel P. Kovner states that she has reviewed Judge
Pollak's report and recommendation and, having found no clear
error, adopts it in full.

The parties' motion for preliminary approval of the revised
settlement agreement is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 31,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxzr6674 from
Leagle.com.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Del. Court Won't Accept Appeal in Twin City Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE CO., NAVIGATORS
INSURANCE CO., and ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL ASSURANCE CO., Defendants
Below, Appellants v. ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, LP, REGENCY GP LP, and
REGENCY GP LLC, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, Case No. 343, 2020
(Del.), Justice James T. Vaughn, Jr., of the Supreme Court of
Delaware refuses to accept an appeal from a superior court opinion
denying the Appellant Insurers' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

The appellants, Twin City, Navigators Insurance, and Allied World,
have petitioned the Appellate Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
42, to accept an appeal from the Superior Court's opinion dated
Sept. 25, 2020. The September 25 opinion denied the Appellant
Insurers' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In the Superior Court litigation, the Appellees, Energy Transfer,
Regency GP LP, and Regency GP LLC ("Insureds"), claim that certain
director and officer insurance policies issued by the Appellant
Insurers and others cover damages that may be awarded in
class-action litigation that is pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the "Dieckman Action"). The Plaintiff in the Dieckamn
Action seeks damages for unitholders of Regency Energy Partners LP
("Regency") arising out of the acquisition of Regency by Energy
Transfer Partners L.P. Appellees Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC,
among others, were named as defendants in the Dieckman Action.

The Appellant Insurers moved to dismiss the Superior Court
litigation, asserting that they are not subject to personal
jurisdiction in Delaware. The Superior Court denied the motion,
holding that the Appellant Insurers are subject to personal
jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. Section 3104(c)(6).  It also held
that the exercise of jurisdiction over the Appellant Insurers would
not offend due process.

The Appellant Insurers asked the Superior Court to certify an
interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court denied the application for
certification. It determined that its opinion denying the Appellant
Insurers' motion to dismiss did not decide a substantial issue of
material importance because it did not go to the merits of the
case. With respect to the criteria of Rule 42(b)(iii), the Superior
Court concluded that the decision sustained the controverted
jurisdiction of the Superior Court and arguably involved a question
of law relating to the "constitutionality, construction, or
application" of Delaware's long-arm statute.

But it also determined that a successful interlocutory appeal would
not necessarily terminate the litigation in its entirety, because
numerous other insureds would remain as Defendants in the action,
even if the Appellant Insureds were not subject to personal
jurisdiction. And it determined that interlocutory review would not
serve considerations of justice or promote the most efficient and
cost-effective resolution of the case.

The Appellate Court agrees that interlocutory review is not
warranted in the case. Applications for interlocutory review are
addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. In the exercise of
its discretion and giving great weight to the trial court's view,
the Appellate Court has concluded that the application for
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for
certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b).

Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of
the Superior Court's decision do not exist in the case, and the
potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the
inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an
interlocutory appeal, Justice Vaughn opines.

Therefore, the interlocutory appeal is refused.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyczcnek from Leagle.com.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Gross Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEIVY GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06389 (E.D.N.Y., December
31, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
seeking damages and declaratory relief for the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to T-Mobile that arose out of transactions, specifically
telecommunication services. In an attempt to collect the alleged
debt, T-Mobile contracted with the Defendant, who subsequently sent
a collection letter to the Plaintiff on or about August 24, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's collection letter is
deceptive because it implies that in exchange for payment of less
than the full balance the Plaintiff will achieve some form of
settlement, when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement
the letter is offering. It is also stated in the letter that the
creditor will recall the account and cease all collection activity,
but it did not clarify what will occur with the rest of the
balance.

The Plaintiff asserts that he has been damaged by the Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices. Thus,
the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment, and other
relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Jacobson Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOEL JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06364 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 30, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Sprint, specifically
for telecommunication services.

According to the complaint, Sprint contracted with the Defendant to
collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about August 7, 2020,
the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's collection letter is
deceptive because it implies that in exchange for payment of less
than the full balance the Plaintiff will achieve some form of
settlement, when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement
the letter is offering. It is also stated in the letter that the
creditor will recall the account and cease all collection activity,
but it did not clarify what will occur with the rest of the
balance.

The Plaintiff claims that he has been damaged by the Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices. Thus,
the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment, and other
relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

Enhanced Recovery Company is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


ENVISION CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENVISION CAPITAL GROUP LLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11752 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 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 placed calls on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in
or around October 2019 in an attempt to promote its services. The
Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" in
placing calls without obtaining the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons' "prior express consent" to receive calls via an
ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular
telephone.

The Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed and suffered damages due
to the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls, which caused
him to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he
previously paid, and invaded his privacy.

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

Envision Capital Group 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. 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


ERIN ENERGY: Bids to Substitute & for Relief Denied in Lenois Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Vice Chancellor of the Court
of Chancery of Delaware denied the Amended Motion to Substitute and
the Motion for Relief in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT LENOIS, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of
ERIN ENERGY CORPORATION, and derivatively on behalf of ERIN ENERGY
CORPORATION v. KASE LUKMAN LAWAL, LEE P. BROWN, WILLIAM J.
CAMPBELL, J. KENT FRIEDMAN, JOHN HOFMEISTER, IRA WAYNE MCCONNELL,
HAZEL R. O'LEARY, and CAMAC ENERGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendants,
and ERIN ENERGY CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 11963-VCF
(Del. Ch.).

Erin is an oil and gas exploration company. Lawal was the Company's
Chairman and CEO. At the time of the challenged transactions, Lawal
is alleged to have been the Company's controlling stockholder.
Lawal and his family owned a majority of CAMAC International
Limited ("CIL"), which indirectly owns 100% of Defendant CAMAC
Energy Holdings Limited ("CEHL"). Lawal and CEHL owned 58.86% of
the Company's outstanding shares prior to the transactions
challenged in Lenois's Complaint.

In June 2013, Public Investment Corporation Limited ("PIC"), a
quasi-public South African pension fund manager, and Lawal, on
behalf of Allied Energy Plc ("Allied"), a wholly owned subsidiary
of CEHL, negotiated a transaction through which PIC would invest
$300 million in the Company in exchange for a 30% ownership stake
in Erin. Erin would then transfer the money invested by PIC and
additional Erin stock to Allied in exchange for certain oil assets
held by Allied ("Assets").

On June 14, 2013, Allied and PIC presented the proposed
transactions to the Erin board of directors. On June 17, 2013, the
Board formed a Special Committee consisting of Defendants
Hofmeister, McConnell, and O'Leary to consider and negotiate the
proposal.

On Nov. 18, 2013, after five months of negotiations with Lawal and
Allied, the Special Committee approved and recommended to the Board
a series of related transactions with PIC and Allied
("Transactions"). The Transactions provided for: (1) PIC to invest
$270 million in Erin in exchange for approximately 377 million
shares of Erin; (2) Erin to pay $170 million in cash and provide a
$50 million convertible subordinated note to Allied; and (3) Erin
to issue additional stock and a stock dividend, ultimately
resulting in post-closing Erin ownership of approximately 30% for
PIC, 60% for Allied/CEHL, and 13% for other stockholders. The
Transactions also provided that Allied would fund the drilling
costs of a particular well (with Erin to bear the costs of
completion for the well) and that certain contract rights would be
terminated in exchange for Erin's agreement to make two $25 million
payments to Allied. The Board approved the Transactions, with Lawal
and Defendant Lee P. Brown recusing themselves.

On Jan. 15, 2014, Erin filed a proxy statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission recommending that its
stockholders approve certain proposals necessary to effectuate the
Transactions ("Proxy"). On Feb. 13, 2014, Erin held a special
meeting of stockholders to vote on a Transfer Agreement, a Share
Purchase Agreement, and an amendment to the Company's certificate
of incorporation. The proposals were subject to approval by a
majority of the minority of stockholders. Each of the proposals
received the requisite stockholder approvals, and the Transactions
closed about a week later.

On July 30, 2015, nearly a year-and-a-half after the Transactions
closed, Lenois made a stockholder demand to inspect Erin's books
and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220. Counsel for Lenois
and Erin negotiated and ultimately agreed upon the scope of the
production in response to the demand. Erin produced minutes and
presentations of Board meetings and other records specifically
requested by Lenois. Lenois did not request any version of the
contracts related to the Transactions or any attachments to the
contracts.

On Feb. 5, 2016, Lenois filed a Complaint against the Defendants
asserting direct claims on behalf of a class of Erin stockholders
and derivative claims on behalf of the Company. The Complaint
alleged that certain of the Company's directors, Lawal, and CEHL
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Transactions.

The Complaint contained four counts. Counts I and II were styled as
derivative claims: Count I asserted a derivative claim for breach
of fiduciary duty against Lawal and CEHL as the Company's
controlling stockholders, and Count II asserted a derivative claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's directors for
permitting Lawal to steer the transaction process. Counts III and
IV were styled as class action claims: Count III asserted a direct
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's directors
and Count IV asserted a direct claim against Lawal as a controlling
stockholder for aiding and abetting the other directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty.

The Complaint alleged that the Transactions were subject to and
could not withstand entire fairness review because they were
transactions between the Company and its controlling stockholder.
The Complaint branded the Special Committee process as "fatally
flawed," accusing the Special Committee of relying on conflicted
management, lacking time to properly consider the complex
transactions presented, being misled and threatened by Lawal, and
not being fully informed.

One allegation regarding the Special Committee is central to the
pending Motions. The Proxy represented that Allied had acquired the
Assets in 2012 for "$250 million in cash subject to certain
adjustments." On April 7, 2017, Lenois moved to supplement his
Complaint with new allegations based on information obtained
through a recent publicly filed question-and-answer session at a
stockholder meeting of Eni, S.p.A., the parent company of the
original owner of the Assets, Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited
("NAE"). In that question-and-answer session, Eni disclosed that
Allied only paid NAE $100 million of the $250 million owed for the
Assets, with the remainder "the subject of recovery by means of a
legal action."

Based upon that newly obtained information, Lenois alleged the
Special Committee acted in bad faith by knowingly disclosing that
Allied acquired the Assets for "$250 million in cash subject to
certain adjustments." On May 23, 2017, the Court granted Lenois'
motion to supplement the Complaint because Lenois had no reasonable
way to ascertain the information in the question-and-answer session
until the disclosure of the question-and-answer session.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated Nov. 7, 2017, the Court granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss. As to the derivative claims, it
determined that the Complaint was replete with allegations of bad
faith conduct against Lawal, but concluded the Complaint and
documents incorporated by reference reflected a Special Committee
that retained reputable, independent legal and financial advisors,
resisted attempts to rush the process, pushed back on numerous deal
terms, and obtained materially better terms. Thus, the Court held
that Lenois failed to plead demand was futile because he failed to
show that a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of
liability for non-exculpated claims. It further held that Lenois's
direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising from allegedly
materially false disclosures failed because the alleged injury was
to the Company.

On Nov. 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Supreme Court.

On Jan. 31, 2018, the Nigerian military landed on oil platforms
leased by Erin Petroleum Nigeria, Ltd. ("EPNL") and seized the
Assets. The Nigerian authorities acted pursuant to a final judgment
in an arbitration proceeding which found that Allied and CIL failed
to pay the agreed-upon purchase price of the Assets acquired from
NAE in 2012. The Seizure forced Erin to cease operations, and Erin
filed for bankruptcy on April 25, 2018. Erin notified the Supreme
Court of the bankruptcy, and on April 27, 2018, the Supreme Court
informed the parties that the appeal would be stayed as a result of
the bankruptcy.

On April 24, 2018, Erin filed with the SEC a Form 8-K containing a
description of the Seizure. In the April 2018 8-K, Erin disclosed
that the Seizure resulted from a Nigerian court order enforcing a
"Final Award" by the London Court of International Arbitration
("LCIA"). The April 2018 8-K disclosed that the Arbitration was
denominated LCIA Arbitration No. 132498 and that the Arbitration
began in 2016. Based on the LCIA arbitration number disclosed in
the April 2018 8-K, Lenois and his counsel ascertained that the
arbitration began in 2013, rather than 2016, as the April 2018 8-K
stated.

Following the public disclosure in the April 2018 8-K, Lenois
investigated the Transfer Agreement further. Lenois and his counsel
found a reference in the Transfer Agreement to "NAE Claims" which
were "described on Allied Disclosure Schedule 4.5." Through the
Trustee, Lenois obtained a copy of the Transfer Agreement
containing Schedule 4.5.

The Movants have filed two motions: (1) to substitute the Trustee
for the Company as a party and then realign the Trustee as
plaintiff, and (2) for relief from judgment under Court of Chancery
Rule 60(b)(2), (3), and (6). Under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b)(2),
a court may provide relief from a final judgment on the basis of
"newly discovered evidence."

The "newly discovered evidence" that the Movants offer as the
reason to vacate the Court's dismissal order is Schedule 4.5 to the
Transfer Agreement, which discloses the existence of the
Arbitration. The Movants argue that Schedule 4.5 to the Transfer
Agreement was neither publicly filed nor produced in response to
Lenois's demand for books and records and that it reflects that the
entities, which sold the Assets to Allied (which then sold the
Assets to the Company) were subject to the Arbitration.

According to the Movants, Schedule 4.5 reveals that the Director
Defendants must have known that the disclosure in the Proxy that
Allied had acquired the Assets in 2012 for "$250 million in cash
subject to certain adjustments" was false. They argue that the
existence and nature of the Arbitration was "so material and
relevant" that it would have changed the result of the Memorandum
Opinion. In particular, they argue that the Memorandum Opinion
stated that "Plaintiff likely would have very serious claims of bad
faith against Director Defendants" if the Special Committee did
know that Lawal Allied did not actually 'pay $250 million in cash'
for the Assets and intentionally misled stockholders in the Proxy.

Judge Fioravanti holds that even assuming that disclosure of the
Arbitration would have been sufficiently material to potentially
alter the result of the Memorandum Opinion, the existence of the
Arbitration was not "newly discovered" evidence to the Trustee, and
Lenois has failed to demonstrate that he could not have discovered
the existence of the Arbitration had he exercised reasonable
diligence," citing Okla. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v.
Corbat, 2018 WL 1254958 (Del. Ch. Mar. 12, 2018).

The Court will not grant relief from a final judgment under Court
of Chancery Rule 60(b)(2) if the evidence was in the possession of
the party seeking to introduce it as 'newly discovered.'" Judge
Fioravanti opines that Schedule 4.5 was within Erin's possession,
and Erin's knowledge is imputed to the Trustee. Because Schedule
4.5 was not "newly discovered" by Erin and the Trustee, the
Trustee's request for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule
60(b)(2) is denied.

Judge Fioravanti also finds that Lenois could have discovered the
existence of the Arbitration before the Memorandum Opinion had he
exercised reasonable diligence. He also opines that the Movants
have not established fraud by "clear and convincing evidence" to
prevail on the Motion for Relief. In addition, the Movants have not
established that the Defendants intentionally concealed Schedule
4.5 from Lenois. Judge Fioravanti points out that the Movants have
not established sufficient grounds for relief from judgment under
any subsection of Court of Chancery Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the
Motion for Relief is denied.

The Trustee has moved pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 17 and
25(c) to be substituted for Erin as the real party in interest and
to be realigned as the Plaintiff in the action.  Rule 25(c)
substitution would not facilitate the conduct of the case because
the Memorandum Opinion is a final judgment that is no longer
subject to appeal and the denial of the Motion for Relief brings
the action to a close, Judge Fioravanti holds. The Motion to
Substitute is, therefore, denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 31,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4otnbav from
Leagle.com.

Michael J. Barry -- mbarry@gelaw.com -- Rebecca Musarra --
rmusarra@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A., in Wilmington,
Delaware; Gordon Z. Novod -- gnovod@gelaw.com -- GRANT &
EISENHOFER, P.A., in New York City; Peter B. Andrews --
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J. Springer --
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- Jessica Zeldin --
jzeldin@andrewsspringer.com -- David M. Sborz --
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC, in
Wilmington, Delaware; Jeremy Friedman -- jfriedman@fotpllc.com --
Spencer Oster -- soster@fotpllc.com -- David Tejtel --
dtejtel@fotpllc.com -- FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC, in New York
City; Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Lenois and Ronald J. Sommers,
Chapter 7 Trustee.

Myron T. Steele -- msteele@potteranderson.com -- Matthew F. Davis
-- mdavis@potteranderson.com -- Jaclyn C. Levy --
jlevy@potteranderson.com -- POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware; David T. Moran -- dmoran@jw.com --
Christopher R. Bankler -- cbankler@jw.com -- JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.,
in Dallas, Texas; Attorneys for Defendants Kase Lukman Lawal and
CAMAC Energy Holdings Limited.

David J. Teklits -- dteklits@mnat.com -- Kevin M. Coen --
kcoen@mnat.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Oakes --
mark.oakes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Ryan Meltzer --
ryan.meltzer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, in Austin, Texas; John Byron, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP,
Houston, Texas; Attorneys for Defendants Lee P. Brown, William J.
Campbell, J. Kent Friedman, and Nominal Defendant Erin Energy
Corporation.

Srinivas M. Raju -- raju@rlf.com -- Robert L. Burns --
burns@rlf.com -- Matthew D. Perri -- perri@rlf.com -- RICHARDS,
LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Greg Waller --
gregwaller@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH L.L.P., in Houston,
Texas; Attorneys for Defendants John Hofmeister, Ira Wayne
McConnell, and Hazel O'Leary.


ESURANCE PROPERTY: Romaniak Files Suit Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esurance Property and
Casualty Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Marie
Romaniak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02773-PAB (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 16, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over Defedant's breach of contract.

The case is assigned to Judge Pamela A. Barker.

Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an
insurance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER
          1001 Lakeside Avenue, E, Ste. 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com

FEIN SUCH: Celestial Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fein, Such, Kahn &
Shepard, P.C. The case is styled as Bertha Celestial, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Fein, Such, Kahn &
Shepard, P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-19474-JMV-JAD (D.N.J., Dec. 16,
2020).

The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act and is assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez.

Fein, Such, Kahn, & Shepard, P.C. operates as a law firm. The
Company offers legal advisory services in the field of business and
elder law, commercial real estate, estate planning, asset
protection, collections, creditor's rights, personal injury, and
municipal court. Fein, Such, Kahn, & Shepard serves customers in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

FINNEY'S VENTURA: Gresham Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Gresham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Finney's Ventura LP, Finney's Slo LP,
Finney's Porter Ranch LP, Finney's Funk Zone LP, Finney's Camarillo
LP, Finney's Burbank LP and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-11339 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2020), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

Finney's operates https://www.finneyscrafthouse.com/, a website
that provides access to a family owned and operated restaurant and
bar that brings upscale cooking to casual dining, using local and
seasonal ingredients. Gresham is legally blind and claims that said
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
           thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
           jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


FLYING HORSE: Underpays Truck Drivers, Pang Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, LIANG RUI PANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLYING HORSE TRUCKING CO LTD., SEN MIAO
INC., FLYING TIGER LOGISTICS ITERNATIONAL CO LTD., SHEN MAO LLC,
WEI WANG, WEI ZHANG, SHANG WEI, GEORGE LI, and CHARLIE DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06387 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' alleged various willful, malicious, and
unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or about
October 2018 through on or about March 11, 2020 to work as a truck
driver for the Defendants' freight hauling business.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant required him to be on duty
120 hours per week 80% of the time, 144 hours per week 10% of the
time, and 168 hours per week 10% of the time. However, he was only
paid by the Defendants for the miles he logged driving. As a
result, the Defendant deprived him of pay for about 4 hours worth
of miles each day, failed to pay him for 2 hours each when the
truck was stationary and being inspected during driver changes, and
deprived him of minimum wage and spread-of-hours pay under the FLSA
and NYLL.

In addition, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with a
wage statement with each payment of wages, and failed to provide
him a wage notice at the time he was hired.

The Corporate Defendants provide truck haulage services. The
Corporate Defendants share common management and ownership. The
Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or
majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Tel: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


FORMA GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Desalvo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORMA GROUP, LLC; WH FORMA GROUP, LLC; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00057-RGK-KS
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, http://formarestaurant.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.

Forma Group, LLC owns and operates a restaurant. [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


GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Ratliff Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BRYAN RATLIFF, II, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-833-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., Dec. 30, 2020) is brought under
Sections 4, 12, and 16 of the Clayton Act for treble damages,
injunctive relief, other relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs with respect to the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff
arising from violations by Defendants of the federal antitrust
laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act.

According to the complaint, Google has engaged in anticompetitive
conduct through its distribution and pre-installation agreements
with Android phone manufacturers, to monopolize the market for apps
and in-app purchases.

Google's Play Store is available to mobile device users running
Google's Android operating system. While Google claims that the
Android OS is maintained as "open" source software, Google has
allegedly engaged in course of conduct designed to deter
competition in the market for Android mobile applications of "apps"
and products sold with such apps.

