---

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

              Monday, January 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 7

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Socol Suit Over Mislabeled Onion Snacks
A&P RESTAURANT: Emeterio Collective Action Wins Conditional Status
AAIY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galindo Suit Alleges
ADMIRAL INDEMNITY: Cetta Appeals Dismissal of Coverage Denial Suit
ADVANCED DOMINO: Abdulzalieva Sues Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages

AIR METHODS: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Granted in Wagner Suit
AIR METHODS: Wagner Suit Seeks Appointment of Miller as Counsel
ALABAMA: Judge Endorses Denial of Jones' Class Status Bid
ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of Dixon's Class Status Bid
ALASKA CHIP: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Seeks OK of Settlement Reached in Martin Suit
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Asks Court to Stike Class Cert. Bid Materials
AMERICA'S PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Hensley Suit Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended to May 12
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Ramirez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

AUSTRALIA: Discusses Wage System of Indigenous People
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Minor's Wrongful Imprisonment
AUTO OWNERS: Family Tacos' Bid to Remand Class Suit Tossed
BACKJOY ORTHOTICS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BASIN VALVE: Dominguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

BBVA USA BANCSHARES: Drake Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir.
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Bid for Summary Judgment Junked
BMC STOCK: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
BRECQHOU LLC: Sosa Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination

BRIDGEBIO PHARMA: Facing Eidos Therapeutics Merger Related Suits
BUREAU VERITAS: Denied Pehkonen Proper Wages, Breaks, Paystubs
BUSINESS FUNDING: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Illegal Phone Calls
CANON USA: Employees Sue Over Data Breach
CAPRI NAILS: Li Seeks Overtime/Minimum Pay, Missed Wage Statements

CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
CAVIAR INC: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for August 9
CD PROJEKT: Polish Gov't Monitors Updates Amid Class Action
CLEARVIEW AI: Broccolino Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
CLIPPER LLC: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Suit Claims

CORVIAS GROUP: Another Fort Bragg Family Enters Into Class Action
COUNTERPATH CORP: Facing Chamala Putative Class Suit
CREDIT SERVICE: Court Nixed Gasper FDCPA Class Suit w/o Prejudice
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Appeals N.D. Ohio Ruling to 6th Cir.
DART CONTAINER: Conditional Settlement Class Wins Initial Cert.

DEADWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Cabrera Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
DEITSCH AND WRIGHT: McCray Appeals FDCPA Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
DELGADO'S DELI: Faces Villacis Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Carmona Employment Suit
ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL: Ellington Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.

EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Ballard Says BridgeBio Merger Deal Lacks Info
ENOVA INT'L: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Access of Credit Reports
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Benson Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
EXPRESS PICKUP: Perez Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
FCI SCHUYLKILL: Murphy Suit Seeks Class Action Certification

FIRST REPUBLIC: Hampel Sues Over Illegal Charges on Loan Balances
FORD MOTOR: Lyman Sues Over Automobiles' Oil Consumption Defects
FOREST LAB: Bid to Exclude Expert's Opinions Nixed in Namenda Suit
FORSTER & GARBUS: Singer Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 26 Deadline

FTS INT'L: April 12 Fairness Hearing Set for Glock Class Settlement
GEICO INDEMNITY: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Vortec Engine 5.3L Oil Consumption Lawsuit
GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Halcom Suit Over Increase of Premiums Rates
GISLASON & HUNTER: Stuckey Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim

HAYTAYAN JEWELERS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Merrell Claims
HERMES B NY: Faces Tolentino Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Connor Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
HOSPICE OF PALM: Admore Sues Over Illegal Background Check
HUTTIG BUILDING: 4th Cir. to Review Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit

IKEA US: Kingsley Sues Over Denied Wages, Breaks, Paystubs
INSTORE GROUP: Hogan Gets Certification of Vendor Associates Class
INT'L CONFERENCE: Faces Loftus Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
J&J VINYL: Underpays General Labor Crews, Lloyd Suit Alleges
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline

KEYME INC: Grey Says Kiosks Inaccessible to Disabled Persons
KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Choate Putative Class Suit in California Underway
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Dismissal of May Suit Under Appeal
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Zwillo Seeks 8th Cir Review in Insurance Suit

LIFESTYLE NUTRITION: Cooperative Medical Alleges Unsolicited Faxes
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Faces Greene Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MANHATTANVILLE COLLEGE: Laudati Files Suit in S.D. New York
MARIA D'S: Jackson Slams Illegal Tip Pool, Seeks Minimum Pay
MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Enterprises Files Suit in E.D. Virginia

MARKETPRO HOMEBUYERS: Bid to Stay Akselrod Class Suit Denied
MASIMO CORPORATION: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
MASTERCARD INC: Supreme Court Tosses Appeal in Collective Action
MCCAFFREE-SHORT: Craven et al. Seek Unpaid OT & Unreimbursed Costs
MDL 2543: Order Issued on Actions Tossed With Prejudice in GM Suit

MDL 2972: Second CMO Issued in Blackbaud Customer Data Breach Suit
MEDICAL SYNERGY: Cooperative Medical Sues Over Illegal Fax Ads
MELTECH INC: Bid to Reconsider Class Status Order Tossed
MENARD INC: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
MGT CAPITAL: Settlement in 2018 Securities Class Suit Gets Final OK

MIDWEST COMPOSITE: Trautman Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
MIDWEST MOLDING: Semper Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Genetic Screening Technology
NATURAL POWER: Faces Landy Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
NAZCA PERUVIAN: Corrales Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips

NEO CABINET: Galigher Gets Conditional Cert. of Employees Class
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Fails to Provide CFI Waiver Services, Price Claims
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: New York Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
NORTH DAKOTA: Sorum Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline

OREPAC BUILDING: 4th Cir. to Review Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
PDR NETWORK: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
PECKHAM INC: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
PERFORMANCE MASTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Says
PETER NYGARD: Lawyer Issues Apology to Sexual Assault Victim

PINTEREST INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 22 Deadline
PNC BANK: Borrowers Slam Undisclosed Fees and Charges
PREMIER HEALTH: Bellomy Files Suit in Ohio
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Gamble Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Exposed Customer Info

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lemon Files Suit Over Trading Platform
SAN DIEGO, CA: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to April 1
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Probes Securities Claims
SECURITAS SECURITY: Paulick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Dates OK'd

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Pomerantz Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Rosen Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
SENTINEL SECURITY: Johansen Files TCPA Suit in Utah
SHANE SMITH: Oden Appeals E.D. Ark. Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Cir.
SOLARWINDS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline

SOUTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Review in Planned Parenthood Suit Sought
STARS BAY: Viveros Sues Over Wrongful Termination Due to Disability
STEEL SUPPLEMENTS: Moore Slams Illegal SMS Ads
STORED VALUE: Court Approves Class Settlement Deal in Humphrey Suit
TATA CONSULTANCY: Ninth Circuit Affirms Judgment in Slaight Suit

TATE & KIRLIN: Matthias Class Suit Dismissed without Prejudice
TEVA BRANDED: Appelbaum Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
TRANS EXPRESS: Magistrate Judge to Conduct Class Settlement Hearing
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Hoffman Suit
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Ceres' Bid to Remand Class Suit Tossed

TREK BICYCLE: Faces Class Action Over Bontrager Helmet Claims
TRIPS INCENTIVES: Nieman et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Denies Class Action Over Data Breach
UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over TRESemme Hair Loss Claims
UNIONIZED CONSERVATION: Faces Another Land Trust Class Action

UNIQUE HEALTHCARE: Farhat Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
UNIVAR USA: Edwards FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
VEGGIE GRILL: Letiecq Demands Card BalanceRefund
VENUS ET FLEUR: Satovsky Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
VISA INC: Clients Can File Antitrust, Class Settlements Claims

WAL-MART: Joint Stipulation on Class Certification Briefing Granted
WALMART INC: Sold Mislabeled Ground Coffee, Smith Claims
WHOLE FOODS: Lichtman Sues Over Store Staff's Unpaid Wages
[*] South Korea Enacts Class Action Law on Workplace Accidents

                            *********

7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Socol Suit Over Mislabeled Onion Snacks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Socol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-00194-PMH (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 11, 2021) is brought pursuant to the New York General Business
Law arising out of the Defendant's false, deceptive and misleading
representation of its crunchy onion snacks labeled as "Yumions"
under the "7-Select" brand.