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. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
          John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          Sterling Starns, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: KBRiley@barrettlawgroup.com   
                  dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                  sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com

HD AND ASSOCIATES: Taylor Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fifth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Byron Taylor, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BYRON TAYLOR, ETC., ET AL.
v. HD and ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-CV-10635, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New
Orleans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and its other
Technicians for all hours worked and also failed to pay appropriate
overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the similarly
situated employees he seeks to represent, are current and former
employees of HD, who worked as Technicians within the last three
years. HD's pay practices and policies applied not only to
Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. Therefore, Plaintiff
brings this suit on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated Technicians.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Judgment
and Order dated Dec. 3, 2020 that all claims brought by Plaintiffs'
collective class are hereby dismissed and that Plaintiff's motion
for partial summary judgment regarding employment status is
denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Taylor v. HD and Associates,
Case No. 20-30815, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Dec. 30, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Byron Taylor, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Lonnie Treaudo, Kendall
Matthews, Kenneth Hunter, Terraine R. Dennis, John Edmond, George
Triche, and Alfred Edmond are represented by:

          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS, L.L.P.
          1 Galleria Boulevard
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833-5600
          E-mail: plh@chehardy.com

Defendants-Appellees HD and Associates, L.L.C. and John Davillier
are represented by:

          Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II, Esq.
          C.F. ZIMMER, L.L.C.
          9213 Rosecrest Lane
          River Ridge, LA 70123
          Telephone: (504) 405-5597
          E-mail: czimmer@davillierlawgroup.com  


HOUSE OF SALADS: Resto Staff Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Sevilla and Stephanie Garrido, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. House of Salads One LLC
and Asher Ben Tov, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06072 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 14, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a business of wholesale and
retail sale of gourmet salads, located in Brooklyn, New York under
the name "House of Salads" where Sevilla and Garrido were employed
as kitchen manager and salad preparer respectively. They claim to
have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime
for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied
spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


I LOVE THIS BAR: Young FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER YOUNG, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. I LOVE THIS BAR LLC d/b/a
Park Street Cantina, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03971-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) collective action against Defendants
      I Love This Bar LLC d/b/a Park Street Cantina, I Love Vine
      LLC d/b/a Granero Lounge, I Love High LLC d/b/a Short North
      Julep, Park Street Boys LLC d/b/a Callahan's Bar and
      Rooftop, and Fadi Michael on behalf of the Plaintiff and
      others similarly situated;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      FLSA claims is sent by United States Mail and e-mail to:

      "all current and former hourly tipped employees of the
      Defendants during the three years preceding the filing of
      this Motion and continuing through the final disposition
      of this case ("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs" or "Putative
      Class");

   3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;

   4. directing the Defendants to provide, within 14 days of an
      order granting conditional certification, a Roster of all
      Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs that includes their full
      names, their dates of employment, their locations worked,
      job titles, their last known home addresses, and their
      personal email addresses; and

   5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
      Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
      within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the
      Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' home and email addresses.

This case involves the Defendants' tip credit disclosure and tip
retention policies and/or practices. The Plaintiff has submitted
allegations and evidence that under the policies or practices, the
Defendants (1) fail to provide necessary tip credit disclosures to
hourly tipped employees; and (2) retained portions of hourly tipped
employees' tips by taking them from the tip pool. Consequently,
each of these policies or practices deprives the Defendants' hourly
tipped employees of their hard-earned pay, the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendants are restaurant companies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3s4R4f3at
no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:s

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Turkish Nationals
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOKCE,
and SULEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (N.M.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of:

      "all Turkish nationals with whom the Defendants contracted
      to work in construction of the Imperial Palace Hotel in
      Saipan in 2020 under the H-22 2B temporary non-
      agricultural workers program. The class comprises the 29
      Turkish workers who have opted into the Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective action in this matter;" and

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives.

The 29 Turkish workers have shown that they satisfy all four
prerequisites for a class action set forth in Rule 23(a) and that
their proposed class action is permissible because of the risk of
inconsistent or preclusive adjudications and the predominance of
common question of law and fact, says the complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ME9tip
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard C. Miller, Esq.
          BANES HOREY BERMAN & MILLER, LLC
          Suite 201, Marianas Business Plaza
          P.O. Box 501969
          Saipan, MP 96950
          Telephone: (670) 234-5684
          Facsimile: (670) 234-5683
          E-mail: RMiller@pacificlawyers.law

J&D POWER LISTINGS: Loftus Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
William Loftus and James Schaffer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J&D Power Listings,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11324 (C.D.
Cal., December 15, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

J&D Power Listings, Inc. operates as All-in-Marketing. It called
Plaintiffs' cellular telephone number in an attempt to promote its
clients' products using an "automatic telephone dialing system."
[BN]

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
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


J.B. PRITZKER: Most Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as George L. Most v. J.B.
Pritzker, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00738 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon Judge
David W. Dugan entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class without prejudice, on behalf of:

   "sentenced individuals of all Illinois counties currently
   being denied access to the Illinois Department of Corrections
   (IDOC), its Administrative Remedies, Policies, Procedures,
   and Considerations."

"This case is awaiting preliminary review, and, as such, the
question of class certification is premature," says Judge Dugan.

The nature of suit states as Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
General Cause alleging violation of the Prisoner Civil Rights.

Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker is an American businessman,
philanthropist, and politician serving as the 43rd governor of
Illinois.

JACK RABBIT: Hammond Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Hammond and Nicholas Anderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jack Rabbit Services, LLC, a
Kentucky Limited Liability Company, Jack Rabbit USA, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, David Hain and Theodore Kaufman, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00838-GNS (W.D. Ky., Dec. 15, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff all earned minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Kentucky Revised Statutes and the Ohio Revised Code Ann.

Plaintiffs Hammond and Anderson were hired by the Defendants as
roadside assistance technicians from approximately August 2018
through approximately February 2019 and approximately November 2013
through approximately June 2019, respectively. Rather than classify
Plaintiffs as employees, the Defendants classified them as
independent contractors.

JackRabbit Services, L.L.C. is a transportation/trucking/railroad
company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, Arizona 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
          E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com   

JESSE J. GUIDO, INC: Fails to Pay OT to Line Cooks, O'Hara Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL O'HARA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. JESSE J. GUIDO, INC. and FRANK GUIDO, Case No. 6:20-cv-07076
(W.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, retaliation damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. O'Hara was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2005
through November 2020. He worked as a line cook for the Defendants
from approximately 2010 to November 2020.

Jesse J. Guido, Inc. owns and operates Pasta Villa, a restaurant
located in Rochester, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cordello, Esq.
          CORDELLO LAW PLLC
          95 Allens Creek Road
          Building 2 - Suite 215
          Rochester, NY 14618
          Telephone: (585) 967-7707
          E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com

KENNETH COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. The Kenneth Company, an
Illinois Corporation and Michael Maloney, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-07808 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 30, 2020) is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act for the failure of
the Defendants to pay Plaintiff and class members required minimum
and overtime wages.

Mr. Rodriguez is a former employee of Defendants who, between
approximately April 2014 and March 2020, was employed seasonally by
Defendants as a landscaper.

The Kenneth Company, an Illinois Corporation, owns and operates a
landscaping business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

KONICA MINOLTA: Cezus Balks at Age Discrimination in the Workplace
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CEZUS, and other similarly situated employees v. KONICA
MINOLTA, INC. and KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.,
Case No. BER-L-007858-20 (N.J. Super., Bergen Cty., Dec. 17, 2020)
is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (NJ LAD) for age discrimination, disparate treatment
and disparate impact, breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and misrepresentation
against his former employer Defendants, Konica Minolta, Inc. and
Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were allegedly
denied equal protection under the NJ LAD and suffered economic
damages including, but not limited to, loss of wages and/or
severance and/or retirement payments that Defendants offered and
paid to other terminated employees selected under their reduction
in workforce policies that were outside of the Plaintiff's
protected class.

Mr. Cezus, a 58-year-old male residing in the County of Hartford,
Connecticut, was employed by the Defendants from January 21, 1985
to December 18, 2018.

Konica Minolta, Inc. manufactures business and industrial imaging
products, including copiers, laser printers, multi-functional
peripherals and digital print systems for the production printing
market.

Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc. provides management
technologies and IT Services. The Company offers services, such as
production print systems, digital presses, multifunctional
products, optimized print services, vertical application solutions,
and developer support program. Konica Minolta Business Solutions
operates throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
          THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          40 Wall Street, 61st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 747-1744

LA JOLLA: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
Felix De La Rosa Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club
Partners L.P. and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2020-00045980 (Cal. Super., December 15, 2020), seeks recovery
of unpaid wages and penalties, missed breaks compensation and
redress for failure to provide wage statements under California
Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders in addition to seeking
declaratory relief and restitution.

Defendants operate a private social club located on the shores of
the La Jolla area of San Diego, California where Plaintiff worked
as a sous chef from 1979 through on or about July 22, 2020. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

             - and -

      Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
      Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
      Milan Moore, Esq.
      Romina Tamiry (SBN 328420)
      LIDMAN LAW, APC
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
      El Segunao, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 322-4772
      Fax: (424) 322-4775
      Email: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
             enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
             mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
             rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com


LA LIBERTAD MARKET: Candelario Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA T. CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LA LIBERTAD MARKET
CAFETERIA INC.; WILLIAM LAMAS; and RAMON LAMAS, Jr., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-20040 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 6, 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 Candelario was employed by the Defendants as waitress.

La Libertad Market Cafeteria Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com


LABRADOR FRANCHISES: Blind Can't Access Website, Brooks Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LABRADOR FRANCHISES, INC. d/b/a PET DEPOT, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-02510-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, 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 Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because of the unlawful conduct and
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants'
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that their
Website, https://petdepot.net/, will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers.

Labrador Franchises, Inc., d/b/a Pet Depot, a California
corporation, is a franchise company specializing in pet stores and
veterinary clinics.[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

LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS, INC.; LAWRY'S
RESTAURANTS II, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00076 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.lawrysonline.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.

Lawry's Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant. [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


LAZER SPOT: Thomas Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
VERNON THOMAS, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. LAZER SPOT, INC., Case No. 2020CH07353 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Dec. 17, 2020) seeks to recover statutory damages and other
equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA).

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in approximately August
2019 and worked for Defendant until approximately February 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and stores its
employees' fingerprints and requires its employees to clock-in and
clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine. The Plaintiff and class members have
not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for
how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what, for
example, might happen to this valuable information if Defendant is
bought, sold, or stolen, in violation of the BIPA.

Lazer Spot, Inc. provides yard management services. The Company
offers spotting, shuttling, trailer rentals, gate personnel
staffing, and computerized yard management, and training services.
Lazer Spot serves clients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com

LEHR BROTHERS: Faces Alamo Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lehr Brothers Inc.
The case is captioned as Jose Manuel Alamo and Blas Noe Licano
Munoz, on behalf of themselves and for all similarly situated
persons, and the general public v. Lehr Brothers, Inc. a California
Corporation, Case No. BCV-20-102932 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Dec.
15, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

A case management conference is set for June 15, 2021 before Judge
David R. Lampe.

Lehr Brothers, Inc. was founded in 1979. The Company's line of
business includes operating farms that produce potatoes. Lehr
Brothers serves clients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farrah Mirabel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE FARRAH MIRABEL
          1070 Stradella Rd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90077   
          Telephone: (714) 972-0707
          Facsimile: (949) 417-1796
          E-mail: fmesq@fmirabel.com

LG ELECTRONICS: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in Faulty Refrigerators Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested party Steven F. Helfand filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Michael Burrage, et al v. LG
Electronics USA Inc., Case Nos. 2-19-cv-13554, 2-19-cv-15185,
2-19-cv-15826, 2-20-cv-07652, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
actions are brought on behalf of California consumers, who
purchased refrigerators manufactured by LG that are equipped with
linear compressors (LG Refrigerators). LG designed, manufactured,
promoted, distributed, and sold the LG Refrigerators, pricing them
in the range of $1,400 to $7,000.

According to the complaints, a latent defect causes failure of the
refrigerator's linear compressor--a central component responsible
for cooling. The compressor defect renders the LG Refrigerators
unable to perform their most basic function: cooling and preserving
food and beverages. When the compressor defect manifests, the
refrigerator warms and its contents spoil, unless they are moved to
a working refrigerator or cooler.

Mr. Helfand is seeking an appeal to review the court's order
granting motion for attorney fees, etc.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Burrage, et al. v. LG
Electronics USA Inc., Case No. 20-3570, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MICHAEL BURRAGE, DIANE TERRY, TERRY DRISCOLL,
CHERYL ERVIN, LEAH SCALA ISRAEL, SAM LEE, PATRICK ROMANO, and
CARLOS STOCCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and SARAH JOHNSON are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500

               - and -

          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 831-4701

Defendant-Appellee LG ELECTRONICS USA INC is represented by:

          Mallik N. Nelson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US
          390 Madison Avenue 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 918-3701  

Amicus-Appellant STEVEN F. HELFAND, of Pembroke Pines, Florida,
appears pro se.

LONGVIEW ACQUISITION: Nair Sues Over Butterfly Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Nidhish Nair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Longview Acquisition Corp., Larry Robbins,
John Rodin, Wes Moore, Derek Cribbs and Randy Simpson, Defendants,
Case No. 656995/2020 (N.Y. Sup. December 14, 2020), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Longview Acquisition Corp. through merger vehicle Clay Merger Sub,
Inc. to Butterfly Network, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside
or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate
the merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance
for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Butterfly will merge with Longview via a reverse merger where, when
completed, Longview shareholders interests will be significantly
diluted, where they will own only 20% of the combined company,
while existing Butterfly shareholders will own the vast majority,
or 63.5%, of the resulting company, says the complaint.

The Registration Statement describes an insufficient sales process
in which the Board failed to create a disinterested committee of
independent directors to maximize public stockholder value. Nair
claims that said transaction undervalues Longview and is the result
of a flawed sales process, the complaint adds.

Longview is a special purpose acquisition company, an entity that
is formed strictly to raise capital through an initial public
offering for the purpose of acquiring an existing company, and
merging with it to take that entity public.

Nair is a citizen of Canada and has been a Longview stockholder.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUISIANA: Ryan Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tarvald Anthony
Smith, et al. The case is 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 JDC of Louisiana, Nicole Robinson, in her official
capacity as Commissioner of the 19th JDC of Louisiana; Frank Howze,
in his official capacity as Coordinator of the Bail Bond Program
for the 19th JDC of Louisiana, Sid J. Gautreaux, III, Sheriff, in
his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish and
Dennis Grimes, Lt. Col., in his official capacity as Warden of East
Baton Rouge Parish Prison, Case No. 3:20-cv-00843-SDD-SDJ (M.D.
La., Dec. 14, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Civil Rights
Act.

The case is assigned to Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Andrew Foley, Esq.
          Hannah Lommers-Johnson, Esq.
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 684-2364
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                  hannah.lommersjohnson@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          David J. Utter, Esq.
          Scott C. Robichaux, Esq.
          William R. Claiborne, Esq.
          THE CLAIBORNE FIRM, P.C.
          410 East Bay Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 236-9559
          Facsimile: (912) 236-1884
          E-mail: david@claibornefirm.com
                  will@claibornefirm.com  

               - and -

          Jacob G. Longman, Esq.
          LONGMAN JAKUBACK, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          830 Main St.
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-3644
          Facsimile: (225) 336-4667
          E-mail: jacob@ljlaw.org

               - and -

          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          Tiffany Yang, Esq.
          ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE
          1220 L. Street NW, Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 728-9557
          Facsimile: (202) 728-9558
          E-mail: mnemeth@advancementproject.org
                  tyang@advancementproject.org

MAINE: Faces Suit Over Mismanaged Foster Children's Mental Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN C. and HENRY B. through their next friend MICHAEL P. DIXON;
TRENT W., GRAYSON M., and KENDALL P. through their next friend
TAYLOR S. KILGORE; and NEVILLE H. through his next friend SANDRA
ROMANO-SHAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JEANNE M. LAMBREW in her official capacity
as Commissioner of the Maine Department of Health and Human
Services; and TODD A. LANDRY in his official capacity as Director
of the Maine Office of Child and Family Services, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00005-NT (D. Me., Jan. 6, 2021) is brought on behalf of
a putative class of Maine foster children who are or will be
administered psychotropic medications in the State's custody and,
hence, are subjected to a substantial risk of serious harm through
the State's oversight failures.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that for about a decade,
Maine's Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS") and Office
of Child and Family Services ("OCFS") have openly acknowledged the
serious risks associated with psychotropic medication administered
to foster children as well as their duty to maintain robust
protections to protect Maine foster children against these dangers.
Unfortunately, however, Maine has never created an adequate system
to protect foster children in its care. Instead, DHHS and OCFS
acknowledged their own system's failures. The same systemic
failures have persisted for years as the State has continued to
receive scrutiny. For instance, in late 2018, Maine was criticized
by the federal Department of Health and Human Services OIG for
having one of the worst systems in the nation with respect to its
oversight and management of psychotropic medications for foster
children.

Maine DHHS and OCFS continue to permit hundreds of foster children
to be administered one or more dangerous psychotropic drugs without
ensuring the provision of sufficient oversight mechanisms critical
for their safety, knowingly exposing vulnerable children in their
care to life-threatening risks.

As a result of these failures, hundreds of preschoolers through
teens in Maine's foster care system remain at an unreasonable risk
of serious harm with each passing day. They take heavy cocktails of
psychotropic medications that can, and do, lead to serious,
life-altering physical and psychological harms—without proper
structures in place by Defendants to identify and guard against
these harms.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Woodcock III, Esq.
          Eben M. Albert, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN, SHUR, SAWYER & NELSON, P.A.
          100 Middle Street
          PO Box 9729
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 774-1200
          Facsimile: (207) 774-1127
          E-mail: jwoodcock@bernsteinshur.com
                  ealbert@bernsteinshur.com

               -and-

          Marissa C. Nardi, Esq.
          Samantha Bartosz, Esq.
          Stephen Dixon, Esq.
          Jonathan King, Esq.
          Madeleine M. Kinney, Esq.
          Claire R. Glasspiegel, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
          88 Pine Street, Suite 800
          New York, New York 10005
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: mnardi@childrensrights.org
                  sbartosz@childrensrights.org
                  sdixon@childrensrights.org
                  jking@childrensrights.org
                  mkinney@childrensrights.org
                  cglasspiegel@childrensrights.org

               -and-

          Frank D'Alessandro, Esq.
          MAINE EQUAL JUSTICE
          126 Sewall Street
          Augusta, ME 04330
          Telephone: (207) 626-7058
          Facsimile: (207) 621-8148
          E-mail: frank@mejp.org


MANTECH INT'L: Plan Members Suit Assert Employee Fund Mismanagement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Gerken, Dennis Kemp, Travis Knight and Angelique
Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Mantech International Corporation, Board of Directors
of Mantech International Corporation, The Retirement Plan
Committee, and John Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01536,
(E.D. Va., December 15, 2020) asserts claims for breach of the
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor
fiduciaries pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Mantech is a defense contracting firm and is the Plan sponsor of
its defined contribution retirement plans where Gerken and Kemp are
participants during their employment with Mantech. They claim that
Mantech failed to consider the use of lower cost share classes
causing the Plan to pay millions of dollars per year in unnecessary
fees and/or obtaining reasonable fees for investment options and
recordkeeping/administration fees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS & SKILLING P.C.
      7104 Mechanicsville Turnpike, Suite 204
      Mechanicsville, VA 23111
      Telephone: (804) 447-0307, ext. 305
      Facsimile: (804) 447-0367
      Email: cwilliams@williamsandskilling.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
      CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
      2933 North Front Street
      Harrisburg, PA 17110
      Telephone: (717) 233-4101
      Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
      Email: donr@capozziadler.com


MARCHELLO'S GARDEN: Herrera Sues Over Bussers' Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Rivas Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marchello's Garden Grill, Inc., Frederick
Marsilio and Gloria Marsilio, Case No. 2:20-cv-06354 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 30, 2020) seeks to remedy overtime, spread of hours, wage
statement, wage notice and uniform maintenance pay violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Ms. Herrera was employed by the Defendants as a busser from on or
about August 13, 2019 until on or about July 4, 2020.

Marchello's Garden Grill, Inc. is a grill restaurant which
maintains a principal place of business in Smithtown, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5 E. Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com

MDL 2738: Beniamen's Talcum Powder Suit Transferred to N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transferred an action to the District of
New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to
Judge Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the case, In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder
Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2738.

The original complaint, Beniamen, et al. V. Johnson & Johnson, et
al., Case No. 1:20-01793 (N.D. Ohio, August 12, 2020), involves
allegations that Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products cause
ovarian cancer following perineal application.

Plaintiffs in the Beniamen action moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's prior order that conditionally transferred
Beniamen to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No.
2738.  Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Inc. opposed the motion.  The Panel held that the action involves
common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No.
2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/38naFPA


MDL 2804: 15 Opioid Suits Transferred to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transferred 15 actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Dan A. Polster for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Plaintiffs in the 15 actions and Northern District of
Mississippi defendant North Mississippi Medical Center moved under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders conditionally transferring
their respective actions to MDL No. 2804.  Various responding
defendants opposed the motions. The motion to vacate the CTO in the
Northern District of Mississippi action was unopposed.

After considering the arguments of counsel, the Panel held that the
actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, the transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's prior order directing centralization.  In that
order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.

The plaintiffs and the defendant oppose transfer by principally
arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases.  But
opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is
insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually
related cases, the Panel held.  Most opponents of transfer also
argue that including their actions in this large MDL will cause
them inconvenience and delay the progress of their actions,
including the resolution of their remand motion. Given the
undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is
justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct of the
litigation as a whole, the Panel said.