According to the complaint, the product's front label contains a
drawing of a green onion with pictures of the onion rings. The
picture of the onion and the statement of "Crunchy Onion Snacks" is
allegedly misleading because it gives reasonable consumers that the
product contains real onions in a non-de minimis amount. Instead,
the product is made mainly of fried corn meal with onion powder
included as a component of the "Seasoning" ingredient. The
Defendant misrepresented the product through affirmative statements
and omissions. The Defendant sold more units of the product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of the
misrepresentations and omissions, resulting in additional profits
at the expense of consumers like Plaintiff, the suit says.

7-Eleven, Inc. is an international chain of convenience stores,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was founded in 1927 as an
ice house storefront in Dallas. It was named Tote'm Stores between
1928 and 1946.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

A&P RESTAURANT: Emeterio Collective Action Wins Conditional Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO EMETERIO, on
behalf of himself, Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, v. A & P RESTAURANT CORP., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00970-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification of a collective action, on behalf of:

      "non-tipped employees at Remedy Diner;"

   2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed collective action
      notice and "consent to sue" form, which contemplate a 60-
      day opt-in period for collective actions members;

   3. denying the Plaintiff's categorical request for equitable
      tolling of the statute of limitation, without prejudice to
      an application from any opt-in plaintiff based on an
      individualized showing that tolling is warranted;

   4. denying the Plaintiff's request for notice to be sent to
      all non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants for
      the six-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint;

      -- instead, notice shall be sent - accompanied by a
         Spanish translation - to:

         "all current and former non-exempt employees (including
         line cooks, cooks, food preparers, stock persons,
         counterpersons, porters, dishwashers, food runners,
         delivery persons, busboys, and servers), employed by
         Defendants for the three year period prior to the
         filing of the Complaint (collectively, the "Covered
         Employees")";

   5. directing the Defendants to post notices -- in English and
      Spanish -- in a conspicuous non-public location at their
      place of business;

   6. directing the Defendants, within 10 days of this
      Memorandum Opinion and Order, to produce in Excel format
      the names, titles, compensation rates, dates of
      employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses,
      and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees;

      -- the Defendants shall not, in the first instance,
         produce Social Security numbers of Covered Employees;

      -- if a notice is returned as undeliverable, the
         Defendants shall provide the Social Security number of
         that individual to Plaintiff's counsel.

      -- any Social Security numbers so produced will be
         maintained by the Plaintiff's counsel alone and used
         for the sole purpose of performing a skip-trace to
         identify a new mailing address for notices returned as
         undeliverable; and

      -- all copies of Social Security numbers, including any
         electronic file or other document containing the
         numbers, will be destroyed once the skip-trace analysis
         is completed. Within fourteen days following the close
         of the opt-in period, the Plaintiff's counsel will
         certify in writing to the Court that the terms of this
         Order have been adhered to and that the destruction of
         the data is complete.

The Court said, "notably, the Defendants do not seriously argue
otherwise, at least to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks
preliminary certification of a collective action composed of
non-tipped employees at Remedy Diner. Instead, their primary
arguments are that the Plaintiff fails to show that Remedy Diner
and Jax Inn Diner should be treated as a single integrated
enterprise for purposes of the FLSA and that he fails to show that
he is similarly situation to either tipped employees at Remedy
Diner or to employees at Jax Inn Diner. Upon review of the parties'
supplemental submissions, including the transcript of Peter
Giannopolous's deposition, the Court disagrees. More specifically,
the deposition and Plaintiff's affidavit, taken together, establish
that there is a plausible basis to treat the two restaurants as a
single integrated enterprise for purposes of the FLSA and that
there are common issues of fact and law with respect to the
wage-and-hour policies applied to both tipped and non-tipped
employees at both Remedy Diner and the Jax Inn Diner."

The Plaintiff Francisco Emeterio brings claims pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York State Labor Law
(NYLL).

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3stZ3m6
at no extra charge.[CC]

AAIY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galindo Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ZENAIDO (A.K.A ISMAEL) BASURTO GALINDO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAIY INC. (D/B/A SOVA
CATERERS); ITAI ZOLAY; and YEHOUDA BITAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00212 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2021) 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 Arriaga was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Aaiy Inc. owns and operates a kosher catering company, located at
Bronx, NY, under the name "Sova Caterers". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ADMIRAL INDEMNITY: Cetta Appeals Dismissal of Coverage Denial Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Cetta, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL CETTA, INC. d/b/a SPARKS
STEAK HOUSE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-4612, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated entities and individuals who purchased all-risk commercial
property insurance policy from the Defendant, alleges that the
Defendant has denied claims for Business Income, Extra Expense, and
Civil Authority Coverages by policyholders despite the fact that
they suffered business interruption losses due to the government's
Closure Orders in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus.
The Closure Orders are physically impacting private commercial
property throughout the United States and the State of New York,
threatening the survival of thousands of restaurants, retail
establishments, and other businesses that have had their business
operations suspended or curtailed indefinitely by order of civil
authorities. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered a direct
physical loss of and damage to their property because they have
been unable to use their property for its intended purpose.
Moreover, the Plaintiff argues that the policy's exclusion of loss
due to virus or bacteria does not apply because the Plaintiff's and
other Class members' losses were not caused by a virus, bacterium
or other microorganism found in or on their insured properties but
rather by the Closure Orders.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal for review of the Court's
Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2020, and Judgment dated
December 11, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.


The appellate case is captioned as Michael Cetta, Inc. v. Admiral
Indemnity Company, Case No. 21-57, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, January 11, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Cetta, Inc., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, DBA Sparks Steak House, is
represented by:

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com

Defendant-Appellee Admiral Indemnity Company is represented by:

          Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
          ROBINSON & COLE LLP
          280 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-8388
          E-mail: wackerman@rc.com

               - and -

          Antonia B. Ianniello, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8087
          E-mail: aianniello@steptoe.com  

ADVANCED DOMINO: Abdulzalieva Sues Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TATYANA ABDULZALIEVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED DOMINO, INC., and DOMINO GROUP,
LLC, and PROGRESS VGA, LLC, and BORIS SALKINDER, individually, and
GENADI VINITSKI, individually, and YAKOV BEKKERMAN, individually,
and ALEKSANDR MALTSEV, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00124 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a cashier from
November 17, 2017 through December 23, 2020 at the Defendants'
supermarket located at 1842 Kings Highway, Brooklyn, New York
11229.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully denied her of
her lawfully earned wages at the statutorily required minimum wage
rate and at the statutorily required overtime rate of pay for the
hours she worked over 40 in a workweek under the FLSA and the NYLL.
In addition, the Defendant failed to provide her with a wage
statement on each payday that accurately stated the hours she
worked each week as well as a wage notice upon her date of hire
that accurately stated her regular and overtime rates of pay.

The Corporate Defendants operate a supermarket. Boris Salkinder is
the founder, co-owner, and general manager of Advanced Domino.
Genadi Vinitski and Yakov Bekkerman are co-owners and supervisors,
while Aleksandr Maltsev is the chief executive officer and
Director. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Tel: (212) 939-7229


AIR METHODS: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Order Granted in Wagner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wagner, et al., v. Air
Methods Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-00484 (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order granting the unopposed
motion to amend/correct/modify order on motion to certify class.

On Dec. 29, 2020, Judge Jackson entered an order certifying three
overtime classes as follows:

     "all persons employed by AMC as flight paramedics or flight
     nurses in [Michigan] [New Mexico] [Illinois] from February
     19, 2016 to the present;"

The Plaintiffs, flight paramedics and nurses who work or worked for
Air Methods Corporation in Michigan, New Mexico, and Illinois,
assert claims against their former employer under their respective
states' laws for what they allege to be improperly compensated
overtime hours.

AMC provides air ambulance services throughout the United States.
Flight paramedics and flight nurses are scheduled to work 24-hour
shifts.[CC]

AIR METHODS: Wagner Suit Seeks Appointment of Miller as Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM WAGNER, et al. v. AIR
METHODS CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order to modify the Court's December 29, 2020 Order to reflect
that Christopher D. Miller of Arnold & Miller, PLC is also
appointed class counsel for the plaintiffs in this matter.

While the Court appointed the firm of Arnold & Miller, PLC and
Charles W. Arnold, Esq. of same as class counsel, Mr. Miller is
integrally involved in this action and the parties are in agreement
that he should also be appointed class counsel in this action, the
Plaintiffs assert.

Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter operator. The
air medical division provides emergency medical services to between
70,000 and 100,000 patients every year. It operates in 48 states
and Haiti, with air medical as its primary business focus.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to modify court's
December 29, 2020 order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2N5BNKR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
          Charles W. Arnold, Esq.
          ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC
          121 Prosperous Place, Suite 6B
          Lexington, KY 40509
          Telephone: (859) 381-9999
          Facsimile: (859) 389-6666
          E-mail: cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com
                  carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Robert Cowan, Esq.
          COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC
          2401 Regency Road; Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 523-8883
          Facsimile: (859) 523-8885
          E-mail: kylaw@cowanlawky.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Moody, Esq.
          Repps D. Stanford, Esq.
          MOODY & STANFORD, P.C.
          4169 Montgomery Blvd. NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Telephone: (505) 944-0033
          Facsimile: (505) 944-0034
          E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com
                  stanford@nmlaborlaw.com

ALABAMA: Judge Endorses Denial of Jones' Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOREE JONES, No. 268 125,
v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMMISSIONER, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00542-RAH-CSC (M.D. Ala.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Soody recommended an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for a class certification.

The Court said, "Mr. Jones is a pro se inmate unschooled in the law
who seeks to represent the interests of several inmates currently
incarcerated at Red Eagle who have challenged their lack of
eligibility for certain custody classification assignments. Among
the requirements which litigants must meet in order to maintain an
action as a class action is that the "representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." While a
pro se inmate may "plead and conduct" his own claims in federal
court, 28 U.S.C.' 1654,
he has no concomitant right to litigate the claims of other
individuals. Under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned
finds that Dixon cannot adequately protect the interests of those
inmates at Red Eagle who are prospective class members and his
motion for class certification is therefore due to be denied."

On January 11, 2021, Mr. Jones filed a motion requesting class
action status under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In
this motion, Dixon requests class certification of this case on
behalf of several inmates confined at Red Eagle who have filed
civil actions with this court challenging the custody eligibility
issue presented in this case and presumably seeks to act as the
class representative.

The Alabama Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for
incarceration of convicted felons in the state of Alabama in the
United States. It is headquartered in the Alabama Criminal Justice
Center in Montgomery.

A copy of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LG9Mcm
at no extra charge.[CC]

ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of Dixon's Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL LYNN DIXON, No. 161
637, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMMISSIONER, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00524-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Soody recommended an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for a class certification.

The Court said, "Mr. Dixon is a pro se inmate unschooled in the law
who seeks to represent the interests of several inmates currently
incarcerated at Red Eagle who have challenged their lack of
eligibility for certain custody classification assignments. Among
the requirements which litigants must meet in order to maintain an
action as a class action is that the "representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." While a
pro se inmate may "plead and conduct" his own claims in federal
court, 28 U.S.C.' 1654, he has no concomitant right to litigate the
claims of other individuals. Under the circumstances of this case,
the undersigned finds that Dixon cannot adequately protect the
interests of those inmates at Red Eagle who are prospective class
members and his motion for class certification is therefore due to
be denied."

Mr. Darryl Dixon, a state inmate confined at the Red Eagle Honor
Farm proceeding pro se, files this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action
challenging the constitutionality of the classification process
utilized by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

On January 8, 2021, Dixon filed a motion requesting class action
status under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this
motion, Dixon requests class certification of this case on behalf
of several inmates confined at Red Eagle who have filed civil
actions with this court challenging the custody eligibility issue
presented in this case and presumably seeks to act as the class
representative.

The Alabama Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for
incarceration of convicted felons in the state of Alabama in the
United States. It is headquartered in the Alabama Criminal Justice
Center in Montgomery.

A copy of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oOWEjL
at no extra charge.[CC]

ALASKA CHIP: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Chip Company
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Alaska Chip Company LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00253 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2021).

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

Alaska Chip Company -- https://www.akchip.com/ -- makes gourmet
kettle cooked potatoes from Alaska grown potatoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Seeks OK of Settlement Reached in Martin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 5, 2020, that the parties in the
class action case styled, Martin v. Safeway, will seek court
approval of the settlement reach.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA.

The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the
Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. The Company has
answered the complaint and is vigorously defending the matter.

On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions
with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.

The parties will seek court approval of the settlement.

The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.

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

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.

ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Asks Court to Stike Class Cert. Bid Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H & T Fair Hills, Ltd.,
Mark Hein, Debra Hein, Nicholas Hein, Norman Zimmerman, Donna
Zimmerman, Steven Wherry, Valerie Wherry, Robert Ruebel, Mary
Ruebel and Larry Ruebel, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Alliance Pipeline L.P. a/k/a Alliance USA,
Case No. 0:19-cv-01095-JNE-BRT (D. Minn.), the Defendant Alliance
Pipeline moves the Court on an expedited basis for an order
striking certain materials submitted with the Plaintiffs' Reply
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification and
for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel.

Alliance bases this motion on this action's files, records, oral
arguments, and its briefing and supporting materials, which will be
filed and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules.

Alliance Pipeline transports natural gas from northeastern British
Columbia and northwestern Alberta, running underground through
Saskatchewan, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and terminating in
Illinois.

A copy of the Defendant's expedited motion to strike certain
materials submitted with the plaintiffs' class certification reply
dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3suhtmx at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant Alliance Pipeline L.P., are:

          Nicole M. Moen, Esq.
          Haley L. Waller Pitts, Esq.
          Patrick D.J. Mahlberg, Esq.
          Aron J. Frakes, Esq.
          Samuel M. Andre, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: 612.492.7000
          Facsimile: 612.492.7077
          E-mail: nmoen@fredlaw.com
                  hwallerpitts@fredlaw.com
                  pmahlberg@fredlaw.com
                  afrakes@fredlaw.com
                  sandre@fredlaw.com

AMERICA'S PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Hensley Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEEAARON HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. AMERICA'S PIZZA COMPANY, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT;
ADT PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, BRENT STOLSENTHALER, and ADAM
DIAMOND, ADT PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, BRENT STOLZENTHALER, and
ADAM DIAMOND, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00002 (W.D. Tex.,
January 8, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2016 to 2018 as a
delivery driver at the Defendants' Pizza Hut store in Kermit,
Texas.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants systematically failed to
adequately reimburse its delivery divers expenses because of its
unlawful reimbursement policy that reimburses its delivery drivers
on a per-delivery basis which equates to below the IRS business
mileage reimbursement rate. Although the Defendants' delivery
drivers incur automobile expenses while performing their delivery
duties for the Defendants, they were only reimbursed much less than
a reasonable approximation of their automobile expenses.