The defendants are Amerisourcebergen Corp. and Amerisourcebergen
Drug Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corp., Actavis,
LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Endo Health Solutions
Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.,
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson
& Johnson, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and
Watson Laboratories, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2JXDB7E


MDL 2875: 4 Suits Over Hypertension Meds Moved to D. N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2875, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers four action to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
Judge Robert B. Kugler for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Two cases in the Middle District of Alabama and two cases in the
Southern District of Alabama involve allegations that the
Defendants' generic formulations of valsartan, losartan, and
irbesartan contain nitrosamine impurities that presented a risk of
cancer and other injuries.

Defendants are Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Major
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Aurobindo
Pharma, Limited, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. and Solco
Healthcare U.S., LLC.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/397BW88


MDL 2885: 3M Suit v. TCA Transferred to N.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, 3M Combat Arms Earplug Product Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2885, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transferred one action
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge M. Casey
Rodgers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs 3M Company, 3M Occupational Safety LLC, Aearo Holding
LLC, Aearo Intermediate LLC, Aearo LLC, and Aearo Technologies LLC
moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's prior order that
conditionally transferred the case to the Northern District of
Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2885.

Defendant Top Class Actions and plaintiffs in MDL No. 2885, through
court-appointed leadership counsel, opposed the motion to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell said the
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2885, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

3M Company, et al. v. Top Class Actions LLC, 2:20-mc-00031 (D.
Ariz., June 19, 2020), involves 3M's motion to compel compliance
with a subpoena duces tecum it served on Top Class Actions, which
operates a website that contains content about class action
settlements, investigations and lawsuits, including attorney
advertising.

3M sold dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs to the US Armed Forces for
use as hearing protection for military personnel, protecting
against the disorienting effects of loud impulse noises such as
improvised explosive devices and gun fire, yet still allow the
service member to hear low-level noises critical to mission safety
such as commands, footsteps and encroaching enemies. It, however,
dislodges from the ear in a manner that is imperceptible to the
wearer, hence the original product suit.

The subpoena sought documents relating to prospective MDL No. 2885
plaintiffs, including, (1) prospective claimants' submissions to
TCA's website regarding potential claims and damages; (2) marketing
or advertising to join MDL No. 2885; (3) communications between
plaintiffs' law firms and TCA; (4) referrals of prospective
plaintiffs to a lawyer; and (5) financial interest or ownership
that any plaintiffs' law firm has in TCA.

TCA has objected to the production of the requested documents on
grounds that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege
and/or constitute attorney work product.

Plaintiffs argued that transfer is not appropriate because the
subpoena dispute between TCA and 3M shares no common questions of
fact with plaintiffs' claims in the MDL as to the design, testing,
sale, and marketing of Combat Arms earplugs. Rather, they argue,
the dispute centers on legal issues concerning the scope of client
confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney
work product doctrine.

Plaintiffs also argued that the District of Arizona has expended
considerable effort to consider the parties' briefs on 3M's motion
to compel.

Judge Caldwell said the subpoena action undoubtedly shares common
factual questions with MDL No. 2885.  The subpoena was issued by
the transferee court, and it concerns discovery from a third party
relating to the claims and injuries of MDL No. 2885 plaintiffs.

3M conceded the subpoena "arises out of" MDL No. 2885.  TCA
consented to transfer, and the affected MDL No. 2885 plaintiffs
have sought, through counsel, to intervene in TCA.

Both MDL No. 2885 defendants as plaintiffs in TCA and MDL No. 2885
plaintiffs as potential intervenors are involved in this action.
The transferee court therefore is well placed to resolve 3M's
motion to compel and the MDL plaintiffs' challenges to the subpoena
-- challenges that may well be repeated with respect to other
subpoenas and other third parties -- given its familiarity with the
factual and legal issues in MDL No. 2885.

The District of Arizona court continued a hearing on the motion to
compel and first will hear the MDL No. 2885 plaintiffs' motion to
intervene and transfer, and TCA's motion to transfer.  Requiring a
judge in the District of Arizona to familiarize himself with the
particulars of MDL No. 2885 would not promote the just and
efficient conduct of this action or the litigation as a whole, as
"the transferee judge is so thoroughly familiar with the issues in
this litigation," Judge Caldwell pointed out.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 16, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3npYUfw


MDL 2924: Generic Manufacturers & Repackagers Win Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE ZANTAC (RANITIDINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.),
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted Defendant Generic
Manufacturers' and Repackagers' Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss on the
Ground of Preemption.

The litigation concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its
generic forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric
treatments. The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active
ingredient in both Zantac and its generic forms.

Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter medication. In 1983, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of prescription
Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and patented
Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first drug in history to
reach $1 billion annually in sales.

GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an over-the-counter ("OTC") form of Zantac. Beginning in
1995, the FDA approved the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The
joint venture between GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with
Warner-Lambert retaining control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the
United States and GSK retaining control over the sale of
prescription Zantac in the United States. Pfizer acquired
Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale of OTC Zantac
in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac in the United
States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals and
then to Sanofi. When the patents on prescription and OTC Zantac
expired, numerous generic drug manufacturers began to produce
generic ranitidine products in prescription and OTC forms.

Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.

Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On November 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Six months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA requested
the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from the
market.

After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA, the
Plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the
multi-district litigation ("MDL") for all pretrial purposes and
ordered federal lawsuits for personal injury and economic damages
from the purchase and/or use of ranitidine products to be
transferred to Judge Rosenberg. Since that time, hundreds of
Plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in, or had their lawsuits
transferred to the Court. In addition, this Court has created a
Census Registry where thousands of claimants, who have not filed
lawsuits have registered their claims.

The Plaintiffs filed three Master Complaints on June 22, 2020. They
have set forth their factual allegations in three "master"
complaints: The Master Personal Injury Complaint ("MPIC"), the
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("CCCAC"), and the
Consolidated Third Party Payor Class Complaint ("CTPPCC")
(collectively "Master Complaints").  The Plaintiffs contend that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They allege that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They are pursuing
federal claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S.
states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The entities
named as Defendants are alleged to have designed, manufactured,
tested, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged, handled, stored,
and/or sold ranitidine products.

The MPIC raises claims against parties referred to as Generic
Manufacturer Defendants that allegedly manufactured generic
ranitidine products. It further raises claims against parties
referred to as Repackager Defendants that allegedly repackaged
ranitidine products into different containers and changed the
content on an original manufacturer's label to note the drug was
distributed or sold under the relabeler's own name, without
manipulating, changing, or affecting the composition or formulation
of the drug. Some of the parties categorized as Generic
Manufacturer Defendants are also categorized as Repackager
Defendants. The parties named as Generic Manufacturer Defendants
and as Repackager Defendants are not identical among the Master
Complaints.

The MPIC contains 15 counts: Strict Products Liability -- Failure
to Warn, Strict Products Liability -- Design Defect, Strict
Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect, Negligence -- Failure to
Warn, Negligence Product Design, Negligent Manufacturing, General
Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Express
Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties, Violation of Consumer
Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices Laws, Unjust Enrichment,
Loss of Consortium, Survival Actions, and Wrongful Death. Each
count is brought against Generic Manufacturer Defendants. All of
these counts, other than the Strict Products Liability --
Manufacturing Defect and Negligent Manufacturing counts, are also
brought against Repackager Defendants.

The CCCAC also raises claims against parties referred to as Generic
Manufacturer Defendants and Repackager Defendants. The CCCAC
contains 314 counts on behalf of putative nationwide and state
classes. The putative nationwide class alleges counts for unjust
enrichment, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2301, et seq. ("MMWA"), and common law fraud. The putative
state classes allege counts for negligence, battery,
product-liability, breach-of-warranty, consumer-protection, and
medical-monitoring causes of action.

The CTPPCC raises claims against parties referred to as Generic
Manufacturer Defendants. It contains nine counts on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of Third Party Payors that allegedly paid
for prescription medications for others or, alternatively, on
behalf of putative state classes. The putative class alleges counts
of Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties,
Violation of the MMWA, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation and
Omission, Violations of State Consumer Protection Laws, Unjust
Enrichment, and Negligence.

The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 30, it set a case
management schedule that is intended to prepare the MDL for the
filing of Daubert motions on general causation and class
certification motions in December 2021; see generally Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In Pretrial Order #
36, the Court set a schedule for the filing and briefing of motions
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 directed to the
Master Complaints. The Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to that schedule.

The Defendants argue in the Motion to Dismiss that all of the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims against them, regardless of how
labeled and pled, are claims for design defect or failure to warn.
The Supreme Court has ruled in two significant opinions -- PLIVA,
Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.
v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) -- that such claims against
generic drug manufacturers are pre-empted because they cannot
remedy design defects or provide additional warnings while
remaining in compliance with federal law. The Supreme Court's
rulings apply with equal force to repackagers. Therefore, all of
the state-law claims against Defendants must be dismissed. And
because the Plaintiffs' only federal claims against the Defendants,
for violations of the MMWA, require a valid state-law warranty
claim, the MMWA claims must be dismissed as well. Additionally, 21
U.S.C. Section 379r prohibits the Plaintiffs from obtaining damages
in the form of refunds for the purchase of OTC ranitidine
products.

The Plaintiffs respond that none of their state-law claims against
the Defendants are pre-empted under Mensing and Bartlett. Their
claims are not pre-empted because the claims are based on the fact
that ranitidine products were misbranded when sold and on the
Defendants' failure to take actions that they could have taken
while remaining in compliance with federal law. In addition, the
Repackager Defendants can be held liable under an
absolute-liability theory because they profited from the marketing
of ranitidine products. Because the Plaintiffs' state-law warranty
claims are not pre-empted, the MMWA claims are viable as well.
Section 379r does not prohibit the Plaintiffs from obtaining
damages in the form of refunds for the purchase of OTC ranitidine
products.

Judge Rosenberg opines that the design-defect and failure-to-warn
claims that the Supreme Court ruled in Mensing and Bartlett are
pre-empted as against generic drug manufacturers are pre-empted as
against the Defendants, regardless of the Plaintiffs' allegations
that ranitidine products were misbranded. The Plaintiffs' claims
based on alleged product and labeling defects that the Defendants
could not independently change while remaining in compliance with
federal law are dismissed with prejudice as pre-empted.

Because all of the Plaintiffs' counts against the Defendants in the
Master Complaints incorporate such allegations, all counts against
the Defendants are dismissed, Judge Rosenberg holds. The
Plaintiffs' claims against the Repackager Defendants that rely on
absolute liability are dismissed with prejudice. The Court grants
the Plaintiffs leave to replead claims based on expiration dates,
testing, storage and transportation conditions, warning the FDA,
manufacturing defects, and the MMWA, as well as to replead their
derivative counts.

Under Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs' repled Master Complaints
are due 30 days after the Court issues its Order on Article III
standing. The Court amends that requirement in Pretrial Order # 36.
The Plaintiffs' repled Master Complaints are due 30 days after the
Court issues its forthcoming Order on Branded Defendants' Rule 12
Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Three Complaints as Preempted
by Federal Law. All other requirements in Pretrial Order # 36
remain in place.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3jz5kap from Leagle.com.


MDL 2924: Innovator-Liability Claims in Zantac Litigation Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida grants the Brand-Name Manufacturer
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' innovator-liability
claims in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE ZANTAC
(RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 20-MD-2924
(S.D. Fla.).

The litigation concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its
generic forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric
treatments. The molecule in question--ranitidine--is the active
ingredient in both Zantac and its generic forms.

Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter medication. In 1983, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of prescription
Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and patented
Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster--the first drug in history to
reach $1 billion annually in sales.

GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an over-the-counter ("OTC") form of Zantac. Beginning in
1995, the FDA approved the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The
joint venture between GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with
Warner-Lambert retaining control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the
United States and GSK retaining control over the sale of
prescription Zantac in the United States. Pfizer acquired
Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale of OTC Zantac
in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac in the United
States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals and
then to Sanofi. When the patents on prescription and OTC Zantac
expired, numerous generic drug manufacturers began to produce
generic ranitidine products in prescription and OTC forms.

Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.

Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On November 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. The FDA recommended that drug manufacturers
recall ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable
daily intake level. Six months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.

After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA, the
Plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the
multi-district litigation ("MDL") for all pretrial purposes and
ordered federal lawsuits for personal injury and economic damages
from the purchase and/or use of ranitidine products to be
transferred to Judge Rosenberg. Since that time, hundreds of
Plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in, or had their lawsuits
transferred to, the Court.  In addition, the Court has created a
Census Registry where thousands of claimants, who have not filed
lawsuits have registered their claims.

The Plaintiffs filed three Master Complaints on June 22, 2020. They
have set forth their factual allegations in three "master"
complaints: the Master Personal Injury Complaint ("MPIC"), the
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("CCCAC"), and the
Consolidated Third Party Payor Class Complaint ("CTPPCC")
(collectively "Master Complaints").  The Plaintiffs contend that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. The Plaintiffs allege that "a single pill
of ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. The Plaintiffs are
pursuing federal claims and state claims under the laws of all 50
U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The
entities named as defendants are alleged to have designed,
manufactured, tested, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged,
handled, stored, and/or sold ranitidine products.

The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 30, the Court set a case
management schedule that is intended to prepare the MDL for the
filing of Daubert motions on general causation and class
certification motions in December 2021.  In Pretrial Order # 36,
the Court set a schedule for the filing and briefing of motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 directed to the
Master Complaints. The Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to that schedule.

For the purposes of the Order, the Court's references to the
"Plaintiffs" are to only those Plaintiffs, who allegedly were
injured solely by generic ranitidine products, not by brand-name
ranitidine products. While there are 15 counts asserted against the
Defendants in the MPIC, the Plaintiffs acknowledged at the Hearing
that the only substantive counts they are pursuing against the
Defendants are Counts VII and VIII.

Count VII is a claim for general negligence. The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants breached their duty of reasonable care and
failed to exercise ordinary care in the design, manufacture,
testing, marketing, labeling, packaging, handling, distribution,
storage, and/or sale of ranitidine-containing products. Count VIII
is a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants "owed a duty to them to make accurate and
truthful representations regarding ranitidine-containing products"
and breached that duty.

In the Order, the Court refers to Counts VII and VIII as the
Plaintiffs' "negligence-based claims." Additionally, Counts XIII
through XV are derivative claims and include: loss of consortium,
survival actions, and wrongful death.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss seeking the
dismissal of all claims asserted against them under the Plaintiffs'
theory of liability in all individual complaints, the MPIC, and
Short Form Complaints adopting the MPIC. They argue that the claims
brought in jurisdictions other than California and Massachusetts
fail as a matter of law because those jurisdictions have yet to
recognize the Plaintiffs' theory of liability under their tort
regimes. Although California and Massachusetts recognize the
Plaintiffs' theory of liability under their respective tort
regimes, the Plaintiffs cannot assert their claims in the courts of
those states because neither state has personal jurisdiction over
the Defendants. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs'
claims fail even in those states in which the Defendants are
subject to general jurisdiction because those states are
constrained by the Due Process Clause from applying the law of
California or Massachusetts to the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs argue that, in order to determine whether their
theory of liability is viable under the laws of the jurisdictions
that have not explicitly accepted or rejected it, the Court must
make an Erie prediction by examining the law of each jurisdiction.
They aver that these jurisdictions are likely to find their theory
of liability viable. California and Massachusetts courts have
specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because of the
Defendants' alleged targeted marketing and labeling activities in
those states. Because California and Massachusetts courts have
specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, California and
Massachusetts courts also have legislative jurisdiction in other
states and territories with personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs add.

The Court ordered supplemental briefing from the Plaintiffs and
responsive supplemental briefing from the Defendants on the issue
of whether their theory of liability may be viable under the laws
of each jurisdiction that has yet to accept or reject the theory.
Thus, the parties provided briefing for the 35 remaining
jurisdictions.

The Court undertook the requisite Erie predictions, as set forth in
Appendix A to the Order, and concludes that none of the 35
jurisdictions that the Court analyzed would recognize the
Plaintiffs' theory of liability under which the Defendants may be
held liable for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs' ingestion of
a product that the Defendants did not manufacture, sell, or
distributed.

Additionally, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs failed to
allege a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction as to
any Defendant in California or Massachusetts and that California
and Massachusetts do not have legislative jurisdiction within those
states that have general personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs'
claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend to
plead a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction in California and
Massachusetts, with the exception of Patheon Manufacturing
Services, LLC.

All claims brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in
courts outside of California and Massachusetts are dismissed
without prejudice and with leave to amend consistent with the
Order.  Leave to amend is granted as to the MPIC.  At this time,
the Court is not requiring any individual complaints or Short Form
Complaints to be amended.

Under Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs' repled Master Complaints
are due 30 days after the Court issues its Order on Article III
standing.  The Court amends that requirement in Pretrial Order #
36.  The Plaintiffs' repled Master Complaints are due 30 days after
the Court issues its forthcoming Order on Branded Defendants' Rule
12 Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Three Complaints as
Preempted by Federal Law.  All other requirements in Pretrial Order
# 36 remain in place.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yypfzy44 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2924: Master Personal Injury Complaint Tossed in Zantac Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE ZANTAC (RANITIDINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.),
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida issued an order:

   (1) granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike
       Master Personal Injury Complaint on Grounds of
       Impermissible Shotgun Pleading and Incorporated Memorandum
       of Law ("MPIC Shotgun Motion");

   (2) granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
       Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Consolidated
       Consumer and Third Party Payor Class Action Complaints on
       Grounds of Impermissible Shotgun Pleading and Lack of
       Article III Standing and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
       ("Shotgun/Standing Motion"); and

   (3) denying Generic Manufacturers' and Repackagers' Rule 12
       Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Consumer and Third-Party
       Payor Class Action Complaints on the Ground of Failure to
       Allege an Injury and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
       ("Injury Motion").

All "Defendants" named in the Master Personal Injury Complaint
("MPIC") bring the MPIC Shotgun Motion. All "Defendants" named in
the Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("CCCAC") and the
Consolidated Third Party Payor Class Complaint ("CTPPCC") bring the
Shotgun/Standing Motion. The "Generic Manufacturer Defendants" and
"Repackager Defendants," as those groups are defined in the CCCAC
and CTPPCC, bring the Injury Motion.

The litigation concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its
generic forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric
treatments. The molecule in question--ranitidine--is the active
ingredient in both Zantac and its generic forms.

Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter medication. In 1983, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of prescription
Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and patented
Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first drug in history to
reach $1 billion annually in sales.

GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an over-the-counter ("OTC") form of Zantac. Beginning in
1995, the FDA approved the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The
joint venture between GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with
Warner-Lambert retaining control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the
United States and GSK retaining control over the sale of
prescription Zantac in the United States. Pfizer acquired
Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale of OTC Zantac
in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac in the United
States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals and
then to Sanofi. When the patents on prescription and OTC Zantac
expired, numerous generic drug manufacturers began to produce
generic ranitidine products in prescription and OTC forms.

Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.

Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On November 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. The FDA recommended that drug manufacturers
recall ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable
daily intake level. Six months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.

After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
Plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the
multi-district litigation ("MDL") for all pretrial purposes and
ordered federal lawsuits for personal injury and economic damages
from the purchase and/or use of ranitidine products to be
transferred to Judge Rosenberg. Since that time, hundreds of
Plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in, or had their lawsuits
transferred to, the Court. In addition, the Court has created a
Census Registry where thousands of claimants, who have not filed
lawsuits have registered their claims.

The Plaintiffs filed three Master Complaints on June 22, 2020. They
have set forth their factual allegations in three "master"
complaints: The Master Personal Injury Complaint ("MPIC"), the
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("CCCAC"), and the
Consolidated Third Party Payor Class Complaint ("CTPPCC").

The Plaintiffs contend that the ranitidine molecule is unstable,
breaks down into NDMA, and has caused thousands of consumers of
ranitidine products to develop various forms of cancer. They allege
that a single pill of ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA
that are hundreds of times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit.
They are pursuing federal claims and state claims under the laws of
all 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The
entities named as defendants are alleged to have designed,
manufactured, tested, marketed, distributed, labeled, packaged,
handled, stored, and/or sold ranitidine products.

The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 30, it set a case
management schedule that is intended to prepare the MDL for the
filing of Daubert motions on general causation and class
certification motions in December 2021.  In Pretrial Order # 36,
the Court set a schedule for the filing and briefing of motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 directed to the
Master Complaints. Pursuant to that schedule, the various
Defendants filed the motions to dismiss.

On Dec. 14, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the MPIC Shotgun
Motion, the Shotgun/Standing Motion, and the Injury Motion.

The MPIC Shotgun Defendants seek to dismiss and/or strike the MPIC.
They argue that the MPIC fails in two primary respects. First, it
indiscriminately lumps the MPIC Shotgun Defendants' conduct
together -- including distinct corporate entities--and "utterly
fails to distinguish the alleged liability-creating conduct of one
[MPIC Shotgun] Defendant from another." Second, each MPIC count
adopts the allegations of all preceding counts. In doing so, the
MPIC violates Rules 8 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and frustrates the purpose of an MDL.

The Shotgun/Standing Defendants ask the Court to dismiss and/or
strike the Class Complaints and order the CCCAC Plaintiffs and
CTPPCC Plaintiffs to replead in compliance with Rules 8 and 9,
Article III, and the Eleventh Circuit's prohibitions against
shotgun pleading. They argue that the Class Complaints should be
dismissed or stricken as impermissible shotgun pleadings, since
they fail to provide a short and plain statement of claims as
required by Rule 8, and thus fail to provide adequate notice of the
claims against each Shotgun/Standing Defendant and the grounds upon
which each claim rests.

The Injury Defendants argue that the Class Complaints must be
dismissed in their entirety for failure to allege a cognizable
injury. Instead of alleging a personal injury or another legally
cognizable injury, the Class Complaints affirm ranitidine's
efficacy, for it "did exactly what it was supposed to do without
physically injuring any Class Plaintiffs," and, thus, the CCCAC
Plaintiffs and CTPPCC Plaintiffs received the benefit of their
bargain. The Injury Defendants contend that even if the Injury
Plaintiffs could allege personal injuries, those claims must be
placed in the MPIC rather than the CCCAC. Moreover, the tort-based
claims in the CTPPCC must be dismissed pursuant to the economic
loss doctrine, which forecloses such claims for purely economic
losses relating to the product, absent personal injury or damage to
other property. Lastly, the Court should dismiss the CCCAC
Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief, namely those for
medical monitoring and the removal of ranitidine from the market,
since the former is actually a monetary remedy and the latter is
already complete.

The Court concludes that the MPIC is an impermissible shotgun
pleading. It grants the MPIC Shotgun Motion, and the MPIC is
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. It concludes
that the Class Complaints are both impermissible shotgun pleadings.


The Court grants the Shotgun/Standing Motion in part, and the Class
Complaints are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
Because the current Class Complaints are shotgun pleadings and the
Shotgun/Standing Plaintiffs are given leave to amend, the Court
cannot undertake a full Article III standing analysis and thus
denies the Shotgun/Standing Motion in part, but can reach
conclusions as to certain issues raised by the parties.

The Court denies the Injury Motion. It concludes that the Injury
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an injury in fact as to their
"Medical Monitoring" claims by alleging economic losses and
expenses due to ongoing medical monitoring. However, given the
allegations of personal injuries, the Court concludes that these
claims do not belong in the CCCAC. All claims and allegations of
physical injury and medical monitoring, including Counts 45, 67,
139, 167, 238, 280 and 302, are thus stricken without prejudice
from the CCCAC. The Injury Plaintiffs may seek leave of Court for
an alternative pleading to allege their class physical injury
and/or medical monitoring claims. The Court declines to reach
conclusions as to the Injury Plaintiffs' other theories of injury
at this juncture. Finally, it denies the Injury Defendants' request
to dismiss the injunctions sought for medical monitoring and
ceasing sales and marketing of ranitidine products.

Judge Rosenberg rules that the Master Personal Injury Complaint,
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint, and Consolidated
Third Party Payor Class Complaint are dismissed without prejudice
and with leave to amend consistent with the Order. All claims and
allegations of physical injury and medical monitoring in the CCCAC,
including Counts 45, 67, 139, 167, 238, 280 and 302, are stricken
without prejudice. The Injury Plaintiffs may seek leave of Court
for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical injury
and/or medical monitoring claims.

Under Pretrial Order # 36, the repled Master Complaints are due 30
days after the Court issues its Order on Article III standing. The
Court amends that requirement in Pretrial Order # 36. The repled
Master Complaints are due 30 days after the Court issues its
forthcoming Order on Branded Defendants' Rule 12 Partial Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Three Complaints as Preempted by Federal Law.
All other requirements in Pretrial Order # 36 remain in place.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5u2h446 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2924: Retailers & Distributors Win Dismissal From Zantac Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida entered an order in the
multidistrict litigation styled IN RE ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.):

   -- granting Defendant Retailers' Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss on
the Grounds of Preemption, and the Defendant Distributors' Rule 12
Motion to Dismiss on the Ground of Preemption ("Defendants' First
Round Motions to Dismiss"); and

   -- denying as moot the Retailers' Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss on
State Law Grounds, and the Distributors' Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss
on Various Group-Specific Grounds ("Defendants' Second Round
Motions to Dismiss").

The litigation concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its
generic forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric
treatments. The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active
ingredient in both Zantac and its generic forms.

Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter medication. In 1983, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of prescription
Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and patented
Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster--the first drug in history to
reach $1 billion annually in sales.

GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an over-the-counter ("OTC") form of Zantac. Beginning in
1995, the FDA approved the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The
joint venture between GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with
Warner-Lambert retaining control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the
United States and GSK retaining control over the sale of
prescription Zantac in the United States. Pfizer acquired
Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale of OTC Zantac
in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac in the United
States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals and
then to Sanofi. When the patents on prescription and OTC Zantac
expired, numerous generic drug manufacturers began to produce
generic ranitidine products in prescription and OTC forms.

Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.

Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On November 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. The FDA recommended that drug manufacturers
recall ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable
daily intake level. Six months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.

After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA, the
Plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the
multi-district litigation ("MDL")  for all pretrial purposes and
ordered federal lawsuits for personal injury and economic damages
from the purchase and/or use of ranitidine products to be
transferred to Judge Rosenberg. Since that time, hundreds of
Plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in, or had their lawsuits
transferred to, the Court. In addition, this Court has created a
Census Registry where thousands of claimants, who have not filed
lawsuits have registered their claims.

The Plaintiffs filed three Master Complaints on June 22, 2020. They
have set forth their factual allegations in three "master"
complaints: the Master Personal Injury Complaint ("MPIC"), the
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("CCCAC"), and the
Consolidated Third Party Payor Class Complaint ("CTPPCC")
(collectively "Master Complaints"). The Plaintiffs contend that the
ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer.

The Plaintiffs allege that "a single pill of ranitidine can contain
quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of times higher" than the
FDA's allowable limit. The Plaintiffs are pursuing federal claims
and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia. The entities named as defendants are
alleged to have designed, manufactured, tested, marketed,
distributed, labeled, packaged, handled, stored, and/or sold
ranitidine products.

The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 30, it set a case
management schedule that is intended to prepare the MDL for the
filing of Daubert motions on general causation and class
certification motions in December 2021, citing Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In Pretrial Order # 36, the
Court set a schedule for the filing and briefing of motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 directed to the
Master Complaints. The Defendants filed the instant Motions to
Dismiss pursuant to that schedule.

As to the Defendants' First Round Motions to Dismiss, the
Defendants argue that all of the Plaintiffs' claims must be
dismissed. They must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims are pre-empted by federal law and their sole federal claim
must be dismissed without a state-law claim to support it. In
Response, the Plaintiffs argue that their state-law claims are not
pre-empted by federal law for two reasons. First, Supreme Court
precedent supports the proposition that their claims are not
pre-empted. Second, their claims are parallel with federal
law--there is no conflict (and therefore no pre-emption) with
federal law.

As to the Defendants' Second Round Motions to Dismiss, the
Defendants argue that a subset of the Plaintiffs' claims must be
dismissed because they are precluded by state law. In Response, the
Plaintiffs argue that exceptions in state law permit their claims
to go forward.

The Court concludes that all of the Plaintiffs' state-law claims
against the Defendants are pre-empted by federal law and, as a
result, are dismissed. Its dismissal is with prejudice except as to
the Plaintiffs' general negligence and derivative counts, and as to
their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act count, all of which may be repled
in accordance with the rulings in the Order. Without a state-law
claim to support it, the Plaintiffs' sole federal claim is
dismissed as well. The Court will permit the Plaintiffs to re-plead
a general negligence claim, subject to certain rulings contained in
this Order.

Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed, the Defendants' Second Round Motions to Dismiss are
moot.

Under Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs' repled Master Complaints
are due 30 days after the Court issues its Order on Article III
standing. The Court amends that requirement in Pretrial Order # 36.
The Plaintiffs' repled Master Complaints are due 30 days after the
Court issues its forthcoming Order on the Branded Defendants' Rule
12 Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Three Complaints as
Preempted by Federal Law. All other requirements in Pretrial Order
# 36 remain in place.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4hpbrhv from Leagle.com.


MEDICAL FINANCIAL: Settlement Class Status Sought in FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISHUNA MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MEDICAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02443-MSN-cgc
(W.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying the Class for settlement
      purposes:

      "all individuals in the United States to whom, during the
      Class Period, the Defendant sent an initial collection
      letter attempting to collect a consumer debt, where the
      letter stated “Unless you notify this office within 30
      days after receiving this notice that you dispute the
      validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office
      will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office
      within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute
      the validity of this debt this office will obtain
      verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment
      and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If
      you request this office within 30 days after receiving
      this notice this office will provide you with the name and
      address of the original creditor, if different from the
      current creditor;"

      The following persons (assuming they otherwise meet the
      class definition) will be excluded from the settlement
      class:

      a. any person who is already subject to an existing signed
         release that covers the claims raised in this lawsuit
         against MFSI; and

      b. any class member who timely mails a request for
         exclusion;

   2. designating the Plaintiff as representative of the Class
      and designating the Plaintiff's attorneys as counsel for
      the Class;

   3. authorize the form and mailing of the Notice;

   4. setting a final hearing to determine whether the
      Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; and

   5. approving the Settlement and grant final judgment:

      Terms and Conditions of the Settlement:

      A. The Defendant shall pay $70,000 in full settlement
         of the claims of the Class. Upon final approval of this
         settlement, the settlement fund shall be distributed
         pro-rata among to the Members of the Class who timely
         submit claim forms. If a class member is deceased, the
         executor or administrator of the estate may submit the
         claim form. If the debtor has filed for bankruptcy
         protection, the bankruptcy trustee must approve the
         claim.

      B. The Defendant will also pay to Plaintiff Mishuna Moore
         a service award in the total amount of $2,500 in
         consideration of her individual claim and her service
         to the Class.

      C. Subject to approval of the Court, the Defendant shall
         pay, in addition to the amounts set forth above, the
         reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of the
         Plaintiffs attorneys in an amount not to exceed
         $40,000. The Defendant will not object to any
         application for an award of fees and costs that does
         not exceed $40,000.

The Plaintiff is an individual who received a collection letter
from the Defendant pertaining to an alleged past due medical debt.
The Defendant is a Tennessee corporation that performs debt
collection services for its corporate affiliates.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's collection letter
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically 15
U.S.C. section 1692g. The Plaintiff asserts that such conduct
renders the Defendant liable for statutory damages under the FDCPA.


The Defendant denies liability in this case and asserts that even
if it were liable to the Plaintiff or the class she seeks to
represent, the alleged violation at issue is so technical that only
nominal statutory damages would be appropriate.

A copy of the joint motion for certification of settlement class
and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement dated
Jan. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/2LywH93at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Manuel H. Newburger, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          7320 N. MoPac Expy., Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 649-4022
          Facsimile: (512) 279-0310
          E-mail: mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Louis Jay Miller, Esq.
          MENDELSON LAW FIRM
          Post Office Box 17235
          Memphis, TN 38187
          Telephone: (901) 763-2500
          Facsimile: (901) 763-2525
          E-mail: jmiller@mendelsonfirm.com

MINNESOTA: Tyler Seeks 8th Cir. Review in Rights Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Geraldine Tyler filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled GERALDINE TYLER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. HENNEPIN COUNTY and
MARK V. CHAPIN, Auditor‐Treasurer, in his official capacity, Case
No. 0:20-cv-00889-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Geraldine Tyler owed $15,000 in unpaid state property taxes,
penalties, costs, and interest. Acting pursuant to a Minnesota
statute, Defendants Hennepin County and Hennepin County
Auditor‐Treasurer Mark Chapin foreclosed on Tyler's property,
sold it for $40,000, and kept all of the proceeds. Tyler filed this
lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the County violated her
constitutional rights by retaining the value of her property in
excess of the $15,000 tax debt that Tyler owed.  

Ms. Tyler is now seeking an appeal to review the Court's Judgment
dated Dec. 7, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Geraldine Tyler v. State of
Minnesota, et al., Case No. 20-3730, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Dec. 30, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before February 8, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on February 18, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Geraldine Tyler is due on February 18, 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]

Plaintiff-Appellant Geraldine Tyler, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT & WENDORF
          W1050 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-0000
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com  

               - and -

          Marisa Katz, Esq.
          Vildan Aksoz Teske, Esq.
          TESKE & KATZ
          222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 746-1558
          E-mail: katz@teskekatz.com
                  teske@teskekatz.com    

               - and -

          Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
          SUSMAN & BUEHLER
          600 Two First National Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466

Defendants-Appellees Hennepin County and Mark Vincent Chapin,
Auditor-Treasurer, in his official capacity, are represented by:

          Rebecca L. Stark Holschuh, Esq.
          Kelly K. Pierce, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Wojciechowski, Esq.
          HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          Government Center
          300 S. Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55487-0000
          Telephone: (612) 348-5527
          E-mail: rebecca.holschuh@hennepin.us
                  kelly.pierce@hennepin.us
                  jeffrey.wojciechowski@hennepin.us

NEVADA: Judge Lifts Contempt Against State Unemployment Office
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ritter, writing for Associated Press, reports that a Nevada
judge lifted a contempt finding against the state unemployment
office, saying that it complied just before Christmas with his July
court order to resume paying pandemic relief benefits to thousands
of out-of-work gig and contract workers.

The state Department of Training, Employment and Rehabilitation
issued a statement following the Dec. 31 hearing saying 200 appeals
have been heard under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program
and another 320 hearings are scheduled in coming weeks.

Attorney Mark Thierman, representing several independent
contractors and self-employed workers in the lawsuit filed last
May, said on Jan. 4 the question continues to affect "multiple
thousands" of independent contractors and self-employed workers who
should have received $600 weekly benefits that Congress allocated
as pandemic relief.

"The mandate is still in place," Thierman said. "A lot of people
are still owed money. We're frustrated with the lack of compassion
and responsiveness that DETR has shown."

The case, which sought class-action status, still is pending before
the Nevada Supreme Court.

Washoe County District Court Judge Barry Breslow last month imposed
a nominal $1,000 fine and held DETR in contempt for failing to
comply with his July order to resume paying pandemic relief
benefits to people who had payments start and then stop -- leaving
them without the $600 a week Congress promised, plus state
payments.

State officials last month reported restarting payments on some
5,700 claims, in addition to about 3,000 that were already being
paid, including through different programs. It said it identified
about 1,100 claims as fraudulent.

In its Dec. 31 statement, the state unemployment office noted it
has asked the state high court to reverse Breslow's order.

The agency argues Thierman's clients lacked standing to sue and the
judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.

The state's unemployment rate was at an all-time low of 3.6% in
February, but became the worst in the nation after the pandemic
started and casinos and other non-essential businesses closed in
March. Many businesses reopened by June, but by then the state
jobless rate set a record for any state, topping 30% in April.

DETR reported Nevada's unemployment rate at 14.2% on Dec. 31.

It said more than 807,000 initial claims were filed in 2020,
including nearly 786,000 since mid-March.

Unemployment Assistance program filings totaled more than 78,800 in
late December, the department said, adding that "applications in
the PUA program continue to be highly variable." [GN]


NEW YORK: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in Nnebe v. TLC Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits titled JONATHAN NNEBE, et al., Plaintiffs v.
MATTHEW DAUS, et al., Defendants, and ANTHONY STALLWORTH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs v. MEERA JOSHI et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
06-cv-4991 (RJS) and 17-cv-7119 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion &
Order:

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
      injunction;

   -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for permanent
      injunction, such that the Defendants will modify the
      timeframe for rendering suspension decisions in accordance
      with this Opinion and Order, and denying as to the
      remainder of the Plaintiffs' requests; and

   -- directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at
      Case No. 06-cv-4991, Doc. No. 452 and Case No. 17-cv-7119,
      Doc. No. 70.

The Court's Opinion and Order marks the latest installment in a
pair of long-running cases involving the New York City Taxi and
Limousine Commission ("TLC") and licensed taxi drivers, who have
been suspended after being charged with crimes. In the first case,
Nnebe v. Daus, Case No. 06-cv-4991, Plaintiffs Nnebe, Eduardo
Avenaut, and Khairul Amin, together with the New York Taxi Workers
Alliance, brought a putative class action against Defendants Daus,
Charles Fraser, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, the TLC, and the
City of New York, alleging that the TLC's policy of summarily
suspending taxi drivers upon notification of their arrest violates
the United States Constitution, New York state law, and New York
City municipal law.

In the second case, Stallworth v. Joshi, Case No. 17-cv-7119,
Plaintiffs Stallworth, Parichay Barman, Noor Tani, and the New York
City Taxi Workers Alliance commenced an action against Defendants
Joshi, Chris Wilson, Stas Skarbo, and the City, similarly alleging
that the TLC's policy of summarily suspending a taxi driver's
license upon arrest for any felony charge or certain enumerated
misdemeanor charges violates the United States Constitution and New
York state law.

The TLC has implemented its Section 19-512.1-summary-suspension
powers through a summary-suspension rule, which has been amended
and renumbered several times. The current version -- enacted in
2014 and effective through Jan. 8, 2021, when a new Rule is
scheduled to go into effect -- states that the Chairperson can
summarily suspend a License based upon an arrest or citation if the
Chairperson believes that the charges, if true, would demonstrate
that continued licensure would constitute a direct and substantial
threat to public health or safety. The Rule lists all felonies and
certain enumerated misdemeanors that will trigger a summary
suspension, and provides that a hearing will determine whether the
charges underlying the Licensee's arrest, if true, demonstrate that
the continuation of the License while awaiting a decision on the
criminal charges would pose a direct and substantial threat to
public health or safety.

In 2009, the Court granted the Nnebe Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the Court's
finding that the Due Process Clause does not require a
pre-suspension hearing. But because the City's representations at
oral argument left the panel uncertain about what standard actually
applied to suspension decisions, the Second Circuit vacated and
remanded for the Court to conduct additional fact-finding to
determine whether the post-suspension hearing the City affords does
indeed provide an opportunity for a taxi driver to assert that,
even if the criminal charges are true, continued licensure does not
pose any safety concerns.

The Court noted that the Rule was amended in 2006 to include the
"nexus" standard, replacing an earlier version that provided for
suspension as necessary to insure public health, safety or welfare.
It found that the notices sent after the 2006 amendment were
constitutionally adequate. As a result, the Court scheduled
briefing on damages for the pre-2006 notice deprivations, but
otherwise entered judgment in favor of the Nnebe Defendants.

Because the Stallworth Plaintiffs' claims all post-dated the Rule's
2006 amendments, the Court granted the Stallworth Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Stallworth action for failure to state a
claim in light of the Court's ruling in Nnebe.

Both the Nnebe Plaintiffs and the Stallworth Plaintiffs appealed,
and the Second Circuit heard the cases in tandem. In 2019, the
Circuit partially reversed the Court's rulings, concluding that
both the Rule and the Code require a meaningful hearing that must
give the driver an opportunity to show that his or her particular
licensure does not cause a threat to public safety.

After the Second Circuit's Nnebe decision, the parties engaged in
extensive settlement negotiations. On Aug. 28, 2019, the Court
referred the case to a magistrate judge for settlement purposes, as
requested by the Plaintiffs. The parties then requested several
extensions to continue the negotiations, but after six months,
settlement talks proved unproductive.

In the meantime, the Defendants began updating their suspension
procedures in accordance with the Second Circuit's opinion. Now,
when a driver is suspended, the TLC first sends a revised "Notice
of License Suspension," which notes that hearing practices have
changed because of the Second Circuit's 2019 decision. In addition
to using new notices, the TLC recently amended the Rule, adopting
several changes that will take effect on Jan. 8, 2021. For
starters, the new Rule specifies that the TLC bears the burden of
proof to establish that the driver's continued licensure poses a
threat to public safety.

The matter before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for (1) a
preliminary injunction barring the Defendants from suspending
drivers based on arrests during the COVID-19 pandemic or unless and
until the Court has ordered a constitutionally adequate pre-hearing
notice and directed the implementation of a rule that will ensure a
fair hearing process, and (2) a permanent injunction mandating
specific reforms to the TLC's post-suspension hearing process.

The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining the entire
suspension-on-arrest program "at least through the Covid-19
crisis," as well as a permanent injunction consisting of an
assortment of reforms aimed at improving the suspension process. In
response, the Defendants argue that any injunctive relief would be
moot, given the changes made since the Second Circuit's recent
Nnebe decision, and that the Plaintiffs' proposed relief is
unjustified and/or overbroad. The Court first addresses the
Defendants' argument that an injunction would be moot, and then
turns to the Plaintiffs' proposed requests for injunctive relief.

Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan finds that the Plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief is moot in one respect. They asked
the Court to order the Defendants to indicate clearly in the TLC
rules that the agency must bear the burden of proof at the
post-suspension hearing. Judge Sullivan holds that the updated TLC
Rule explicitly places the burden of proof on the TLC to show that
continued licensure poses a direct and substantial threat to the
public. Having received the "precise relief" sought, the
Plaintiffs' request for an order regarding the burden of proof is
now moot.

The Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction ordering the TLC to
cease its suspension-on-arrest program at least as to misdemeanor
and non-violent felony arrests throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, or
until the Court has entered, and the Defendants have implemented, a
permanent injunction with various reforms.

Such drastic relief is certainly not warranted, Judge Sullivan
says. He notes that clearly, the cessation of suspensions
altogether is not appropriate. To start, the relief fails to
account for the government's significant interest in immediate
suspension; that interest is not on a hiatus during the COVID-19
pandemic. Importantly, the Plaintiffs do not contest that the TLC
has continued to hold suspension hearings within ten days of a
driver's request -- even during the pandemic. Nor have they
demonstrated that the pandemic has otherwise slowed the processing
of suspension cases. The Plaintiffs have instead focused on delays
COVID-19 has caused in New York state courts, but those delays
contrast sharply with the TLC's undeterred processing of
suspensions.