As a result of its flawed reimbursement policy, the Defendants
willfully failed to pay the federal minimum wage to the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated delivery drivers. In addition, the
Defendant failed to keep accurate records of deductions from its
delivery drivers' wages, the suit says.

The Corporate Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut pizza franchise
stores. Brent Stolzenthaler is the director of America's Pizza
Company, LLC, while Adam Diamond is the chief executive officer of
ADT Pizza, LLC. Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendant
APC has transferred all, or a portion, of its interest in certain
Pizza Hut franchise stores to ADT Pizza. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: mmathews@foresterhynie.com

                - and –

          Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Tel: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert. Filing Deadline Extended to May 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA VARGA,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-04380-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer
entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend the class
certification briefing deadlines:

   -- Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification - May 12,
      2021.

   -- Deadline to File Opposition to Motion for Class
      Certification – June 14, 2021.

   -- Deadline to File Reply in Support of Motion for Class
      Certification – July 5, 10 2021.

The Court has received and reviewed plaintiff Sylvia Varga and
defendant American Airlines Federal Credit Union's Joint
Stipulation to Extend the Class Certification Briefing Deadlines.
Based on the Stipulation and good cause appearing, the Court hereby
extends the class certification briefing deadlines by 60 days.

American Airlines Federal Credit Union Inc. operates as a financial
cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as loans,
investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and
other related services. American Airlines Federal Credit Union Inc
serves communities in the State of Texas.

A copy of the Court's order granting joint stipulation to extend
the class certification briefing deadlines dated Jan. 12, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35My4Zg at no
extra charge.[CC]

ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Ramirez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS GUADALUPE RAMIREZ, ESTELA ROCIO RAMIREZ, and ROSALINDA
ROSALES on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK; ST. JOSEPH OF THE HOLY FAMILY; JOSEPH
SAYEGH, LUANA DARSON, and JOSEPH KINDA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00231
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2021) is brought against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay severance,
failure to pay a week's salary per year of service at the time of
the termination of their employment, failure to provide wage notice
and paystubs per Section 195 of the NYLL, and race and ethnic
discrimination for terminating all Hispanic employees of Church of
St. Joseph of the Holy Family.

Plaintiff Nicolas Guadalupe Ramirez was employed by Defendant
Church of St. Joseph of the Holy Family at 405 West 125th Street,
New York, NY 10027 as a plant manager/head custodian.

Plaintiff Estela Rocio Ramirez was employed by Defendant Church of
St. Joseph of the Holy Family at 405 West 125th Street, New York,
NY 10027 as a nonexempt custodian assistant.

Plaintiff Rosalinda Rosales was employed by Defendant Church of St.
Joseph of the Holy Family at 405 West 125th Street, New York, NY
10027 as a nonexempt custodian assistant.

The Archdiocese of New York is an ecclesiastical district
encompassing 296 parishes in the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx,
and Staten Island in New York City and the counties of Dutchess,
Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster, and Westchester.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

AUSTRALIA: Discusses Wage System of Indigenous People
-----------------------------------------------------
Ella Archibald-Binge, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Waskam Emelda Davis was sitting in her favourite orange
armchair in her loungeroom on a cool winter's day when her phone
rang.

"Did you just hear this?" came her friend's voice down the line.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison had just been on radio, her friend
informed her, claiming there was no history of slavery in
Australia.

"I was enraged," says Davis.

The comments in June 2020, which the Prime Minister later
apologised for and clarified, prompted a fresh examination of
Australia's colonial history at the height of a reinvigorated
global Black Lives Matter movement.

The debate over the history of slavery in Australia is one that
resurfaces on a regular basis, much to the chagrin of the tens of
thousands of Indigenous workers who have been fighting for decades
to reclaim wages that were withheld from them under discriminatory
laws until the 1970s.

Each time, Davis dredges up the painful stories from her family's
past in a bid to set the record straight about a struggle
stretching back more than a century.

The 58-year-old has spent her life advocating for the rights of
Australian South Sea Islander people -- the descendants of men,
women and children known as "sugar slaves" who were taken from the
Pacific islands and forced into hard labour in Australia. She
chairs the Australian South Sea Islanders Port Jackson organisation
in Sydney.

"Slavery is slavery. You can't dress it up or dress it down," Davis
says. "The kidnapping, the coercing, the stealing and the serious
abuses that happened to our people . . . this is something that's
handed down through generations.''

So how did slavery operate in Australia? How long did the practices
continue? And how has it made a lasting impact on the nation?

What forms of slavery were in Australia?
Article 1 of the United Nations Slavery Convention defines slavery
as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the
powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised".

Around the time of colonisation in Australia - the First Fleet
arrived in 1788 -- an anti-slavery movement was growing in Britain.
The British Parliament abolished the Atlantic slave trade in 1807
and passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.

As such, there was to be no slave trade in Australia. However
numerous historians, legal experts and government officials have
found that the controls imposed on Pacific Islander and First
Nations peoples essentially amounted to slavery.

"It is true that Australia was not a 'slave state' in the manner of
the American South," writes Stephen Gray in the Australian
Indigenous Law Review.

"Nevertheless, employers exercised a high degree of control over
'their' Aboriginal workers who were, in some cases, bought and sold
as chattels . . . Employers exercised a form of 'legal coercion'
over their workers in a manner consistent with the legal
interpretation of slavery."

What was blackbirding?
Emelda Davis says her grandfather was 12 when he went for a swim at
the beach near his home on the island of Tanauta (formerly Tanna)
in Vanuatu and never returned.

He was kidnapped in the late 1800s, she says, and taken to
Bundaberg, in north Queensland, where he was put to work in the
cane fields.

At least 50,000 people, mostly men, from 80 Melanesian islands were
brought by boat to work in Australia's agriculture, maritime and
sugar industries. Some went voluntarily but many were coerced or
kidnapped. Their wages were less than a third of other workers.

The practice, known as blackbirding, was sanctioned by various
Queensland laws from the mid-1860s to 1904. Several members of
parliament grew wealthy through this system.

Those who chose to leave the islands signed three-year indenture
agreements, explains University of Queensland historian Professor
Clive Moore, but few knew what awaited them in Australia.

He says the indenture system has often been called "a new form of
slavery".

"Just think, you're a capitalist in the 1830s and 1840s and they've
just abolished slavery and you want cheap labour, so you scratch
your head and you say, 'Well, how can I get cheap labour?'.

"[Islanders] were legally indentured, but then you've got to ask,
did they understand the indenture system? Often no, they wouldn't
have had a clue what it really was . . . therefore you might say
the contract's invalid," he says.


Moore estimates 15,000 South Sea Islander people - around a third
of the workforce - died from common diseases during their first
year in Australia due to low immunity levels.

"The mortality figures are horrific," he says. "The government must
have known and yet it did absolutely nothing to try to stop it."

When the White Australia policy was enacted in 1901, the government
ordered the mass deportation of all South Sea Islander people,
sparking outrage among those who had built lives on the mainland
and wished to stay.

Ultimately, around 5000 workers were forcibly deported. In a cruel
twist of fate, their deportations were funded by the wages of
deceased South Sea Islanders, whose estates were controlled by the
government.

Those who remained were subject to racial discrimination and
embarked on a long journey to carve out their own place in
Australian society.

How did 'protection' usher in a new form of slavery?