Having offered no persuasive justification for such a cessation,
the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a
likelihood of success on the merits, or that the public interest
would be served, Judge Sullivan opines. Accordingly, the Court has
little difficulty in denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

As to a permanent injunction, the Plaintiffs seek a laundry list of
long-term reforms, asking for an order that would, among other
things, (1) modify the TLC's pre-hearing notices; (2) mandate that
administrative law judges ("ALJs") and the TLC Chair consider ten
non-exhaustive factors, along with a risk-assessment score, when
deciding whether to lift a suspension; (3) eliminate or limit Chair
review; (4) require automatic scheduling of post-suspension
hearings; (5) command that suspension decisions omit a driver's
name; (6) direct the TLC to collect and publish statistics about
the number of hearings and suspensions; and (7) shorten the
timeframe for the TLC's processing of a driver's suspension.

Taking each request in turn, the Court finds that only the last one
calls for a permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to
impose a series of reforms to ensure that suspension cases will be
adjudicated faster than the updated Rule requires. Specifically,
they argue that ALJs should be encouraged to rule from the bench,
that Chair review should be eliminated, and that each decision
should be rendered within fewer days.

The Court rejects the first two proposals, but agrees that the
timeline for making decisions should be tightened and accelerated.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is
denied. The Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction is granted
in part and denied in part.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 31,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2qd4hqc from
Leagle.com.


NORTH MIAMI, FL: Jockey Club Sues Over Unlawful Water Utility Bills
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOCKEY CLUB CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, INC., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, a
municipal corporation, Case No. 118403591 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., Dec. 17, 2020) is a class action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers of water and
sewer services provided by the City of North Miami who have been
billed for service in violation of City Ordinance Sec.
19-96(d)(3).

The complaint alleges that each Plaintiff, as defined by City
Ordinance 19-96(d)(3), received water utility bills from the City
of North Miami that improperly calculated their water commodity
consumption in violation of the ordinance.

North Miami is a suburban city located in northeast Miami-Dade
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Zornwell, Esq.
          David K. Friedman, Esq.
          Miranda Springfield, Esq.
          WEISS, HANDLER & CORNWELL, P.A.
          One Boca Place, Suite 205E
          2255 Glades Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 997-9995
          Facsimile: (561) 997-5280
          E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com
                  dkf@whcfla.com
                  mns@whcfla.com

               - and -

          David S. Hollander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID S. HOLLANDER, P.A.
          150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 800
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 571-3536
          Facsimile: (561) 537-7203
          E-mail: david@chargingtowardjustice.com

NOVABAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NovaBay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case is captioned as Lynnette Tatum-Rios,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10655-JPO-SLC
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2020).

The case is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and is assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken.

NovaBay Pharmaceuticals Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company
that is focused on commercialization and developing products that
address the topical anti-infective markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Phelps Dunbar Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Hooker, Esq., and Guy P. McConnell, Esq., of Phelps
Dunbar LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that are federal
courts moving away from granting incentive payments to class
representatives? A recent 11th Circuit ruling is making waves, but
a new petition could limit its impact.

We recently wrote about the 11th Circuit's decision last September
that blocked an incentive payment for the face of a class-action
lawsuit. In the Johnson case, the 11th Circuit held that two
Supreme Court cases from the 1880s barred service or incentive
awards to compensate class representatives for pursuing class
actions. This ruling was somewhat surprising because federal courts
have routinely approved these awards over the last century.

Since our last writing, an en banc petition was filed in Johnson,
asking that the full court reconsider its service award decision.
Because the en banc petition has not yet been ruled on, the 11th
Circuit might reverse its blanket prohibition on incentive payments
or limit the scope of its previous ruling.

It remains to be seen whether other circuits will follow the 11th
Circuit's lead. Since Johnson, no other federal circuit court has
opined on the propriety of service awards.

Federal district courts have had mixed reactions to Johnson's ban
on class action incentive payments. Most district courts in the
11th Circuit followed the Johnson ruling and denied incentive award
requests outright:

* One case from the Middle District of Florida decided in October,
one decided in November, another from the Southern District of
Florida and one from the Southern District of Alabama decided in
December expressly rejected requests for incentive awards, citing
Johnson.

* Although they did not rule out the possibility of later incentive
payments, two other Middle District of Florida cases denied
requests for incentive payments. One denied the request "without
prejudice." The other denied it "at this juncture" and referenced
the pending en banc petition in Johnson.

Yet another Middle District of Florida opinion deferred ruling on
the service award request, but rejected an argument that Johnson's
disallowance applied only to "common fund" cases in which the award
is paid from funds otherwise payable to class members.

Other district courts have distinguished or simply declined to
adopt the Johnson ruling:

* A magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida concluded
that the Johnson prohibition did not apply in diversity cases. The
judge cited other circuit authority that the recovery of incentive
awards in diversity cases turns on whether applicable state law
authorizes such awards.

* A New Jersey district court "respectfully declined" to follow
Johnson. The court noted that substantial precedent exists in its
circuit to support the approval of incentive payments.

* A Pennsylvania district court refused to follow Johnson, citing
the New Jersey decision above, and refused "to deviate from"
existing circuit precedent permitting incentive awards.

* Two California district court cases, one decided Dec. 10 and one
Dec. 21, declined to follow Johnson because the courts concluded
that Johnson was not binding in the 9th Circuit and 9th Circuit
precedent permitted such awards.

* A district court in New York acknowledged Johnson and the old
Supreme Court cases on which it was based, but nevertheless granted
an incentive payment where the award was paid directly by
defendants and not out of a common fund.

It's still unclear whether the 11th Circuit's Johnson decision will
have a significant impact on future class action lawsuits. Although
some lower courts have heeded the call to begin denying class
action service awards, others appear to be taking a "wait and see"
approach. And some courts outside the 11th Circuit have openly
rejected the Johnson ruling. It will be interesting to see whether
the 11th Circuit decides to revisit the incentive award issue en
banc.

A copy of the Complaint captioned Charles T. Johnson, et al. v.
NPAS Solutions, LLC, is available at:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201812344.pdf
[GN]


NSBC GROUP: Faces Almonte Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN ALMONTE, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. NSBC GROUP, LLC d/b/a SAKE THAI & SUSHI BAR,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-62681-RS (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2020)
brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant
for its alleged unlawful payroll practices and procedures in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant approximately from
December 8, 2016 to March 16, 2020 as a non-exempted full-time,
hourly, restaurant employee, whose duties include as a cook, prep
cook, dishwasher, and cleaning person.

The Plaintiff claims that although he always worked more than 40
hours in a week, the Defendant did not pay his lawfully earned
overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff
complained any times to the restaurant's owner and manager, but
they willfully and intentionally refused to pay his requested
unpaid overtime. When the restaurant re-opened after it was
temporarily closed down due to the Coronavirus quarantine on or
about March 16, 2020, the Plaintiff was never called back to work.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
and other relief that the Court deems equitable and just.

NSBC Group, LLC d/b/a Sake Thai & Sushi Bar operates a Thai and
Japanese bar/restaurant located at 4401 Sheridan St., Hollywood,
Florida 33021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmagroup.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Taggarts Ruling in Foreclosure Suit to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kenneth J. Taggart filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Kenneth Taggart, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Honorable Jeffrey
Saltz, The Honorable Francesco Ott, The Honorable An Lazaras,
Honorable Susan Pikes Gatman, in their personal capacity, WELLS
FARGO BANK N.A., PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMEIG LLP, REED SMITH LLP,
Case No. 2-20-cv-01638, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought to against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for civil
rights violations during the course of litigation involving a
foreclosure action filed by Wells Fargo against the Plaintiff on
April 1, 2010.

The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
entered a judgment in the foreclosure action in favor of Wells
Fargo Bank N.A. against Kenneth Taggart on March 27, 2018.
Undisputed facts in the case reveal that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. did
not actually own the mortgage when it filed its foreclosure on
April 1, 2010. The undisputed facts reveal that Wells Fargo did not
own the note and mortgage until April 5, 2010; 4 days after the
complaint was filed, depriving Wells Fargo "Standing", subject
matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and in rem
jurisdiction.

After losing in state court, Taggart filed an appeal against
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Saltz,
Pennsylvania Superior Court Judges Ann Lazarus, Paula Ott and Susan
Peikes Gantman, Wells Fargo, Reed Smith LLP and Phelan Hallinan
Diamond and Jones, LLP. Each Defendant moves to dismiss Taggart's
Amended Complaint under various theories. The Court grants the
Defendants' Motions and dismisses this case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Taggart v. Jeffrey
Saltz, et al., Case No. 20-3574, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KENNETH J. TAGGART, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, of Holland, Pennsylvania, appears pro
se.

Defendants-Appellees THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. SALTZ, IN HIS
PERSONAL CAPACITY; THE HONORABLE FRANCESCO OTT, IN HER PERSONAL
CAPACITY; THE HONORABLE ANN LAZARUS, IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY;
HONORABLE SUSAN PIKES GANTMAN, IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY; WELLS
FARGO BANK NA; PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG LLP, AND ANY SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST; and REED SMITH LLP are represented by:

          Martha Gale, Esq.
          SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 560-6300
          E-mail: martha.gale@pacourts.us

               - and -

          Diane A. Bettino, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 520-6393
          E-mail: dbettino@reedsmith.com  

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Goodkind, Esq.
          FLASTER GREENBERG
          1810 Chapel Avenue West
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 661-2273
          E-mail: ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bonilla Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC.; PEOPLECONNECT INC.;
CLASSMATES MEDIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00051
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
knowingly misappropriating the photographs, likenesses, names, and
identities of the Plaintiff and the class; knowingly using those
photographs, likenesses, names, and identities for the commercial
purpose of selling access to them in Classmates products and
services; and knowingly using those photographs, likenesses, names,
and identities to advertise, sell, and solicit purchases of
Classmates services and products; without obtaining prior consent
from Plaintiff and the class.

Peopleconnect, Inc. provides online social network services. The
Company offers basic people search, list management, criminal
records, employee screening, human resources background checks, and
identity theft protection services. Peopleconnect serves customers
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PRIMAL FORCE: Hoffman Serves as Both Class Rep and Class Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that serving as both
class representative and class counsel in his latest suit over
marketing of a male enhancement product, New Jersey lawyer Harold
Hoffman has once again deployed a strategy that has made him
notorious to some defense lawyers.

In a complaint filed Dec. 8 in Bergen County Superior Court and
removed to federal court in Newark on Dec. 30, Hoffman says the
maker of a supplement called Primal Max Red falsely claims its
product will treat erectile dysfunction. By making such claims, the
manufacturer, Primal Force Inc. of Royal Palm Beach, Florida,
violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the U.S. Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act by selling an unapproved drug, the suit claims.

Hoffman faces a risk by filing consumer class action suits where he
acts simultaneously as class counsel and class representative,
although he's done it dozens of times before. New Jersey courts are
divided on whether Hoffman, as class representative, pleads an
ascertainable loss where he paid to purchase the product but has
not used it. [GN]


QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION: Gowda Sues Over 41% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHA GOWDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION; JAGDEEP SINGH;
FRITZ PRINZ; TIMOTHY HOLME; KEVIN HETTRICH; and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00070 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 6, 2021) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of
all purchasers of QuantumScape publicly traded securities between
November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive, seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about
the strength of QuantumScape's business, operations and financial
prospects. The Defendants concealed multiple known risks with
QuantumScape's solid state battery development and design that
rendered the batteries "completely unacceptable for real world
field electric vehicle performance." Specifically, as would later
be revealed, the power of QuantumScape batteries "will only last
for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of aggressive driving" and,
because solid state batteries are temperature sensitive, "power and
cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above would have been
significantly worse if run even a few degrees lower."

Only by virtue of a stock research report published by Seeking
Alpha on January 4, 2021 would the investment community learn the
truth. The market prices of QuantumScape publicly traded securities
have since fallen precipitously on those disclosures, with the
price of QuantumScape's Class A common stock declining more than
62% from its Class Period high of more than $131 per share on
December 22, 2020 to close down at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2020, including a precipitous one-day decline of more than $34 per
share, or 41%, on January 4, 2020, on unusually high trading volume
of more than 82 million shares traded, or four times the average
daily volume over the already volatile preceding ten trading days,
the suit says.

QuantumScape Corporation manufactures automobile parts. The Company
offers lithium-metal batteries and other related parts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, 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: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               – and –

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


RIVER JETTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Desalvo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. RIVER JETTY RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a California limited
liability company, d/b/a A RESTAURANT and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 8:20-cv-02374-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, 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 Americans with Disabilities
Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination through the unlawful conduct and seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that their Website,
https://www.arestaurantnb.com, will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers.

River Jetty Restaurant Group, LLC offers the Website to the public.
The goods and services offered by the Defendant include but are not
limited to the following: Defendant's dinner and wine to go menus,
how to plan a private event in a suitable space in the restaurant,
and how to make a reservation.[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

SALAS CONCRETE: Cavazos Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CAVAZOS, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, and
as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees"
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v.
SALAS CONCRETE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00062-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting class certification of the Class solely for
      settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure section 23, consisting of:

      "all current and former California hourly, non-exempt
      employees Defendant employed during the Class Period;"

      -- The Settlement defines "Class Members" or "Settlement
         Class Members" as "any person who is a member of the
         Settlement Class, or, if such person is incompetent or
         deceased, the person's legal guardian, executor, heir
         or successor-in-interest."

      -- The Settlement defines "Class Period" to mean the time
         period of January 14, 2015 through November 6, 2019.

   2. preliminarily approving the First Amended Joint
      Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release;
      
   3. appointing David Spivak, Esq. of The Spivak Law Firm and
      Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class
      Counsel;

   4. appointing himself as a Class Representative;

   5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and
      related forms;

   6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Class; and

   7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of
      class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and
      costs.

Since 1980, Salas Concrete Inc. has been a family-owned Licensed
Concrete Contractor in Clovis, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed second motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35jbB5C at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  maralle@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

SELECT MEDICAL: Arends Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JILL ARENDS and ALEXANDRA ARMSTRONG, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. SELECT
MEDICAL CORPORATION, SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG19047456, was removed from the
Superior Court 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. 2:20-cv-11381-DDP-AS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' unfair and unlawful labor
practices in violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Select Medical Corporation provides healthcare services. The
Company offers long term care for critically ill patients, as well
as inpatient and outpatient, rehabilitation therapy, and recovery
services to patients suffering from trauma and other serious
conditions. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Esq.
          Juan Aragon, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: ndubisi.ezeolu@tuckerellis.com
                  juan.aragon@tuckerellis.com

SNOW TEETH WHITENING: Kraus Says Teeth-whitening Light a Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burton Kraus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC d/b/a Snow, Foresold LLC
d/b/a Foresold, Joshua Elizetxe, Floyd Mayweather, and Robert James
Gronkowski, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06085, (E.D. N.Y., December
14, 2020) seeks to recover money damages resulting from fraudulent,
false, and misleading advertising and marketing of their at-home
teeth whitening products, treble damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, punitive damages and such other further relief for breach of
express and implied warranty and for violation of New York General
Business Law.

Defendants advertise and sell teeth whitening products "The
Accelerating LED Mouthpiece" and the "At-Home Teeth Whitening
All-in-One Kit," which are basically LED lights. Kraus claims that
these lights are ineffective for whitening teeth and is a scam.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven G. Mintz, Esq.
      Steven W. Gold, Esq.
      MINTZ & GOLD LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 696-4848
      Fax: (212) 696-1231
      Email: mintz@mintzandgold.com
             gold@mintzandgold.com


SOLARWINDS CORP: Shareholder Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Manfredi, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that a SolarWinds
shareholder has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas on Jan. 4 against the
company's president, Kevin Thompson, and chief financial officer,
J. Barton Kalsu, claiming the executives violated federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit alleges SolarWinds leadership "misrepresented and
failed to disclose" information about the company's recent hack,
causing a "precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities" which resulted in "significant losses and damages" to
investors who purchased shares between between Feb. 24 and Dec. 15,
2020.

The suit states that SolarWinds either misrepresented or failed to
disclose to shareholders that the company's Orion monitoring
products had a vulnerability since mid-2020 that allowed hackers to
compromise the product's server and that SolarWinds' update server
had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123' that would
leave customers, including the federal government, Microsoft,
Cisco, and Nvidia vulnerable to hacks.

In addition, the misleading statements caused the company and its
shareholders to suffer "significant reputational harm" and
"artificially inflated" SolarWinds market price.

Shareholders claim that executives had "actual knowledge of the
material omissions and/or the falsity of the material statements"
and intended to "deceive Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class, or, in the alternative, acted with reckless disregard for
the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose the true facts
in the statements made by them or other SolarWinds personnel to
members of the investing public."

"Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that
the market price of SolarWinds securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements and by the
material adverse information which Defendants did not disclose,
they would not have purchased SolarWinds securities at the
artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all," the lawsuit
adds. "As officers and/or directors of a publicly owned company,
the Individual Defendants had a duty to disseminate accurate and
truthful information with respect to SolarWinds's business
practices, and to correct promptly any public statements issued by
SolarWinds which had become materially false or misleading."

The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages for "reasonable costs
and expenses incurred", including counsel and expert fees, as well
as any additional relief the court deems appropriate.

In addition to shareholders, at least 18,000 SolarWinds customers
were affected by the hack, including many Fortune 500 companies and
numerous government agencies. U.S. intelligence officials have
blamed Russia, but the Kremlin has denied involvement.

A SolarWinds spokesperson did not comment on the lawsuit directly,
but told FOX Business it is "solely focused on helping the industry
and our customers understand and mitigate this attack," noting that
it quickly released updates to customers that it believes will
"close the vulnerability."

"We are collaborating closely with federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to investigate the full scope of this
unprecedented attack, including whether it was backed by the
resources of a foreign government," the spokesperson added. "We are
also working with industry-leading third-party cybersecurity
experts to assist in investigating, mitigating and remediating this
attack."

In addition, the company said it has taken a number of steps to
further secure its network and products, including through advanced
endpoint detection and monitoring tools.

The company's stock has dropped more than 34% since news of the
attack broke. In addition, the likes of Truist Securities and Baird
have both downgraded SolarWinds stock from a buy to hold with both
also anticipating stock price targets dropping to around $15. The
stock closed at $14.53 per share at the end of the Jan. 4 trading
session. [GN]


STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Seeks Second Cir. Review in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Montgomery, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM MONTGOMERY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., d/b/a CRAFTSMAN,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1182, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative
class action lawsuit is brought over Defendant's false and
misleading labeling and packaging of Craftsman-brand wet/dry
vacuums. The Defendant misleads consumers into believing that the
vacuums can in fact generate the claimed horsepower, even though
these claims are illusory and can never be obtained in actual use.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 30, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss,
and Judgment dated December 1, 2020 entered in favor of the
Defendant.

The appellate case is captioned as Montgomery v. Stanley Black &
Decker Inc., Case No. 20-4261, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, Dec. 29, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants William Montgomery and Donald Wood, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4451
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com   

Defendant-Appellee Stanley Black & Decker Inc, DBA Craftsman, is
represented by:

          John W. Cerreta, Esq.
          Day Pitney LLP
          242 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-0665
          E-mail: jcerreta@daypitney.com

STARBUCKS CORP: N.D. California Refuses to Remand Anderson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court their
lawsuit styled ELIZABETH ANDERSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01178-JD (N.D. Cal.).

Named Plaintiffs Anderson and several others have sued Starbucks
Corporation on behalf of a putative class of store managers to
recover cell phone costs and fees incurred on the job. The
Plaintiffs filed the action under California state law in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda.

The putative class is defined as "all persons who are or have been
employed at any time during the Class Period by Starbucks in
California under the job title Store Manager." The Plaintiffs did
not quantify in either complaint the damages or monetary losses
they attribute to Starbucks' practices. Both complaints are silent
on the dollar value of the claims.

Starbucks removed the cased to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). It said that interrogatory answers
by two of the Named Plaintiffs served on Feb. 5, 2020, revealed
that they had paid $50 and $80 per month respectively during the
class period for their cellular plans. It was when Starbucks "first
ascertained" that the claims plausibly crossed the $5 million CAFA
threshold.

In the removal petition, Starbucks estimated that the amount in
controversy "is at least $5,905,100." It suggested that an
additional $1,476,275 in attorneys' fees and costs should be
factored in toward the CAFA threshold based on California state
cases with similar claims that awarded approximately 25% of the
class's recovery to plaintiffs' counsel. In sum, Starbucks alleged
that "at least $7,381,375" is in play in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs contend that Starbucks has not plausibly established
the $5 million amount in controversy required for CAFA
jurisdiction, and that the case should be remanded. Their main
argument for a remand is that Starbucks' estimates of the amount in
controversy are irrationally generous. The Plaintiffs had an
opportunity to present evidence for the Court to consider, but did
not proffer anything with respect to the number of store managers
or work months, the cost of the cell phone plans or devices, or
other pertinent facts. They rely solely on criticisms of Starbucks'
evidence, District Judge James Donato notes.

When the amount in controversy estimated in the removal notice is
challenged in a remand motion, the defendant's responsive burden
depends on whether the plaintiff's attack is facial or factual,
Judge Donato says, citing Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 974
F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2020). An attack is facial when the
plaintiff accepts the defendant's allegations but says they are not
enough to invoke federal jurisdiction. That is what the Plaintiffs
have done.  They make a factual attack on Starbucks' estimates of
the amount in controversy by contesting its evidence and reasoning,
and without introducing extrinsic evidence of their own.