It could be argued that what happened to South Sea Islander workers
was a precursor to the systematic wage controls imposed on
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups from around the 1890s,
notably in the pearling and cattle industries.

In the late 19th century, every mainland state and the Northern
Territory enacted laws, known as the protection acts, to control
the lives of Indigenous people. Prior to this, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander workers were routinely exploited.

Historian Dr Ros Kidd says there is evidence that women were used
as sex slaves, children were kidnapped and Aboriginal stockmen were
encouraged to form opium addictions to make them reliant on their
employers, who supplied the drug.

Kidd says the protection acts were largely introduced to ensure
industries remained profitable rather than to protect the welfare
of Indigenous people.

"Part of the problem, as the authorities saw it, was the rise of
inter-racial children and the fact that we, as the whites, needed
to assert some authority and regulation over all of this," she
says.

Under the protection acts, most Aboriginal people were removed from
their homelands and forced to live on missions or reserves run by
the church or government, respectively. Some South Sea Islander
people were subjected to the same controls.

Aboriginal people were forbidden from speaking their native
languages or practising their cultures, and children were separated
from their families and placed in dormitories.

Employment laws varied from state to state but, for the most part,
the wages of Aboriginal people were diverted to government-managed
trust funds, while local protectors managed the residue as legal
trustees. Official documents reveal protectors habitually defrauded
Aboriginal workers for much of the 20th century.

For most Queensland workers, the minimum monthly wage was set at
five shillings (around $24), less than one-eighth of the
non-Indigenous wage.

Sometimes, the worker would receive a small portion of that amount
as pocket money but, in many cases, they received nothing. Workers
could, in theory, withdraw from their trust account for necessities
but only with permission from the local protector. Requests were
often refused, or workers were falsely told they had no money.

Roy Savo is a former stockman who spent a decade working on
Queensland cattle stations from the age of 13. He says he didn't
see physical money until he was almost 20.

"When we wanted to go to the shop, they'd just write us a note and
say, 'Take that to the shop'," he says. "That's how we got through
life."

The 80-year-old says the bosses would not call the Aboriginal
workers by their names, referring to them only as "boy".

"They made you feel so low. When I think back, we were just no one,
nothing. We had no chance against the white people, they just ruled
our lives. We were one step from being an animal. In some places
you were told to sit out and eat with the animals anyway, out in
the wood heap."

When he was about 19, Savo ran away from his "job". Dodging
authorities, he continued to work at various cattle stations and
railways across far north Queensland and the Torres Strait, before
meeting his wife and starting a family in Silkwood, south of
Cairns.

In Western Australia, most employers weren't legally required to
pay Aboriginal workers at all until the 1940s, so long as they
provided rations, clothing and blankets.

Many workers in the Northern Territory died from starvation in the
1920s and '30s due to poor rations, records show. One
anthropologist reported that on one station, only 10 children
survived from 51 births during a five-year period. The government
declined to intervene. The chief protector in the Northern
Territory said in 1927 that Aboriginal pastoral workers were "kept
in a servitude that is nothing short of slavery".

Those who absconded from a work contract could be whipped, jailed
or arrested and brought back in chains.

Aboriginal children were routinely indentured to work, with boys
sent to farms and pastoral stations and girls to domestic service
for non-Indigenous families.

Their wages were supposed to be administered similarly to the
adults' but there was little to no regulation to ensure employers
complied with the law.

Protectors themselves described Queensland's Aboriginal wage system
as a "farce" in the 1940s, says Kidd, with workers "entirely at the
mercy of employers who simply doctored the books".

She notes the broad lack of oversight prompted one protector in the
Northern Territory to remark: "I think it is about time that
slavery is put a stop to among the natives of Australia."

When did this kind of slavery end?
The protection acts were gradually amended and replaced throughout
the second half of the 20th century but some controls endured until
at least 1972 -- the year Gough Whitlam was elected prime
minister.

And yet when the laws were repealed, the money held in trust was
never returned to Aboriginal workers. The unpaid funds have become
known as the stolen wages.

In Queensland, Aboriginal trust funds were used to cover government
revenue shortfalls. Millions were spent on regional hospitals.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars were used to facilitate the
forcible removal of Aboriginal families from their traditional
lands.

In today's money, Kidd conservatively estimates the missing or
misappropriated funds to total $500 million in Queensland alone.

"The government made a lot of money exploiting the savings accounts
for its own profit," she says . . . "This is while people were
starving and dying in need of these payments."

For decades, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been
fighting to get that money back.

In Queensland, thousands joined a class action to sue the
government. In 2019, the state government agreed to a landmark $190
million settlement. It was the largest settlement for Indigenous
people outside native title and the fifth-largest class action
settlement in Australian history.

But it was less than half what the workers were owed and by the
time the settlement was reached, more than half of the claimants
had died.

Similar class actions are being investigated in NSW and the NT
while one has been launched in WA. Australian South Sea Islanders
are also fighting for reparations for an estimated $38 million in
misspent wages of deceased workers.

A year after Queensland's class action was settled, Roy Savo still
doesn't know when, or how much, he will be paid for a decade's hard
labour. He fears it will be much less than he had hoped.

"I wanted to buy a home," he says. "But looking at what I'm going
to get now, I'm thinking it would be better putting it into some
trust or something for my funeral. I come in with nothing, go out
with nothing, I suppose."

What is the legacy of slavery in Australia?
As fate would have it, Emelda Davis' housing unit in the
inner-Sydney suburb of Pyrmont looks out to the refinery where the
raw sugar harvested by South Sea Islanders was once processed.

It's widely acknowledged much of Australia's wealth across the
sugar, pastoral and maritime industries was built on the backs of
Indigenous and South Sea Islander labour.

"The contribution of the 60-odd thousand [South Sea Islanders],
coupled with our First Nations families, is quite significant in
establishing what we call today the lucky country," Davis says.
"Our legacy is what people are thriving off today."

At the Redcliffe Hospital, north of Brisbane, there is a plaque to
acknowledge that it was built, in part, with a $1.7 million loan
from Aboriginal trust funds in the 1960s.

Similar plaques have been installed across Queensland, at the
recommendation of a 2016 taskforce, to recognise the labour and
financial contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people.

Yet many within these communities still live in poverty.
Disparities in health, education and employment between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous people are well documented.

Ros Kidd says this disadvantage is "inextricably linked" with
historical practices.

She says Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were excluded
from the capitalist society.

"They trapped people in what I would call engineered disadvantage
-- because it didn't happen by coincidence, it didn't happen
through an unfortunate set of circumstances. All of these
conditions and this poverty was specific government policy and
practice."

Australian South Sea Islanders, too, have inherited generations of
trauma and disadvantage. The community was officially recognised as
a distinct cultural group in 1994, but without targeted policies
Davis says they often "fall through the cracks", missing out on
support programs tailored for Indigenous Australians.

"We're at a point where it's completely desperate. There's no hope
in looking to our government for anything. It's just constant
hoop-jumping and lining up against everybody else in the queues for
rations," she says.

The legacy of trauma is also felt in the Pacific Islands.

On a beach in Vanuatu, there's a spot called Howling Rock, where
mothers would mourn their husbands and children who disappeared.
There are songs, passed through the generations, warning not to go
to certain beaches for risk of being taken.

But new generations in Australia have inherited something else from
their ancestors, too: strength.

Queensland artist Dylan Mooney, 24, has Aboriginal, Torres Strait
Islander and South Sea Islander heritage. His paternal
great-great-grandparents were blackbirded from Vanuatu. His
great-great-grandfather worked on sugar plantations in northern NSW
while his great-great-grandmother, Fanny Togo, was sold as a house
servant in Sydney.