Judge Donato finds that Starbucks has demonstrated that removal was
proper. For the main issue in dispute, there is no doubt that
Starbucks has plausibly established that it is reasonably possible
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Starbucks'
statements about the number of prospective class members, and their
collective work months, are grounded in its business records.

The Plaintiffs' criticism that Starbucks assumed too full a measure
of liability and recovery is also unavailing, according to Judge
Donato. He also states that the Plaintiffs' objection to the
inclusion of attorneys' fees is not well taken. Courts in the
circuit have treated a potential 25% fee award as reasonable in
similar cases. It is enough to establish the reasonableness of the
attorneys' fees estimate Starbucks used.

The Court concludes that Starbucks has plausibly established a
possibility that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
Consequently, the case was properly removed and a remand is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6hw2362 from Leagle.com.


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Wins Bid to Junk Cella Suit Over Tax Map Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH CELLA, WINIFRED ESOFF, JOHN
McCARTHY, CAROL RODGERS, and NICHOLAS ACCARDI v. SUFFOLK COUNTY,
Case No. 620580/2017 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Sanford Neil Berland of the
Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, issued an order:

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
      in their favor;

   -- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
      pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 3211[a]
      (seq. #3); and

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional
      class certification pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902 (seq. #1),
      and dismissing the within action.

The lawsuit is a proposed class action in which the Plaintiffs
contest the validity of certain fees charged by Suffolk County and
collected by the Suffolk County Clerk for tax map verifications
that are required in connection with the filing or recording of
mortgages and other real property title-related instruments ("tax
map verification fees") and seek to represent a class of
individuals who have, or may in the future, pay such fees.

The Plaintiffs do not maintain that the County is without the
authority to impose any fees for the filing and recording of such
instruments by the Suffolk County Clerk. Rather, they contend that
the fees charged are disproportionate to the costs incurred by the
County in connection with filing and recording real
property-title-related instruments and that the fees are,
therefore, in effect a tax, which cannot be imposed absent State
enabling legislation permitting their imposition.

The fees that are challenged by the Plaintiffs are imposed pursuant
to Suffolk County Administrative Code Section A18-3.  According to
the Plaintiffs, the costs of operating the Real Property Tax
Service Agency and the County Clerk's office are far outstripped by
the cumulative magnitude of the fee payments generated, which the
Plaintiffs claim exceeds some $70 million annually.

For its part, the County contends that the tax map verification
process is an integral part of the County's larger property tax and
land management system, which encompasses over 584,000 parcels and
that the fees collected cover not only the related expenses of the
Real Property Tax Service Agency and the County Clerk but also
costs associated with the many other County departments and
functions with which the Real Property Tax Service Agency "must
coordinate," including Civil Service, Legislation, Law, Public
Works and Information Technology.

Currently before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for partial
summary judgment, presumably pursuant to CPLR 3212[e], and
provisional class certification, pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902, and
the County's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR
3211[a][2] and [7].

Judge Berland states that the question of whether the tax map
verification fees are just that or should instead be deemed to
constitute a tax does not reduce to a mere arithmetic assessment of
the costs properly associated with the operation of the Real
Property Tax Service Agency, the County Clerk's office and the
administration of the County property tax and land management
system and such other departments and functions that contribute to
the cost of tax map verifications, but also requires a calculation
of the benefits payors receive in exchange for their fee payments.

According to the Order, it is well settled that the proponent of a
summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering enough
evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case.
Before summary judgment may be granted, it must clearly appear that
no material and triable issue of fact is presented. The movant has
the initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment.
Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion,
regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.

Moreover, the court's function on such a motion is to determine
whether issues of fact exist, not to resolve issues of fact or to
determine matters of credibility, the facts alleged by the opposing
party and all inferences that may be drawn from them are to be
accepted as true. On that basis alone, the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment must be denied on the current record, Judge
Berland holds.

However, Judge Berland opines, even without regard to the factually
complex question of whether the fees charged for tax map
verifications are so disproportionate to the costs of providing
them or to the benefits conferred upon those who obtain the
verifications as to transform them into a tax, the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment must be denied and their claims
for declaratory and injunctive relief dismissed as the alleged
deficiency upon which their claims of invalidity are based -- the
want of State legislative authorization for the county's imposition
of the tax map verification fees -- was addressed, and to the
extent rectification was required, rectified, by the State
Legislature's enactment of Laws of 2019, Chapter 55, Part SS,
Section 1, which became effective on April 12, 2019, amending CPLR
Sections 8019 and 8021.

Thus, however the tax map verification fees may be characterized,
the State Legislature has validated the authority of the County to
set and collect them, Judge Berland points out.

The Plaintiffs' remaining claims, for the refund or repayment of
such tax map verification fees as they may have paid, styled in the
complaint as a claim for money had and received, must also be
dismissed because there is no allegation that any of the Plaintiffs
in fact paid such fees under an express protest or under the kind
of duress that excuses formal protest, according to the Court.

The bare conclusory assertion of "duress," without any allegation
that the payment was in fact made "to avoid threatened interference
with present liberty of person or immediate possession of property"
is insufficient to excuse the failure to protest expressly at the
time of payment, even if the failure to make the payment would
result in adverse economic or transactional consequences for the
payor, Judge Berland opines. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims
for refund or repayment of any tax map verification fees they may
have paid are dismissed.

In light of the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
and declaratory relief and for the refund or repayment of any tax
map verification fees they may have paid, their motion for
provisional class certification is denied as moot, and the
complaint is dismissed.

The Court has considered the remaining contentions of the parties
and finds that they do not require further discussion or alter its
determinations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4hzjwrf from Leagle.com.

GOVERNMENT JUSTICE CENTER, at 30 SOUTH PEARL STREET, SUITE 1210, in
ALBANY, New York, Plaintiffs' Attorneys.

STAGG WABNIK LAW GROUP LLP, at 401 FRANKLIN AVENUE, SUITE 300, in
GARDEN CITY, New York, Defendant's Attorneys.


THE TROXEL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Jones Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MEKCO JONES, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TROXEL COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02945-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn.,
December 30, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt
hourly-paid employee during the 3-year period immediately preceding
the filing of this complaint, alleges that the Defendant employed
an unlawful time keeping policy and practice of not paying "off the
clock" duties performed by its employees, as well as "rounding off"
and "editing-out/shaving" its employees' time they spent performing
work for the Defendant. As a result, despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to properly and
accurately pay its employees' lawfully earned overtime compensation
at the applicable overtime rates of pay in accordance with the
law.

Moreover, the Defendant failed to properly and accurately record
all such compensable times of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees.

The Troxel Company operates a manufacturing plant located in
Moscow, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, 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
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com


TRADER JOE'S: Kong Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plantiffs Richard A. Kong, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD A. KONG, ROBERT A.
CRUZALEGUI, MATTHEW W. HEIDEN, and CASHAY L. CLAYBORN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S
COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
2:20-cv-05790-PA-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action is brought pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and
1132, against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Trader Joe's
Company, the Board of Directors of Trader Joe's Company and its
members during the Class Period, and the Investment Committee and
its members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period (June
29, 2014 through the date of judgment) the Defendants, as
"fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA,
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and
to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing
to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment
options with lower costs and/or better performance histories.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated Dec. 2, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Kong, et al. v. Trader
Joe's Company, et al., Case No. 20-56415, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 30, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Cashay L. Clayborn, Robert A. Cruzalegui, Matthew
W. Heiden and Richard A. Kong Mediation Questionnaire is due on
January 6, 2021;

   -- Appellants Cashay L. Clayborn, Robert A. Cruzalegui, Matthew
W. Heiden and Richard A. Kong opening brief is due on February 26,
2021;

   -- Appellees The Board of Directors of Trader Joe's Company, The
Investment Committee and Trader Joe's Company answering brief is
due on March 29, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD A. KONG, ROBERT A. CRUZALEGUI,
MATTHEW W. HEIDEN, and CASHAY L. CLAYBORN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Blvd.
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Telephone: (818) 788-0877
          E-mail: germain@lalawyer.com

Defendants-Appellees TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, and THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE are
represented by:

          Dawn Sestito, Esq.
          Catalina Joos Vergara, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6352
          E-mail: dsestito@omm.com
                  cvergara@omm.com

TRINITY HEALTHSHARE: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Kelly Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Trinity Healthshare, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled GEORGE T. KELLY, III, and
THOMAS BOOGHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-05038-MDH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Joplin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
have filed their second amended class action complaint against
Defendants Aliera and Trinity alleging Defendants sold unfair and
deceptive health care plans to Missouri residents and failed to
provide the coverage the purchasers believed they would receive.
The Plaintiffs allege the plans sold by Defendants qualify as
insurance under both federal and state law. The Defendants contend
their plans are Health Care Sharing Ministries and therefore do not
qualify as insurance.

Trinity Healthshare is seeking an appeal to review the court's
order dated November 23, 2020, denying its motion to dismiss case
or alternatively, to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as George Kelly, III, et al v.
Trinity Healthshare, Inc., Case No. 20-3709, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Dec. 29, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on February 8, 2021;

   -- BRIEFS OF APPELLANT The Aliera Companies, Inc. and Trinity
Healthshare, Inc. are due on February 8, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees George T. Kelly, III and Thomas Boogher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jay Angoff, Esq.
          Chaim E. Bronstein, Esq.
          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET
          1250 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          
               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Ann E. Merryfield, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (202) 223-0303
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  ann@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com  

               - and -

          Michael D. Myers, Esq.
          MYERS & COMPANY
          1530 Eastlake Avenue East
          Seattle, WA 98102
          Telephone: (206) 398-1188
          E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com

Defendant-Appellant Trinity Healthshare, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Ginger K. Gooch, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          The Hammons Tower, Suite 1800
          901 St. Louis Street
          Springfield, MO 65806
          Telephone: (417) 268-4000
          E-mail: ginger.gooch@huschblackwell.com

UNITED STATES: Missouri River Landowners File 5th Amendment Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Dec. 14, Judge
Nancy Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled
decisively that the U.S. government violated the Fifth Amendment
rights of three landowners whose properties in the Missouri River
basin became vulnerable to floods after the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers revised its management of the river to comply with
environmental laws. The ruling by Judge Firestone, who has been
overseeing takings claims by about 400 property owners along the
river since 2014, will total more than $10 million for the three
bellwether plaintiffs.

But for the lawyers representing the Missouri River plaintiffs --
Dan Boulware of Polsinelli and Benjamin Brown of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll -- Judge Firestone's decision was a challenge as
well as a win. The plaintiffs' lawyers told me on Jan. 4 that they
had heard from dozens of additional landowners after launching the
Fifth Amendment mass action with about 400 plaintiffs in 2014, but
had held off on filing new claims until Judge Firestone clarified
the scope of the case. The judge's Dec. 14 ruling effectively set a
claims deadline of Dec. 31. So Boulware and Brown had to figure out
how to protect the interests of other Missouri River property
owners -- not just the dozens who had already contacted them but
hundreds of others who might have valuable claims based on Judge
Firestone's decision.

Their solution? An unusual -- but not unprecedented -- Fifth
Amendment class action in the Court of Federal Claims. The Dec. 30
complaint lists more than 60 named plaintiffs who own allegedly
flood-prone land along the river in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and
Missouri. If the class is certified, Boulware said, hundreds of
other class members will also have an opportunity to assert claims.
(Property owners who have already brought individual suits in the
mass action, known as the Ideker case, are excluded from the
class.)

Boulware said Judge Firestone's decisions in the Ideker case should
have collateral estoppel effect in the class action -- which means
that class members who can show their land was flooded in years the
judge has already determined to have been affected by the Army's
revised river management policy will not have to prove causation.

Those claims, according to Boulware, should be worth at least
$2,000 per acre, based on the judge's assessment of reports from
plaintiffs' experts in the mass action. Boulware declined to
estimate the government's potential exposure in the class action,
which will depend on whether the class is certified and how many
property owners end up filing claims. But the entire Missouri River
basin (which includes 10 states, not just the four states specified
in the new class action) includes hundreds of millions of acres.

The Justice Department, which represents the U.S. government in
takings cases, did not respond to a request for comment.

Class members must affirmatively opt in to class actions brought in
the Court of Federal Claims, said plaintiffs' lawyer Brown. That's
in contrast to most class actions in federal court, in which class
members are part of the case unless they specifically opt out.

There have been a few other Fifth Amendment takings class actions
by property owners suing in the Court of Federal Claims. In 2014's
Haggart v. United States, for instance, Judge Charles Lettow
approved (116 Fed.Cl. 131) a $140.5 million class action settlement
between the U.S. government and property owners whose land was
converted into a recreational trail in a Rails to Trails program.
(Other Rails to Trails landowners also reached class action
settlements in federal claims court.) The Haggart case,
interestingly, explained that under the claims court's rules for
class actions, plaintiffs need only "share common questions of law
or fact" to be certified as a class.

Boulware said DOJ has relentlessly defended the mass action so he
expects nothing less in the class action, even with the change in
presidential administrations. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Prelim. Injunction Denial in Hall v. USDA Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the denial
of a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit styled ROBIN HALL;
STEVEN SUMMERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; GEORGE PERDUE, In his official capacity as United
States Secretary of Agriculture, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
20-16232 (9th Cir.).

As part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted
the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which provides for
emergency assistance to households participating in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP"). The United
States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), which administers SNAP,
concluded that the statute allows households receiving less than
the maximum monthly allotment of SNAP benefits to be brought up to
the maximum but does not permit those already receiving the maximum
to be given any additional benefits.

The Appellate Court is asked to decide whether USDA has correctly
interpreted the statute. The Appellate Court concludes that it
has.

The Plaintiffs in the case, RHall and Summers, are Californians,
who normally receive the maximum monthly allotment of SNAP benefits
and, therefore, are not eligible for emergency allotments under
USDA's interpretation of the Families First Act.  Hall brought the
putative class action against USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture
challenging the agency's interpretation of Section 2302(a)(1) as
arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority. Hall
also sought a preliminarily injunction barring USDA from denying
any otherwise appropriate request from California under section
2302(a)(1) because it provides emergency [SNAP] allotments to
households receiving the maximum monthly benefit amount.

The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that
because section 2302(a)(1) is ambiguous, and USDA's interpretation
is reasonable, Hall did not show a clear likelihood of success on
the merits, as a plaintiff must to obtain a mandatory injunction.
Although the district court declined to reach the remaining
preliminary-injunction factors, it noted considerable reservations
about Hall's ability to establish redressability because even after
a favorable ruling, California, an independent sovereign, must
renew its request for emergency allotments before applicants can
receive them.

After the district court denied a preliminary injunction, Hall
asked the  Appellate Court for an emergency injunction pending
appeal. A motions panel denied an injunction but ordered that the
appeal be expedited.

In the case, Hall's injury comes from not receiving emergency
allotments, but Hall cannot receive allotments unless the State of
California, which is not a party to this litigation, first requests
them. And because the statute gives States discretion in framing
their requests, any future request from California would not
necessarily cover Hall. Indeed, although California initially
proposed that emergency allotments be distributed to all SNAP
households, including those already receiving the maximum monthly
allotment, it then revised its request to comport with USDA's
guidance. So even if Hall secured a ruling that she is eligible to
receive emergency allotments under section 2302(a)(1), California
would have to submit a new request along the lines of its initial
request before Hall could obtain any concrete relief.

Although the government raises the issue, it does not expressly
argue that Hall lacks standing. The Appellate Court notes that the
requirement of standing means that a federal court may act only to
redress injury that fairly can be traced to the challenged action
of the defendant, and not injury that results from the independent
action of some third party not before the court, citing Simon v.
Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976).

The Appellate Court concludes that Hall has satisfied that
requirement. To address the redressability concerns identified by
the district court, Hall attached to her motion for an injunction
pending appeal a declaration from Alexis Carmen Fernandez, Chief of
the CalFresh and Nutrition Services Branch of the California
Department of Social Services.

The declaration states that if the court were to enter an
injunction requiring USDA to authorize emergency allotments for
SNAP households receiving the maximum monthly allotment, California
"would promptly revise and renew its request for emergency
allotments for future benefit months," and its new request "would
include emergency benefits for households receiving the maximum
regular monthly benefit amount." The declaration does not establish
exactly what kind of request the State would submit in response to
a favorable decision. In particular, it does not say that
California would submit a request identical to the State's initial
request, nor does it say that whatever request it did submit would
necessarily cover Hall.

Even though Hall has established a "significant increase in the
likelihood" of relief sufficient to establish standing, the
Appellate Court notes that uncertainty about what the State will do
remains relevant to the question of irreparable harm in the
preliminary-injunction analysis. The Appellate Court holds that it
need not explore that issue further, however, because it concludes
that Hall has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Hall contends that she is likely to succeed on the merits because
the plain language of section 2302(a)(1) forecloses USDA's position
that SNAP households that already receive the maximum monthly
allotment are not eligible for emergency allotments. The Appellate
Court disagrees.

Circuit Judge Eric David Miller, writing for the Panel, states that
often, when construing a statute that is administered by a federal
agency, the Appellate Court reviews the agency's interpretation
under the framework prescribed in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In the instant case, the parties dispute
whether USDA's interpretation is subject to review under Chevron.
The Appellate Court concludes that it is not.

Although the court in Chevron described a mode of analysis to be
applied when a court reviews an agency's construction of the
statute which it administers, later Supreme Court decisions have
clarified that the Chevron analysis does not apply to all agency
interpretations, see, e.g., United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S.
218, 231-34 (2001). Instead, administrative implementation of a
particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when
it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency
generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the
agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the
exercise of that authority.

Judge Miller opines that factors do not support applying Chevron in
the matter. USDA's interpretation involves a significant legal
question, not an interstitial one, and there is no indication that
USDA gave careful consideration to the question over a long period
of time, citing Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (2002). Judge
Miller finds that USDA's guidance does not satisfy the Barnhart
factors, and he concludes that it is not subject to deferential
review under Chevron.

Hall also urges the Appellate Court to reject USDA's interpretation
of the statute because it would result in the denial of emergency
allotments to some of the neediest households -- namely, those who
already receive the maximum regular monthly SNAP allotment because
they have no income available to dedicate to purchasing food. Judge
Miller says that is a serious concern, but it does not give the
Panel permission to depart from what it has determined to be the
best reading of the statutory text.

Instead, Judge Miller writes, as the district court explained, the
case does not call on them to decide what would be the fairest or
most effective way to assist SNAP recipients in this era of
COVID-19, because that judgment is committed to the political
branches. Judge Miller adds that it appears more likely that
Congress had a different policy objective in mind, consistent with
USDA's responses to previous crises: to quickly top-off household
benefits at the maximum monthly allotment in light of
difficult-to-document disruptions in income.

Because Hall is unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a
preliminary injunction, the Appellate Court concludes.

Chief Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas dissents. He avers that the USDA's
interpretation of Section 2302(a)(1) cannot be squared with the
text of that provision or the structure of the statute.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have established a clear likelihood of
success on their claim that the agency's interpretation cannot
stand under 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2), citing Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).  Judge Thomas writes that
because she dissents, she would reverse the denial of the
preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for
consideration of the remaining factors under Winter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxt8drrs from Leagle.com.

Alexander Prieto (argued), Richard Rothschild --
Rrothschild@wclp.org -- and Antionette D. Dozier --
adozier@wclp.org -- Western Center on Law & Poverty, in Los
Angeles, California; Lindsay Nako -- lnako@impactfund.org --
Jocelyn D. Larkin -- jlarkin@impactfund.org -- and David S. Nahmias
-- dnahmias@impactfund.org -- Impact Fund, in Berkeley, California;
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Joshua K. Handell (argued) and Michael S. Raab, Appellate Staff;
Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C.; Ryan M.
Majerus, Senior Counsel; Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel; Office
of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, in
Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Breach of Duty Claims in Riskin Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick, Vice Chancellor of the
Court of Chancery of Delaware, grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss as to Count I and parts of Count II of the complaint in the
lawsuit entitled DANIEL J. RISKIN, M.D. v. BRENTON BURNS; MARY BETH
JENKINS; RAYMOND SCOTT; JOHN STEPHEN WHITEHURST; SCOTT HUEBNER;
JOHN KUZMISHIN; FRED SCHWARZER; CRAIG GOMULKA; CHARLES TALBOT
HEPPENSTALL, JR.; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER, a
Pennsylvania corporation; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, a
Pennsylvania corporation; UPMC HEALTH PLAN, INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation; CHARTER LIFE SCIENCES (OHIO) II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; CHARTER LIFE SCIENCES II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; CLS PARTNERS II (OHIO), LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CLS PARTNERS II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; CLS MANAGEMENT II, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and HEALTH FIDELITY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2019-0570-KSJM (Del. Ch.).

The Plaintiff founded a healthcare technology company called Health
Fidelity, a Delaware corporation based in California, in 2011 and
served as the chief executive officer and a director until he was
removed from both positions in mid-2014. The Plaintiff alleges that
certain Defendants engaged in a creeping control scheme dating back
to 2011. Once those Defendants obtained voting control over the
Company, they used their influence to force the Company to enter
into self-dealing transactions with the Defendants' affiliates and
increased their equity stakes by causing the Company to engage in
undervalued financing rounds with them.

The Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint asserts
seven claims against 18 Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, and violations of various
provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). The
Defendants have grouped themselves into three categories: the
"Charter Defendants," the "UPMC Defendants," and the "Health
Fidelity Defendants."

In 2018, Riskin served five demands to inspect Health Fidelity's
books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL. In response,
the Company produced documents, including its incorporation
documents, Board minutes and materials, director and stockholder
written consents, and certain Company financial and investment
information.

On June 14, 2019, the Plaintiff, Health Fidelity, UPMC, UPMC
Presbyterian, and UPMC Health Plan entered into an agreement that
tolled the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff's claims as of
June 14, 2019.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on July 24, 2019. The Amended
Complaint contains seven counts.

In Count I, the Plaintiff asserts direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the UPMC Defendants, the Charter Defendants,
Whitehurst, Huebner, and Gomulka, in connection with the
transactions that the Plaintiff vaguely refers to as the
"Challenged Transactions." The Challenged Transactions potentially
include following transactions discussed in the Amended Complaint:
the 2014 and 2015 UPMC Agreements, the June 2015 Equity Plan
Amendment, the 2015 Option Grants, among other transactions.

In Count II, in the alternative to the direct claims asserted in
Count I, the Plaintiff asserts derivative claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against all Defendants except Health Fidelity with
respect to the Challenged Transactions.

Each of the three groups of Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on Oct. 9, 2019. The Plaintiff amended his complaint in
response, and the Defendants renewed their motions to dismiss on
Feb. 7, 2020. The parties completed briefing on May 22, 2020, and
the Court held oral argument on Sept. 14, 2020.

Judge McCormick notes that the Plaintiff's expansive claims
inspired dismissal arguments equally punishing in scope. The
decision addresses the dismissal arguments with respect to Count I
and portions of Count II only. All the Defendants have moved to
dismiss Count I under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). They have
all moved to dismiss portions of Count II on the basis of laches.
All of them except for UPMC and its director designees -- Burns,
Jenkins, and Kuzmishin -- have moved to dismiss the remainder of
Count II. As to Count II, the decision addresses the laches
argument and Charter's motion to dismiss only.

In Count I, the Plaintiff asserts a direct claim for breach of
fiduciary duty under the "dual claim" theory of Gentile v.
Rossette, 906 A.2d 91 (Del. 2006). The Amended Complaint asserts
Count I as to a vague group of "Challenged Transactions," but in
briefing the Plaintiff only makes substantive arguments as to the
2017 Series B Financing. The Amended Complaint asserts Count I as
to all Defendants, but in briefing the Plaintiff abandoned Count I
as to Heppenstall, UPMC Presbyterian, and UPMC Health Plan.

In essence, the Plaintiff claims that the participants in the 2017
Series B Financing received stock at an unfair price. Judge
McCormick says that corporate overpayment claims of this nature are
quintessentially derivative. In Gentile, however, the Delaware
Supreme Court recognized "a species of corporate overpayment claim"
that a stockholder can assert both derivatively and directly.

Judge McCormick states that the decision declines to buck the
trend. In the case, the 2017 Series B Financing involves the
issuance of preferred stock, which has not been converted. Because
the 2017 Series B Financing does not fit the transactional paradigm
of Gentile, the Plaintiff's fiduciary duty claim is derivative in
nature, Judge McCormick holds. Count I is, therefore, dismissed.

In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts derivative claims as to various
transactions spanning over five years. The Defendants have moved to
dismiss Count II as to certain transactions that occurred on or
before June 2016 under the doctrine of laches, and the decision
grants that motion in part. Charter has moved to dismiss Count II
on the grounds it did not owe fiduciary duties, and the decision
grants that motion as well.

According to Judge McCormick, when allegations reach back in time
as far as those contained in the Amended Complaint, it is logical
to first inquire as to whether aspects of the claims are
time-barred. Under the doctrine of laches, a claim that would be
barred by the applicable statute of limitations if pursued at law
will be barred in equity absent tolling or extraordinary
circumstances. The Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty
is subject to a three-year statute of limitations period that
begins to run absent tolling when the alleged wrongful act is
committed.

The Plaintiff argues that challenges to certain transactions that
occurred before July 24, 2016 (lawsuit's filing date) are not
time-barred for two reasons. First, he entered into the Tolling
Agreement. Second, the delay in sending notices or disclosing
information equitably tolled any analogous statute of limitations.

Generally, whether equitable tolling applies raises a
fact-intensive inquiry that is not amenable to a motion to dismiss.
Thus, although it is slim reed, the Plaintiff has pled facts giving
rise to a reasonable inference that equitable tolling may apply to
these transactions, Judge McCormick holds.

As the basis for Count II against Charter, the Plaintiff alleges
that Charter was a controlling stockholder with concomitant
fiduciary duties. Charter held a minority stake in Health Fidelity,
and a minority stockholder can be found to be a controller under
Delaware law only where the stockholder "exercises control over the
business affairs of the corporation" or has formed a "control
group" with another stockholder. In the case, the Plaintiff does
not allege that Charter, standing alone, exercised control over the
business affairs of the corporation. Instead, he argues that
Charter formed a control group with Health Fidelity's majority
stockholder, UPMC.

The Plaintiff's allegations concerning the 2014 Series A Financing
show that Charter and UPMC agreed to work together to consummate
that transaction. Not long after the 2014 Series A Financing, UPMC
obtained a majority voting interest in Health Fidelity. Judge
McCormick opines that the Plaintiff gives no persuasive reason why
UPMC would have needed Charter's agreement to consummate any
transaction from that point forward.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to
support his control-group theory, and Count II is dismissed as to
the time-barred claims and Charter, Judge McCormick rules.

The parties will have to stay tuned for the court's decision as to
Count II concerning the remaining claims against the individual
Defendants and as to Counts III through VII.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 31,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y432xos7 from
Leagle.com.

Richard P. Rollo -- rollo@rlf.com -- Travis S. Hunter --
hunter@rlf.com -- Sarah A. Clark -- sclark@rlf.com -- Robert B.
Greco -- greco@rlf.com -- Angela Lam -- lam@rlf.com -- RICHARDS,
LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for
Plaintiff.

Brad D. Sorrels -- bsorrels@wsgr.com -- Andrew D. Cordo --
acordo@wsgr.com -- Daniyal M. Iqbal -- diqbal@wsgr.com -- WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel
for Defendants Brenton Burns, Mary Beth Jenkins, John Kuzmishin,
Charles Talbot Heppenstall, Jr., University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, and UPMC Health Plan, Inc.

A. Thompson Bayliss -- Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com -- Adam K.
Schulman -- Schulman@AbramsBayliss.com -- ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware; Bruce A. Ericson --
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com -- Stacie O. Kinser --
stacie.kinser@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
LLP, in San Francisco, California; Co-Counsel for Defendants
Raymond Scott, Fred Schwarzer, Charter Life Sciences (Ohio) II,
L.P., Charter Life Sciences II, L.P., CLS Partners II (Ohio), LLC,
CLS Partners II, L.P., and CLS Management II, LLC.

David J. Teklits -- dteklits@mnat.com -- Alexandra M. Cumings --
acumings@mnat.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants John Stephen
Whitehurst, Scott Huebner, Craig Gomulka, and Health Fidelity,
Inc.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Riskin Claims v. Heppenstall, UPMC Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as DANIEL J. RISKIN, M.D. v. BRENTON
BURNS; MARY BETH JENKINS; RAYMOND SCOTT; JOHN STEPHEN WHITEHURST;
SCOTT HUEBNER; JOHN KUZMISHIN; FRED SCHWARZER; CRAIG GOMULKA;
CHARLES TALBOT HEPPENSTALL, JR.; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL
CENTER, a Pennsylvania corporation; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, a
Pennsylvania corporation; UPMC HEALTH PLAN, INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation; CHARTER LIFE SCIENCES (OHIO) II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; CHARTER LIFE SCIENCES II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; CLS PARTNERS II (OHIO), LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CLS PARTNERS II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; CLS MANAGEMENT II, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and HEALTH FIDELITY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2019-0570-KSJM (Del. Ch.), the Honorable
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick, Vice Chancellor of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware, grants the motions to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction filed by Charles Talbot Heppenstall, Jr., and
the UPMC Affiliates.

The Order resolves the motions to dismiss the Verified Amended
Class Action and Derivative Complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(2) filed by
Defendants Charles Talbot Heppenstall, Jr., UPMC Presbyterian
Shadyside, and UPMC Health Plan, Inc. ("UPMC Affiliates").

When a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a
basis for the court's exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant.
Delaware courts resolve questions of jurisdiction using a two-step
analysis. First, the court must "determine that service of process
is authorized by statute." Second, the defendant must have certain
minimum contacts with Delaware such that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice."

To satisfy these tests as to Heppenstall and the UPMC Affiliates,
the Plaintiff relies on Delaware's long-arm statute, codified at 10
Del. C. Section 3404, and the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction.

Judge McCormick finds that the Plaintiff's arguments as to
Heppenstall are slim. The Plaintiff claims that Heppenstall aided
and abetted in breaches of fiduciary duties, and this forms the
basis of the alleged conspiracy supporting the Plaintiff's
jurisdictional arguments. The Plaintiff alleges that Heppenstall
was UPMC's President and the "ultimate decision-maker over UPMC's
investment in Health Fidelity." He executed, on behalf of UPMC,
stockholder consents purporting to authorize: the June 2016 Bridge
Financing; the December 2016 Equity Plan Amendment; and the 2017
Series B Financing. He also executed the Note and Warrant Purchase
Agreement on behalf of UPMC and attended various Health Fidelity
Board meetings.

Judge McCormick opines that Heppenstall, however, was not giving
his own consent or binding himself in any way in connection with
these actions, and the Plaintiff supplies no authority for the
proposition that the court may attribute those actions to
Heppenstall personally so as to establish jurisdiction. Generally,
a corporation cannot be deemed to have conspired with its officers
and agents for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the
conspiracy theory unless the agent "steps out of her role as an
officer or agent and acts pursuant to personal motives." The
Plaintiff does not argue that Heppenstall acted pursuant to
personal motives, so Heppenstall cannot be deemed to have conspired
with UPMC for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff's arguments as to the UPMC Affiliates are even
weaker, Judge McCormick notes. The Plaintiff claims that the UPMC
Affiliates aided and abetted the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties, and this forms the basis of the Plaintiff's personal
jurisdiction arguments as to the UPMC Affiliates. The Amended
Complaint is somewhat vague as to the predicate breach for the
aiding and abetting claim. In briefing, the Plaintiff hones in on
the 2014 and 2015 UPMC Agreements, which allegedly allowed the UPMC
Affiliates to "extract thousands and millions of dollars from
Health Fidelity." Judge McCormick states that claims challenging
those transactions pre-dating June 2016 are barred by the doctrine
of laches, and thus they cannot supply the predicate conspiracy for
jurisdictional purposes.

The Amended Complaint contains a few other facts specific to the
UPMC Affiliates, none of which support the Court's exercise of
personal jurisdiction, Judge McCormick says. For example, the
Plaintiff alleges that Jenkins, who served on the Health Fidelity
Board, was also the Chief Administrative and Operating Officer of
UPMC Health Plan. But Jenkins' presence on the Health Fidelity
Board alone does not give rise to the inference that UPMC Health
Plan conspired in any breach of fiduciary duty undertaken by any
Board members during Jenkins' tenure, and the Plaintiff's theory is
not more developed than that.

The Plaintiff also alleges that UPMC Presbyterian executed the
stockholder consent for the June 2015 Equity Plan Amendment, but
claims challenging that amendment are also barred by the doctrine
of laches. Further, as the Plaintiff acknowledges, UPMC
Presbyterian was not a Health Fidelity stockholder. The printing of
"UPMC Presbyterian" was more likely than not a typographical error
by the UPMC representative that drafted the document and not
supportive of a supposed conspiracy involving UPMC Presbyterian.

Accordingly, the claims against Heppenstall and the UPMC Affiliates
are dismissed pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(2).

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yycw8654 from Leagle.com.


V.K. KNOWLTON: Underpays Construction Workers, Latronico Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LATRONICO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V.K. KNOWLTON CONSTRUCTION AND
UTILITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01474-XR (W.D. Tex.,
December 30, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for failure to pay overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
machine operator from March 2019 until December 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he and other similarly situated
construction workers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week throughout their tenure with the Defendant, their overtime
compensation was not accurately paid by the Defendant because the
Defendant failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses that were
paid to them in their regular rates when calculating their overtime
pay. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly sometimes shaved its
construction workers' hours to reflect fewer hours than they
actually worked.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.

V.K. Knowlton Construction and Utilities, Inc. provides
construction and utility services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERITA TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Faces Green Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIP GREEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VERITA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02872-PAG (N.D. Ohio, December 31, 2020) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful pay practices and policies in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-non-exempt
area lineman and underground cable layer between approximately
February 2019 and August 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and
other similarly situated workers for the pre-shift and post-shift
time performing duties, which are indispensable and integral to
their principal duties, amounted to approximately 30-60 minutes
each day. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
workers were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek.

Verita Telecommunications Corporation provides installation
services of communications lines for cable and internet for
commercial customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Steiner, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          34555 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  david@lazzarolawfirm.com


VIRGIN ISLANDS: Morton Suit Seeking Pay Under CARES Act Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin Islands grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled JAMAL A.
MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, The Honorable ALBERT BRYAN,
JR., in his official capacity as the Governor of the United States
Virgin Islands, JOEL A. LEE, in his official capacity as the
Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, CLARINA MODEST ELLIOT,
in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of
Finance, Case No. 3:20-cv-0109 (D. V.I.).

Plaintiff Morton, an incarcerated individual at the Golden Grove
Adult Correctional Facility located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands, commenced the litigation on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, against the United States Virgin
Islands and other officials of the Government of the Virgin Islands
("GVI") in their official capacities, seeking payment of the
advance refund under the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act of 2020 ("CARES Act"). Morton also sought a
preliminary injunction, inter alia, to enjoin the Virgin Islands
Bureau of Internal Revenue from refusing to pay him and other
incarcerated individuals the advance refund prior to Dec. 31,
2020.

During the course of the preliminary injunction proceedings, the
evidence revealed that Morton did not file an income tax return
until after the commencement of the lawsuit. Subsequently, at the
conclusion of the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court
directed the parties to brief the issue as to whether Morton had
standing to bring his claims.

The GVI, thereafter, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Morton filed an opposition and the GVI filed a
response thereafter. Upon a full consideration of the arguments
made by the parties and the relevant legal authority, the Court
concludes that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction at the time
this lawsuit was filed and, therefore, the complaint will be
dismissed.

The CARES Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by
President Trump on March 27, 2020, to provide economic relief to
certain individuals, who reside in the United States (including the
U.S. Virgin Islands) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The portion of
the CARES Act relevant to the litigation amended the Internal
Revenue Code providing for Economic Impact Payments ("EIP") to be
paid directly to eligible individuals through a tax credit to be
paid in 2021 based on an individual's 2020 income tax return, or as
an advance refund to be paid by Dec. 31, 2020, based on an
individual's 2019 income tax return. If an eligible individual had
not filed a 2019 tax return, that individual would still be
eligible to receive an advance refund based on that person's 2018
tax return.

The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), the agency tasked with
administering the distribution of EIP benefits to U.S. tax filers,
provides advance refunds to individuals who have filed a tax return
for either the 2018 or 2019 tax year and to those already receiving
social security benefits, without taking any additional action to
receive the advance refund.

Although the CARES Act does not exclude incarcerated individuals
from eligibility for EIP benefits, the IRS website announced on May
6, 2020, that incarcerated individuals do not qualify for payments
under the CARES Act. The IRS requested that any incarcerated
individuals, who received EIP checks return them to the IRS, and
thereafter withheld additional payments from being made to
incarcerated persons.

On Nov. 3, 2020, Morton filed the instant action against the GVI to
challenge the Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful refusal to
issue advance EIP under the CARES Act to persons incarcerated in
the USVI. In the complaint, Morton discloses that he is a U.S.
citizen and USVI resident, who has been under custody of the Bureau
of Corrections since 2009. He stated that he has not filed a tax
return for over a decade because he did not have a filing
requirement since his income was below the gross income exclusion.
Morton alleges that he has not received an EIP from the BIR.

The GVI filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on Dec.
14, 2020. It argues in its motion to dismiss that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction because the CARES Act requires an
individual to first file a tax return in order to be eligible to
receive an advance refund under section 6428(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Therefore, the GVI argues, because Morton did not
file a tax return prior to commencing this lawsuit, he lacks
standing to claim any benefits under the CARES Act. The Court
agrees.

While Morton satisfies the definition of an "eligible individual"
under section 6428(d) because he is not a nonresident alien, not a
person with respect to whom another individual can claim a
deduction on a tax return, and obviously is not an estate or trust,
the CARES Act clearly contemplates an additional requirement: the
filing of a tax return in order to receive an EIP advance refund,
District Judge Robert A. Molloy notes.

In the case, Morton commenced the lawsuit on Nov. 3, 2020. It is
undisputed that Morton did not file his 2019 income tax return with
the BIR until Nov. 16, 2020. Thus, Morton had not suffered an
injury-in-fact at the time that he filed his claim. Because the
Court concludes that the CARES Act contemplates the filing of a tax
return -- or that an individual be a recipient of social security
benefits -- in order to receive the advanced refund, Morton did not
have standing to commence this lawsuit.

The Court finds the analysis in Golden v. V.I., 47 Fed. Appx. 620
(3d Cir. 2002) persuasive and appropriate on the facts of the case
and holds that Morton had not met the procedural requirements of
the CARES Act at the time he filed his claim.

Citing Woosley v. United States District Court, 693 Fed. Appx. 144,
147 (3d Cir. 2017), Judge Molly writes that absent Article III
standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
to address a plaintiff's claims, and they must be dismissed. Morton
did not have standing at the time he filed the complaint.
Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate the claim. For the reasons stated, the Court grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 31,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3nb5amq from
Leagle.com.

Joseph A. DiRuzzo, III, Esq. -- jd@diruzzolaw.com -- DiRuzzo &
Company, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for Jamal Morton.

Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, Assistant Attorney General Christopher
M. Timmons, Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of
Justice, in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for the Defendants.


VIVINT INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Petrozzino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit styled
JEFFREY PETROZZINO and CHRISTINE PETROZZINO, h/w, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIVINT, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01949-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiffs allege that on Aug. 25, 2017, they were visited at
their residence by a door-to-door sales representative from the
Defendant, who solicited them to purchase one of its home security
systems. The Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the system, based, they
allege, upon the Defendant's representations that its home security
system was of good quality, functional, and appropriate for
Plaintiffs' use, and that Vivint would pay off the remaining
balance due on Plaintiffs' existing home security system. On Aug.
25, the Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with a one-page document
titled "Purchase and Services Agreement" related to their purchase
of the security system; that document was signed by both the
Plaintiffs, although it does not appear that it was ever signed by
a representative of the Defendant.

Then, on August 27, the Defendant's technician installed the
system, and the Defendant sent the Plaintiffs an email which
referenced an attached "Order Confirmation" document. That document
contained a "Schedule of Equipment and Services," an "E-Sign
Consent" form, and another Purchase and Services Agreement. The
August 27 version of the Purchase and Services Agreement provided
an updated price for the equipment purchased by the Plaintiffs, and
also included a second page with a number of additional terms and
conditions. Those terms and conditions included an "Entire
Agreement" clause stating that the August 27th contract "replaces
any earlier oral or written understanding or agreements," and a
clause requiring that any claims "directly or indirectly arising
out of, relating to, or in connection with the Agreement regardless
of what legal theory" must be submitted to arbitration on an
individual basis.

While the Plaintiffs signed the August 27 agreement as well, they
allege that they were unaware that the agreement was not identical
to the version emailed to them on August 25, and had no reason to
suspect that the 'Order Confirmation' as characterized by the
Defendant, was actually a contract with terms which varied from the
original contract sent the prior day.

The Plaintiffs allege that over the following months they suffered
a series of issues with their home security system; the specifics
of those issues are not relevant for the present motion. During
their attempt to resolve those issues, the Plaintiffs requested and
received a copy of the August 27th agreement from the Defendant on
April 3, 2019; it was not until Nov. 4, 2019, that Plaintiff
Jeffrey Petrozzino discovered that the August 27th email had
"included a different version of the Agreement."

On Feb. 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint.
After the Court issued multiple orders to show cause related to
jurisdictional issues, they filed the operative amended complaint
on March 24, 2020. The putative class action complaint alleges four
causes of action: (1) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, both for the underlying issues with the security system and
the Defendant's actions related to them, and for the Defendant's
actions in getting the Plaintiffs to sign the August 27 agreement
which included the arbitration agreement; (2) breach of express and
implied warranties; (3) negligent misrepresentation; and (4) breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. On June 22, the
Defendant filed the present motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis and stay proceedings.

The Court finds that, under the standard applied to motions filed
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiffs have failed to put forth sufficient factual allegations
supporting a claim of fraud in the execution to defeat the present
Motion and justify further discovery on the question of
arbitrability.

District Judge Noel L. Hillman opines that the Plaintiffs have
simply failed to allege any misrepresentations that rise to the
level of intentional fraud by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs only
allege that the email made no mention of the fact that the 'Order
Confirmation' email had attached a different version of the
Agreement from the version sent the day before, and that they had
no reason to suspect that the 'Order Confirmation' as characterized
by the Defendant, was actually a contract with terms which varied
from the original contract.