Mooney says knowing what his ancestors went through has only
strengthened his sense of identity and pride.

"I carry that with me every day -- that strength, that resilience,
that story of survival." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Minor's Wrongful Imprisonment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that the federal
government is facing landmark class actions by 122 people who claim
they were detained or prosecuted as adults for suspected people
smuggling despite evidence they were children at the time.

The cases for alleged unlawful imprisonment and racial
discrimination are spearheaded by Ali Yasmin, a young Indonesian
crew member on a boat carrying asylum seekers who had his
conviction overturned after serving time in a Western Australian
adult prison.

The Australian government has rejected most of the allegations as
"scandalous and embarrassing", arguing that aspects of the cases,
such as alleged negligence, are aimed at circumventing time
limitations on claims.

Yasmin was taken to Christmas Island in December 2009 despite
telling immigration authorities he was 14. He was among dozens of
children prosecuted by Australian authorities between 2010 and 2012
after they were deemed adults using the now-discredited method of
wrist X-rays.

He spent more than two years in a maximum-security prison but was
released in 2012 and deported back to Indonesia due to doubts about
his age. His conviction was overturned in 2017.

In 2012, the Australian Human Rights Commission concluded that
Australia had committed "numerous breaches" of international human
rights law between 2008 and 2011 by giving "little weight to the
rights of this cohort of young Indonesians" as prosecutors and
police faced pressure to "take people smuggling seriously".

In two related cases now before the federal court in Victoria,
Yasmin claims that he and 121 others were brought to Australia
against their wishes after being apprehended on boats suspected of
illegal entry into Australian waters.

Yasmin argues in court documents that Australia breached
international laws that state people who might be children should
be treated as such until identified positively as adults.

Yasmin claims that 97 days of his detention were unlawful because
authorities applied an "undifferentiated" approach to adults and
children and breached the Migration Act's requirement that
detention be used as a last resort for minors.

He also claims to have been assaulted in Hakea prison in 2010 while
held on remand, a reference to an alleged sexual assault by another
inmate.

In the second case, Yasmin alleges breaches of the Racial
Discrimination Act and duties of care to the people detained,
relying on the AHRC's findings in its 2012 Age of Uncertainty
report.

The Australian government solicitor wrote to Yasmin's lawyers in
September warning it may seek to have the entire second case thrown
out based on deficient pleadings.

Given the "highly individual nature of the applicant's pleaded
claims, there must be substantial doubt" a class action on behalf
of all 122 members could succeed, the AGS said.

The AGS argued Yasmin's negligence claim was "vague" because it
failed to specify what alternative method to determine the
plaintiffs' age it could reasonably have used.

It claimed alleged "pressure" to prosecute Indonesian boat crew
members was "a pleading device that has been manufactured to serve
as a hook on which to hang the claims of discrimination".

The cases are scheduled to return to the federal court on 19
February for a case management hearing.

Yasmin and the plaintiffs are represented by Ken Cush & Associates
and have disclosed to the court the case is supported by a
litigation funding agreement - but the identity of the funder is
confidential.

A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said it was
"aware of these matters" but since they were "currently before the
court it would not be appropriate to comment further". [GN]


AUTO OWNERS: Family Tacos' Bid to Remand Class Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAMILY TACOS, LLC, v. AUTO
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-01922-JPC (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

The Court lacks discretion to remand the Plaintiff's breach of
contract and bad faith claims and declines to remand the
Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief. Having determined that
federal jurisdiction is proper, the Plaintiff shall have 21 days
from the date of this order to respond to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss or Strike Nationwide Class Action Allegations, the Court
says.

The Plaintiff Family Tacos, LLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of a
putative class against the Defendant Auto Owners Insurance Company
in State court, which Defendant removed to federal court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 and 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

The Plaintiff is an Ohio limited liability company that operates
two restaurants in Portage County.

The Defendant is a property and casualty insurer, which issued a
commercial business insurance policy to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims it lost business income because of the
COVID-19 pandemic and that the insurance policy covers the loss.
Further, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has or will
wrongly deny insurance claims for losses caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiff' seeks to bring its claims on behalf of (1) a
nationwide class seeking declaratory relief; (2) a nationwide
sub-class seeking restitution and monetary damages; and (3) an Ohio
sub-class for insurance bad faith under Ohio law.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nNkoDj at no extra charge.[CC]

BACKJOY ORTHOTICS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BackJoy Orthotics,
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BackJoy Orthotics, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00255 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2021).

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

BackJoy -- https://www.backjoy.com/ -- develops posture improvement
seat, sleep products which are sold through a global supply chain
and distribution system spanning more than 40 countries via
regional hubs in the U.S., Asia and Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


BASIN VALVE: Dominguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BASIN VALVE COMPANY.
The case is styled as Jose Dominguez, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. BASIN VALVE COMPANY, a California
corporation, Case No. BCV-21-100069 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Jan. 12, 2021).

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

Basin Valve Company -- http://www.basinvalve.com/-- was founded in
1999. The company's line of business includes specialized repair
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700-208
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 619-826-6975
          Fax: 619-599-8291


BBVA USA BANCSHARES: Drake Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine D. Drake, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., as named
fiduciary, Rosilyn Houston, Shane Clanton, Javier Hernandez, Kirk
Presley, Celia Niehaus, Joe Cartee, Jim Heslop, Angel Reglero,
individually and as members of the Investment Committee, Envestnet
Asset Management, Inc. as investment fiduciary, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-02076, (N.D. Ala., December 28, 2020), seeks damages,
equitable or remedial relief, attorneys' fees and expenses and any
other relief for breach of fiduciary duty and for violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Compass SmartInvestor 401(k) Plan is a defined contribution,
individual account, employee benefit plan that provides for the
retirement savings and income of employees of BBVA. The plan's
retirement committee allegedly failed to replace its stable value
fund, made bad bets on mutual funds that incurred additional fees
with unrealistic expectation of beating the market, failed to
follow its own guidelines for monitoring the fees and the
performance of investment options and failed to adequately disclose
to plan participants the information they needed to make informed
investment decisions.

Envestnet was the plan's investment advisor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James H. White, IV, Esq.
     JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
     Landmark Center. Suite 600
     2100 1st Ave North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 383-1812
     Email: james@whitefirmllc.com

            - and -

     D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
     WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
     301 19th Street North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 314-0500
     Email: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
            cmalmat@wigginschilds.com

            - and -

     Lange Clark, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LANGE CLARK, P.C.
     301 19th Street North, Suite 550
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 939-3933
     Email: langeclark@langeclark.com


BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Amitabho Chattopadhyay, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Amitabho
Chattopadhyay, and Unite the People, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.,
Simple Finance Technology Corp. aka Simple Bank, BBVA Compass
Financial Corporation, and Compass Bank, Case No.
4:19-cv-01541-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants policy of refusing to allow non-citizen aliens to
open a checking account with their "Simple Bank" service on the
basis of their citizenship and/or immigration status is arbitrary,
discriminatory and violates the above aforementioned Acts, asserts
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 2, 2020, granting Defendant BBVA USA's motion to
dismiss by Judge Jon S. Tigar.

The appellate case is captioned as Amitabho Chattopadhyay, et al.
v. BBVA USA, et al., Case No. 21-15017, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Amitabho Chattopadhyay and Vitalii Tymchyshyn
Mediation Questionnaire is due on January 12, 2021;

   -- Appellants Amitabho Chattopadhyay and Vitalii Tymchyshyn
opening brief is due on March 5, 2021;

   -- Appellee BBVA USA answering brief is due on April 5, 2021;
and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants AMITABHO CHATTOPADHYAY and VITALII
TYMCHYSHYN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Erin Louise Brinkman, Esq.
          PURSUIT OF JUSTICE
          5042 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 46275
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (916) 917-0855
          E-mail: erin_brinkman@post.harvard.edu

               - and -

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Anne Shaver, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com   

Defendant-Appellee BBVA USA, FKA Compass Bank, is represented by:

          Camille A. Cameron, Esq.
          Andrew John Demko, Esq.
          Gregory S. Korman, I, Esq.
          Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4400
          E-mail: camille.cameron@katten.com
                  andrew.demko@katten.com
                  greg.korman@katten.com
                  stuart.richter@katten.com

BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Bid for Summary Judgment Junked
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES BAIRD, et al., v.
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-01892-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
      Judgment, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, and the
      Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   2. granting the parties' administrative motions to seal.

The Court said, "Regarding the Plaintiffs' disclosure claim, the
Defendants revisit the arguments they advanced in their motion to
dismiss and continue to argue that the claim must be dismissed as a
matter of law. See Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Tr. Co., N.A.,
403 F. Supp. 3d 765, 781-82 (N.D. Cal. 2019); For the reasons
explained in the order on the motion to dismiss, the Court declines
to revisit its legal ruling and denies summary judgment on the
disclosure claim. Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment."

BlackRock Institutional operates as an investment management
company. The Company offers asset management, ETFs, risk analysis,
valuations, investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sAffSC at no extra charge.[CC]

BMC STOCK: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled In re: Interior Molded Doors
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00718-JAG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Grubb Lumber Company brings this action on its own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover treble damages
and other appropriate relief based on Defendants' violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, arising from the Defendants' collusive pricing and
illegal scheme for "interior molded doors."

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order
dated December 28, 2020, denying the non-parties' motions to
intervene. Because the Court has denied the non-parties' motions to
intervene, it DENIES their other pending motions, including the
motion to stay. Further, because Defendants Jeld-Wen and Masonite
have voluntarily dismissed their appeals of this Court's denial of
their motions to reconsider the Unsealing Order, the Court VACATES
its Orders staying the Unsealing Order. The Court directs the
parties to file public copies of the documents in this case, with
the redactions discussed in the Unsealing Order, on or before
January 11, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Grubb Lumber Company, Inc. v.
BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., Case No. 21-1008, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and PHILADELPHIA
RESERVE SUPPLY CO. are represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC
          1111 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com  

               - and -

          Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC
          440 Monticello Avenue
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628-5525
          E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com

               - and -

          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 Saint Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0202
          E-mail: jsindoni@bonizack.com  

Defendant-Appellant BMC STOCK HOLDINGS, INC. is represented by:

          Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
          Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq.
          Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
          4131 Parklake Avenue, P. O. Box 33550
          Raleigh, NC 27636-0000
          Telephone: (919) 573-1292
          E-mail: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
                  preetha.sureshrini@elliswinters.com
                  tom.segars@elliswinters.com  

               - and -

          Andrew Philip Sherrod, Esq.
          HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC
          2100 East Cary Street
          Richmond, VA 23218-0500
          Telephone: (804) 771-9575  
          E-mail: rwhite@hirschlerlaw.com

BRECQHOU LLC: Sosa Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
CONRADO CAMACHO SOSA, DAVID CRUZ, and TERESA GARCIA, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. BRECQHOU
LLC d/b/a THE EAST POLE KITCHEN & BAR, ST. HELIER TAVERN LLC d/b/a
CANAL STREET OYSTERS, JETHOU LLC d/b/a PIZZA BEACH, LIHOU LLC d/b/a
THE EAST POLE FISH BAR, HERM LLC d/b/a EASTFIELDS KITCHEN & BAR,
406 BROOM ST. REST INC. d/b/a BRINKLEY'S, BROOM STREET HOSPITALITY,
THOMAS MARTIGNETTI, and ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI, Case No. 1:21-cv-00217
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11. 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them the
full amount of wages due because of time shaving, failed to pay
minimum wages, and discriminated against Plaintiff Sosa by creating
a hostile work environment on the basis of his sex.

From on or about July 7, 2014, until on or about July 26, 2019,
Plaintiff Sosa was employed by the Defendants as a cook at the East
Pole Kitchen & Bar.

From 2012 until May 2018, Plaintiff Cruz was employed by the
Defendants as a food runner at the East Pole Kitchen & Bar.

From in or about June 2017 until on or about August 15, 2019,
Plaintiff Garcia worked as a food preparer at the Defendants' The
East Pole Kitchen & Bar restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control several restaurants in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

BRIDGEBIO PHARMA: Facing Eidos Therapeutics Merger Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgebio Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 12, 2021, that
the company is facing several suits including putative class action
suits related to its merger with Eidos Therapeutics, Inc.

On October 5, 2020, BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
and Eidos Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 5, 2020, by
and among BridgeBio, Eidos, Globe Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of BridgeBio,
and Globe Merger Sub II, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BridgeBio, providing for the
acquisition of Eidos by BridgeBio.

Since the October 5, 2020 announcement of the Merger Agreement,
four putative class action complaints have been filed in United
States District Courts. Two putative class action complaints have
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Eidos, its directors, BridgeBio,
Merger Sub and Merger Sub II and are captioned Alex Ciccotelli v.
Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10592 (filed
December 15, 2020) and Marc Waterman v. Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00213 (filed January 11, 2021).

Two putative class action complaints have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Eidos and its directors and are captioned Stephen Bushanksy
v. Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-09308 (filed
December 23, 2020) and William Ballard v. Eidos Therapeutics, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00228 (filed January 11, 2021).

One putative class action complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Eidos and its directors and is captioned John Mullen v. Eidos
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-06337 (filed December
29, 2020).

The plaintiffs in the Ciccotelli Complaint and the Waterman
Complaint, who purport to be stockholders of BridgeBio, generally
allege that BridgeBio's definitive proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020 (the
"BridgeBio Definitive Proxy Statement") omitted certain material
information in connection with the Transaction. The plaintiffs in
the Ciccotelli Complaint and the Waterman Complaint also purport to
be stockholders of Eidos, and likewise generally allege that Eidos'
definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on December 15, 2020
(the "Eidos Definitive Proxy Statement") omitted certain material
information in connection with the Transaction.

The plaintiffs in the Bushansky Complaint, the Ballard Complaint
and the Mullen Complaint, who purport to be stockholders of Eidos,
also generally allege that the Eidos Definitive Proxy Statement
omitted certain material information in connection with the
Transaction.

The plaintiffs seek various remedies, including, among other
things, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the
Transaction unless certain allegedly material information is
disclosed, an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, rescission of
the Transaction or an award of damages should the Transaction be
consummated.

BridgeBio and Eidos believe that the claims asserted in the
Transaction Litigation are without merit and no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to
avoid the risk of the Transaction Litigation delaying or adversely
affecting the Transaction and to minimize the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, BridgeBio has determined to voluntarily
supplement the BridgeBio Definitive Proxy Statement. Nothing shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. On the
contrary, BridgeBio and Eidos specifically deny all allegations
made against BridgeBio or Eidos, as applicable, in the Transaction
Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is required.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3sxiZnU.

Bridgebio Pharma, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The
Company focuses on development of medicines for genetic diseases.
Bridgebio Pharma serves patients worldwide. The company is based in
Palo Alto, California.