Judge Hillman states that, these allegations, even if true, simply
do not rise to the level of fraud, or even necessarily constitute
misrepresentations. Simply put, the Plaintiffs have not alleged any
representations by the Defendant that could plausibly constitute
fraud. Nor have they alleged or demonstrated that they did not have
a reasonable opportunity to obtain knowledge of the agreement's
terms due to excusable ignorance.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently allege fraud in the execution of the August 27th
Purchase and Services Agreement. That agreement contains a clause
requiring them to arbitrate the rest of their claims on an
individual basis, and they have conceded that they signed the
agreement.

The Court, therefore, finds that the existence of an enforceable
arbitration clause is clear from the surface of the Plaintiffs'
complaint and the supporting documents, and that they have failed
to put forth evidence in opposition to this Motion sufficient to
put the enforceability of that clause into question. Further
discovery on the issue of arbitrability is unnecessary, and the
Court will grant the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis and stay this proceeding pending that
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 31, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y28vnxlf from Leagle.com.

BRANDON G. JOHNSON, GERSTEIN GRAYSON & COHEN LLP, in MT. LAUREL,
New Jersey, Attorney for Plaintiffs Jeffrey Petrozzino and
Christine, Petrozzino.

JENNY NICOLE PERKINS -- perkinsj@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR
LLP, in PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA; WILLIAM PATRICK REILEY --
reileyw@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR, in CHERRY HILL, New
Jersey, Attorneys for Defendant Vivint, Inc.


WESTWEGO, LA: Patton Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westwego City, et al.
The case is captioned as John Wesley Patton, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated v. Westwego City, Kenner City,
Jefferson Parish; Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, Jefferson
Parish District Attorney's Office, Indigent Defenders Board 24th
JDC, Westwego Police Department, Kenner Police Department,
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, Judiciary Commission of
Louisiana, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Office Internal
Management Bureau, Jon A. Gegenheimer, 24th JDC, CLerk of Court,
24th Judicial Administrator; 24th Judicial Judges, New Orleans
Family Justice Center, John Courtney Wilson, Attorney-at-Law,
Martin E. Regan, Jr., Attorney at Law and Network Strategist, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03408-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La., Dec. 14, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of
prisoners' civil rights.

The case is assigned to Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. [BN]

Plaintiff John Wesley Patton, who is currently incarcerated at
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center in Gretna, Louisiana, appears
pro se.

XTO ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Stayed in Kriley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY and TINA
KRILEY, THOMAS A. MICHEL and CAROL L. MICHEL, GERALDINE C.
WIEFLING, and CHARLES E. WADDINGHAM II and CAROL G. WADDINGHAM, v.
XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an order:

   1. staying and administratively closing case until the later
      of (i) the close of discovery related to class
      certification and (ii) the conclusion of the mediation
      preceding class certification in Salvatora v. XTO Energy
      Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv01097-CRE;

   2. directing the defendant XTO Energy to produce the
      documents it agreed to produce in response to the Kriley
      plaintiffs Request for Production No. 1; and

   3. directing the parties to submit a status report after the
      mediation in Salvatora v. XTO occurs. Clerk is to mark
      'CASE CLOSED'.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Classes, are:

          David A. Borkovic, Esq.
          JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP
          411 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburg PA, 15219
          E-mail: dab@jcg.com

Counsel for the Defendant, are:

          Justin H. Werner, Esq.
          Nicolle R. Snyder , Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          E-mail: jwerner@reedsmith.com
                  nbagnell@reedsmith.com

               - and -
          Elizabeth L. Tiblets, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          E-mail: Elizabeth.tiblets@klgates.com

[*] 1,548 Workplace-Related Class Action Rulings Set New Record
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Segal, writing for Forbes, reports that driven by the
pandemic, the 1,548 rulings on workplace-related litigation in the
U.S. last year set a new record, according to the 17th Annual
Workplace Class Action Litigation Report that was prepared and
released on Jan. 4 by Seyfarth Shaw, an employment and labor law
firm.

"The cases decided in 2020 foreshadow the direction of class action
litigation in the coming year," warned the report's author and
editor, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., a senior partner and co-chair of
the firm's class action defense group. "One certain conclusion is
that employment law class action and collective action litigation
is becoming ever more sophisticated and will continue to be a
source of significant financial exposure to employers well into the
future," he said.

Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, settlement values increased last
year for both the plaintiffs' bar and government enforcement
litigation, Maatman noted. "While the level of Federal enforcement
litigation slowed in 2020, employers should expect the new Biden
administration to reverse course and gear up for aggressive
litigation in 2021," he said.

The 850-page report analyzed the 1,548 class action rulings on wage
and hour, employment discrimination, Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), and other workplace lawsuits filed against
businesses last year. The rulings are up more than five percent
from 2019.

Sixty-one of the rulings concerned class actions related to the
Covid-19 pandemic or implications of the coronavirus in the
workplace. According to Maatman, the lawsuits included those filed
by employees who alleged they were "encouraged" to continue
attending work, were prevented from adequately washing hands or
sanitizing workstations, and that their employers' efforts fell
short of providing protection of their workers' health.

The first two chapters of the report are available as a PDF. Copies
of the entire litigation report can be requested on the report's
website.

Themes And Trends
The report identifies several emerging litigation trends that will
face U.S. companies this year. They include the impact of Covid-19,
the ramping up of workplace class action lawsuits by worker and
labor advocates, an increase in the size of settlements, a priority
on government enforcement litigation by the incoming Biden
administration, and an increase in wage and hour litigation.

Potential For Damage
Like other crisis situations, lawsuits can inflict serious damage
on companies and organizations.

"Today, workplace class actions remain at the top of the list of
challenges that keep business leaders up at night," Maatman
observed. "Whereas an adverse judgment has the potential to
bankrupt a business, adverse publicity from a threatened or ongoing
class action has the potential to eviscerate market share.

"At the same time, negotiated resolutions bring the potential for
'copy-cat' class actions and ‘follow on' claims, whereby multiple
groups of plaintiffs' lawyers create a domino effect of litigation
filings that challenge corporate policies and practices in numerous
jurisdictions at the same time or in succession. Hence, workplace
class actions can impair a corporation's business operations,
jeopardize the careers of senior management, and cost millions of
dollars to defend," he noted.

Top 10 Settlements
The report did not track all settlements, only the 10 largest ones,
which totaled $1.58 billion, an 18 percent increase over 2019
($1.34 billion), but down substantially from 2017 ($2.75 billion).
The settlements are down from previous years thanks to a 2018 U.S.
Supreme Court decision that led to fewer large class actions, and
steps by other courts that resulted in smaller-sized classes where
settlements are also smaller.

The 2020 report did not include pandemic-related settlements, and
none of the top 10 settlements analyzed in 2020 involved the
coronavirus. According to the report, the top 10 settlements " . .
. were spread out across the country, with California leading the
way with two settlements in federal court and two in state court.
Eight of the 10 settlements involved gender discrimination
allegations in areas such as pay, pregnancy, and sexual
misconduct."

The settlements included:

$310 million - In Re Alphabet, Inc. [Google's parent company]
Shareholder Derivative Litigation; a shareholder class action
lawsuit over allegations of sexual misconduct involving
executives.

$41 million - In Re Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Derivative Litigation; a
shareholder class action alleging sexual misconduct by senior
company officials.

$15.5 million - Florida Education Association, et al. v. State Of
Florida, Department Of Education; a class action settlement of race
discrimination claims involving teachers who alleged that a state
program paid them unequal bonuses based on race.

$14 million - Borders, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; a class
action settlement of pregnancy discrimination claims involving
pregnant workers who claimed they were denied the benefits offered
to other workers similarly-situated in their ability or inability
to work.

$14 million - Brown, et al. v. Cook County, Illinois; a class
action brought by female public defenders and law clerks alleging
the county did not protect them from regularly wrongful sexual
harassment inflicted by detainees and other men in the county
lockup.

$11.63 million - Rabin, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP; an
employment discrimination class action involving older job
applicants alleging they were denied employment because of their
age.

$7.75 million - Chen, et al. v. Western Digital Corp.; a class
action brought by 1,370 female employees against their employer
alleging violations of the California Equal Pay Act.

$3 million - Bokall, et al. v. Los Angeles Times Communications; a
class action lawsuit brought by employees alleging violations of
the California Equal Pay Act.

$3 million - Porter, et al. v. Pipefitters Association Local Union
597; a race discrimination class action where 350 African American
workers alleged, they were provided fewer job opportunities by a
union.

$2.8 million - Borrego, et al. v. Raley's Family Of Fine Stores; an
employment discrimination class action involving grocery store
workers who claimed the company discriminated against them based on
pregnancy.

Success and Failure Factors
Maatman observed that, "compliance with the patchwork quilt of
workplace laws at the federal, state, and local levels and
empathetic and effective treatment of employee problems and
concerns remain the twin fundamentals that often define success or
failure in dealing with high-stakes class action litigation.

"These essentials will become even more important in the coming
year as the plaintiffs' class action bar is posed to pivot off the
expected 'employee-friendly/ramped up business regulation' stance
of the incoming Biden Administration," he said.

Advice For Business Leaders
There are important steps business executives can take to address
issues in the workplace that can lead to litigation.

Maatman said, "Solid HR fundamentals remain among the best defense
mechanisms to identify and resolve workplace problems that often
grow into class actions." He recommended that business leaders:

Administer robust workplace policies and practices that provide
"workplace due process." This will ensure that if a worker has
problems, complaints, or grievances, the business will be poised to
investigate the issues, respond to the concerns, and remediate the
problems if required by law or the company's policies.
Consider using workplace arbitration agreements with employees that
contain class action waivers. The agreements, when properly drafted
and disseminated to a workforce, create a powerful risk management
tool to limit and control workplace class action litigation.

Invest in rigorous compliance with workplace laws -- especially
federal, state, and local laws that govern how workers are paid --
to eliminate problems that often result in workplace class actions.
[GN]


[*] Maurice Blackburn Mulls Business Insurance Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Fernyhough, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that law firm Maurice Blackburn says it has had "scores" of
inquiries following an advertising campaign for a potential case
against business interruption insurance providers.

Such a class action could force insurers, including IAG, Suncorp
and QBE, to settle claims they had so far steadfastly refused to
pay, despite losing a precedent-setting test case in the NSW Court
of Appeal in November. [GN]


[*] Securities Lawsuits v. Non-U.S. Cos. on Track for Record High
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP reports that the number of
securities class actions filed against non-U.S. companies in the
first half of 2020 outpaced the number of such filings in prior
years. According to a recent AIG report, of the 111 total core
filings commenced in the first half of 2020, 35 were against
non-U.S. companies, constituting a filing rate of 31.5%, which is
significantly higher than the rate of filings in the first half of
2019. AIG, US Securities Class Actions: International US-Listed
Companies, H1 2020, at 1 (June 26, 2020),
https://www.aig.co.uk/content/dam/aig/emea/united-kingdom/documents/Financial-lines/class-actions/class-actions-q2-2020.pdf.
In fact, these are the highest rates "observed since the wave of
filings related to reverse mergers in 2011," Cornerstone Research,
Securities Class Action Filings: 2020 Midyear Assessment, at 1
(2020), and are significantly higher than "the five-year average
annual foreign filer litigation rate of 16%," Kevin LaCroix, First
Half of 2020 Securities Suits Against Foreign Issuers Outpaced
Overall Filing Levels, The D&O Diary (Sept. 13, 2020),
https://www.dandodiary.com/2020/09/articles/international-d-o/first-half-2019-securities-suits-against-foreign-issuers-outpaced-overall-filing-levels/#more-20570.
Notably, the majority of these filings were asserted against
companies located in Asia, particularly in China. AIG, at 1.

As a consequence, total class action securities filings against
non-U.S. companies are on track to become the highest in recorded
history. The impact is even more striking when put into context.
Non-U.S. companies represent only 16% of all companies listed on
U.S. exchanges. That securities suits filed against non-U.S.
companies, which represent a small fraction of companies listed on
U.S. exchanges, make up 31.5% of the total filings suggests that
non-U.S. companies are more likely to be sued under U.S. securities
laws than domestic companies. In fact, core filings against S&P 500
firms appear to be slowing. See Cornerstone, at 2 (such filings
"occurred at an annualized rate of 4.8%, the lowest since 2015").

Legal Backdrop

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the most litigated provision of
the U.S. securities laws, makes it "unlawful for any person,
directly or indirectly … [t]o use or employ … any manipulative
or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention" of Securities
and Exchange Commission rules and regulations "in connection with
the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national
securities exchange or any security not so registered." 15 USC.
Sec. 78j(b). In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., the
Supreme Court considered the scope of the Exchange Act as foreign
companies and held that "there is no affirmative indication in the
Exchange Act that § 10(b) applies extraterritorially, and …
therefore conclude[d] that it does not." 561 US 247, 265 (2010).
The Court thus affirmatively limited the scope of the Exchange Act
to "only deceptive conduct ‘in connection with the purchase or
sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange
or any security not so registered.'" Id. at 266.

In light of Morrison, publicly-traded non-U.S. companies avoided
selling their securities on U.S. exchanges to limit exposure to
liability under the Exchange Act. Instead, many would only trade
their securities as American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") on U.S.
over-the-counter markets, believing this would insulate them from
liability under U.S. securities laws. This understanding has been
turned on its head due to the Ninth Circuit's 2018 decision in
Stoyas v. Toshia Corp., 896 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied
139 S.Ct. 2766 (2019).

In Stoyas, the Ninth Circuit considered whether Toshiba's ADR
transactions on the over-the-counter market, "as opposed to direct
purchases of Toshiba common stock" traded on the Tokyo Stock
Exchange, were subject to the Exchange Act. Id. at 939. In
determining that they were, the Ninth Circuit held that ADRs are
securities for purposes of the Exchange Act, id. at 943, and that
Morrison prescribed a "transaction test," which details the two
categories of transactions subject to the Exchange Act: those that
(1) "involve[] a security listed on a domestic exchange"; or (2)
"take[] place in the United States." Id. at 944. As to the first
category of transactions, the Ninth Circuit held that although the
Exchange Act regulates over-the-counter markets, the OTC Link (the
market at issue) could not be considered an "exchange" under the
Exchange Act. Turning to the second category, noting that the
Supreme Court did not articulate a test to determine whether a
transaction was "domestic," the Ninth Circuit adopted an
"irrevocable liability" test from the Second Circuit's decision in
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto, 677 F.3d 60 (2d
Cir. 2012), which dictates that "a securities transaction occurs
when the parties incur irrevocable liability," which would
determine both the timing and location of the transaction. Id. at
948 (quoting Activist Value, 677 F.3d at 67). The test requires a
plaintiff to plausibly allege "that the purchaser incurred
irrevocable liability within the United States to take and pay for
a security, or that the seller incurred irrevocable liability
within the United States to deliver a security," to be considered a
domestic transaction for purposes of Morrison. Id. Thus, the Ninth
Circuit held that, if properly pled, the sale of the ADRs at issue
could fall into the second category of transactions subject to the
Exchange Act under Morrison. Id. at 949.

Causes and Implications of The Trend

Although the implication of Morrison is that non-U.S. companies'
securities transactions on U.S. exchanges are subject to the
Exchange Act, that holding does not appear to account for the
steady rise in such claims since. Some commentators have argued
that the impact of cases like Stoyas may have a role to play in the
global trend of increased litigation against all non-U.S. companies
because such cases are expanding the scope of claims against
non-U.S. companies, even when they are not listed on U.S.
exchanges.

Though the statistics demonstrate that non-U.S. companies listed on
U.S. exchanges are more likely than domestic companies to be sued
for U.S. securities violations, some have argued that the increase
has little to do with the companies' locations, and more to do with
the industries in which they operate. For example, many conduct
business in high litigation risk industries, such as
pharmaceuticals and technology. Nevertheless, because U.S.-listed
Chinese and other Asian companies continue to be sued more
frequently than other foreign companies, U.S.-listed Asian
companies may constitute their own category of litigation risk.

Aside from the implications of increased litigation, i.e. greater
exposure to financial liability to settle or otherwise dispose of
such claims, the trend has also resulted in significant changes in
insurance pricing. Until recently, insurance carriers provided
insurance to directors and officers ("D&O insurance") of non-U.S.
companies at a significant discount to their domestic counterparts.
However, to account for the increased frequency and severity of
securities litigation against non-U.S. companies, insurance
carriers are now charging steeper premiums for D&O insurance to
non-U.S. companies.

Takeaway

The trend of increased securities class actions filed against
non-U.S. companies shows no indications of slowing. Such companies
should continue to monitor U.S. securities litigation against other
non-U.S. companies, assess their D&O insurance options, and
understand that certain industries are generally subject to greater
litigation risk than others. [GN]


[*] Squire Patton Releases 2021 TCPA Class Action Predictions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel L. Delnero, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that welcome to 2021,
TCPAWorld. May it be slightly less terrible than 2020. And on that
note, here are my predictions for the TCPA and calling regulations
in 2021.

1. Increase in state law claims.
Up until the past year, the major players in the TCPA plaintiff's
bar eschewed state statutes for nationwide class actions filed
solely under the TCPA. The reason for doing so is simple. They
leveraged the prospect of large, nationwide class actions to
extract million dollar settlements for even the most specious of
violations. The SPB class action defense team has a well-documented
history of beating such actions, but far too many defense teams
caved and simply paid to make the cases go away. So it was rational
for even the most sophisticated plaintiff's firms to turn out TCPA
class action after TCPA class action, with nary a mention of state
law.

That began to change in the last few years in circuits that
rejected Marks and required a random or sequential number
generator. In these circuits, plaintiff's attorneys began bringing
state-specific classes and subclasses under state ADAD and
telemarketing statutes that do not have random or sequential number
generation requirements. State statutes tend to have different
elements of proof than the TCPA, which can make it more difficult
to sustain a class, but many have two potential pitfalls:
significantly greater damages and fee-shifting provisions. With
these two pitfalls, plaintiff attorneys can make up for smaller
class size through the prospect of higher damage awards -- in some
cases as high as $15,000 per call -- and the prospect of attorneys'
fees awards.

I expect that this trend towards greater focus on state law claims
will continue even if the Supreme Court comes out of left field and
affirms Marks in Duguid, for the reasons in my next prediction.

2. Continued federal court hostility to no-injury class actions.
The Czar touched on this in his post about the Supreme Court's
recent grant of certiorari in an FCRA case, but it looks like
Spokeo finally has teeth in the TCPA context. That is, courts --
primarily in the Eleventh Circuit -- have started systematically
dismissing TCPA class actions where neither the plaintiff nor
putative class members suffered in real injury.

I anticipate that this trend will continue and will spread beyond
the Eleventh Circuit. Federal courts were already busy. And the
Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant backlogs in courts
throughout the country. Civil cases in general are often taking a
back seat as courts focus on criminal cases that have
constitutional and statutory speedy trial requirements. I suspect
that they will have little patience for cases were the only
"injury" is annoyance or receiving a few unwanted texts or phone
calls. As the Czar pointed out, the Eleventh Circuit has been
aggressive in turning back no-injury TCPA cases, and I suspect
courts in other circuits will start following suit.

3. Continued federal and state enforcement activity for actual
fraudulent calls.
Although the TCPA and its implementing regulations are filled with
ticky-tack requirements, federal enforcement authorities, both at
the DOJ and administrative agencies, have to prioritize where they
focus their resources. So it is no surprise that they focus on
calling campaigns that involve actual fraud and real consumer harm,
rather than ticky-tack "violations" for otherwise legitimate calls.
For example, federal agencies are much more likely to target a
company peddling a pyramid scheme than one with a 3.2% abandoned
call rate. Entering the new year, we expect that this trend will
continue, with a particular emphasis on Covid-19-related fraud.

We anticipate that the same trend will continue at the state level.
State agencies obviously have more resource constraints than
federal agencies, and therefore have to do an even greater job of
prioritizing enforcement resources on true bad actors. This reality
is likely to be starker in 2021, where the full effects of the
pandemic on state budgets will be felt.

4. Binding agency deference will become archaic.
Many commentators were surprised by how little deference was given
to federal agencies as PDR Networks worked its way through
appellate courts (including the Supreme Court, and back down to the
Fourth Circuit). I wasn't. I've been saying for the past 10 years
that agency deference -- even the entrenched Chevron deference --
are in real danger of suffering a death by a thousand wounds. Now,
I'm even more bullish on this view than I was even three years ago.
Rather than suffering a death by a thousand cuts, I believe it's at
least possible that agency deference will be killed or neutered by
one or two judicial bombs.

I became more bullish on this position because I no longer believe
that Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote on this issue. Instead
I think it's Kavanaugh. I always felt that even if Roberts had
doctrinal misgivings about agency deference, he would be reluctant
to allow a sweeping decision walking back decades of precedent.
With the current makeup of the Court, however, I believe such an
opinion is significantly more likely, with Roberts either
dissenting or concurring. If Kavanaugh is willing to sign onto a
broad opinion dispensing with agency deference as we know it, I see
it as a very real possibility.

This is my most controversial prediction, and I might look like an
idiot 12 months from now, but it's certainly how federal courts are
trending.

5. At least one major state will look seriously at banning
telemarketing calls.
I don't think it will actually happen in 2021, but I do think this
is the year where outright bans on telemarketing calls will start
to gain traction in state legislatures. We've been warning about
this dangerous undercurrent for a few years, and heard first hand
from a state senator in Colorado that they are considering the
issue. Thus far, outright bans have only been discussed informally,
or through fringe proposals that did not gain real traction. And
although I do not think any outright bans will actually be signed
into law in 2021, I do anticipate that they will gain more
mainstream consideration at the state level. You'll want to keep an
eye out for these, and get out ahead of the proposals. [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 2021. 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 ***