BUREAU VERITAS: Denied Pehkonen Proper Wages, Breaks, Paystubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Pehkonen, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bureau Veritas Commodities and
Trade, Inc. (f/k/a Inspectorate American Corporation) and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20STCV49152 (E.D. Cal.
December 23, 2020), seeks redress for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks and proper wage
statements and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge including
waiting time penalties under the Unfair Business Practices statutes
of the California Business and Professions Code, California's
Unfair Competition Law, the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

The complaint alleges that Pehkonen works for Bureau Veritas as a
non-exempt, hourly-paid employee without being paid all wages due.
Defendants failed to record accurate time worked, failed to pay
them at the appropriate rates for all hours worked and requiring
them to work off the clock. Defendants further failed to accurately
record time worked by rounding hours worked to the nearest quarter
hour to their detriment. Defendants allegedly provided Pehkonen
with inaccurate wage statements and failed to provide meal and rest
periods as required by the Labor Code, the complaint adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
             roman@yeremianlaw.com.

             - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Tel: (888) 474-7242
      Fax: (562) 256-1006
      Email: walterhaines@yahoo.com


BUSINESS FUNDING: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Illegal Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and MARIANO BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUSINESS FUNDING NY
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00180 (C.D. Cal., January 8, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiffs
on their cellular telephone numbers via an "automatic telephone
dialing system" in an attempt to promote its services. Aside from
the fact that the Defendant's calls were not for emergency
purposes, the telephone numbers that the Defendant called were
causing the Plaintiffs to incur certain charges for incoming calls
and messages. Moreover, the Defendant did not obtain the
Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive calls via an ATDS on
their cellular telephones.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
members of the Class were harmed and suffered damages. Thus, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals who
were contacted by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, statutory and treble
damages, and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper,
the suit says.

Business Funding NY Inc. is a busines financing company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


CANON USA: Employees Sue Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------
Mike Finnigan, Kenneth Buchbinder, Brian McCartney, Tyrone
Villacis, Luis Pichardo and Kristin Serkowski, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Canon
U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06239 (E.D. N.Y., December
23, 2020), seek to recover damages and other relief, compensatory
damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief, such as improvements to Canon's
data security system, future annual audits and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Canon to mitigate future harms
arising out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and resulting
data breach at Canon. The lawsuit also seeks redress for negligence
and negligence per se, an intrusion upon seclusion, breach of an
express and implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty and
violations of New York Business Law Section 349 and other state
consumer protection statutes.

Canon provides consumer, industrial, and business-to-business
imaging solutions. The ransomware attack disrupted operations by
causing a shutdown of multiple applications used by Canon and
blocked access to confidential data stored on its network and
computer systems. Canon employees and their beneficiaries have had
their confidential information compromised including bank account
numbers and routing numbers, Social Security Numbers, driver's
license numbers, government-issued identification numbers,
electronic signatures and dates of birth, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Telephone: (845) 356-2570
      Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
      Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
             memert@kgglaw.com

             - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      David K. Lietz, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
      Washington, DC 20016
      Phone: (202) 640-1160
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com
             dlietz@masonllp.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Tel: (312) 283-3814
      Email: gklinger@masonllp.com


CAPRI NAILS: Li Seeks Overtime/Minimum Pay, Missed Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dequan Li, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Capri Nails & Eco Spa Inc., NY Capri Nails &
Spa Inc., Sungjun An, Heekyoung An and Jaewoo Kim, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-06296, (E.D. N.Y., December 29, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws.

Defendants operate two nail salon stores in New York where Li
worked as a masseuse. She claims to be denied lawful overtime
compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over forty in a given workweek, and full and
accurate records of hours and wages. She also claims to be denied
wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com


CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cards Against Humanity, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-10971, (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 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, New York State Human Rights
Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a party game company, and owns and operates the
website, store.cardsagainsthumanity.com. Sanchez is legally blind
and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


CAVIAR INC: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for August 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFIN CHERRY HILL LLC, et
al., v. CAVIAR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00403-SK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order setting hearing date for
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on August 9, 2021.

   -- Opening motion for class certification shall be filed by
      no later than April 22, 2021;

   -- Opposition to motion for class certification shall be
      filed by no later than June 8, 2021; and

   -- Reply in support of motion for class certification shall
      be filed by no later than July 16, 2021.

Caviar doing business as Try Caviar, offers food delivery services
from restaurants.

A copy of  the Court's case management and pretrial order dated
Jan. 12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2LRQyQW at no extra charge.[CC]


CD PROJEKT: Polish Gov't Monitors Updates Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Reeves, writing for ScreenRant, reports that the Polish
Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) is the latest
entity to take an interest in CD Projekt Red's development of
Cyberpunk 2077, as the government agency plans to monitor the
domestic studio's progress as it rolls out patches and updates -
especially on consoles. To put it lightly, Cyberpunk 2077 did not
launch under the best circumstances last month. Following a
controversy surrounding reviews and their utter absence for
PlayStation and Xbox hardware at launch, the long-awaited RPG
proved to be a technical mess on last-gen consoles, but abysmal
frame rates, subpar graphics, and constant crashes were only part
of the problem.

CD Projekt quickly began facing accusations of purposefully
misleading consumers, leading to a refund fiasco that culminated in
PlayStation delisting the title on its storefront. Meanwhile, the
likes of Xbox, Best Buy, and GameStop briefly adjusted their refund
policies for Cyberpunk 2077 returns. To make matters worse, the
Polish studio will also have to defend itself against class-action
lawsuits filed by its investors. However, CD Projekt shareholders
aren't the only ones asking tough questions.

Polish agency UOKiK now has its eye on the situation, too. The
Polish website Benchmark.pl (translated via Reddit) reports that
UOKiK spokesperson Małgorzata Cieloch states that the agency will
now monitor Cyberpunk 2077 post-launch updates, especially with
regards to fixes that should stabilize console iterations.
Cieloch's translated statement notes that CD Projekt will get to
explain what went wrong with the final build. Apparently, UOKiK is
also interested in how the company may respond to dissatisfied
customers. Reportedly, if the UOKiK President makes a decision that
doesn't end in the studio's favor, the company could be fined for
up to 10 percent of its annual revenue. Even with the 13 million
copies sold at Cyberpunk 2077's launch, that would be a hefty price
to pay.

The full translation version of Cieloch's statement reads:

"We ask the entrepreneur to explain the problems with the game and
actions taken by him. We will check how the producer is working on
making corrections or solving difficulties that make it impossible
to play on consoles, but also how he intends to act towards people
who have made complaints and are dissatisfied with the purchase due
to the lack of possibility to play the game on their equipment
despite previous assurances of the producer."

Interestingly, this may not be the end of publisher CD Projekt's
Cyberpunk 2077-related troubles. For instance, the lawsuits filed,
so far, only concern the company's investors. Who knows if there
are consumers planning to take up actions of their own, similar to
class-action suits leveled against Bethesda for Fallout 76 and
Sega's and Gearbox's own fiasco with Aliens: Colonial Marines.

At the very least, the developers at CD Projekt Red are working to
rectify the various issues still plaguing Cyberpunk 2077. The last
big patch went live across all platforms in late December 2020, and
there are two more major ones on the near horizon. The first of
such should launch this month, with a second slated to roll out
sometime in February.

Cyberpunk 2077 is available now on PS4, Xbox One, PC, and Google
Stadia, and it will launch on PS5 and Xbox Series X/S in 2021.
[GN]


CLEARVIEW AI: Broccolino Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maria Broccolino, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Clearview AI, Inc., Defendant; David
Mutnick, Intervenor; Case No. 1:20-cv-02222, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Jan. 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00169 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Clearview AI -- https://clearview.ai/ -- is a new research tool
used by law enforcement agencies to identify perpetrators and
victims of crimes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: (845) 356-2570
          Email: memert@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (212) 292-4441
          Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lee Scott Wolosky, Esq.
          Andrew Joshua Lichtman, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          38th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 891-1628
          Email: LWolosky@Jenner.com
                 alichtman@jenner.com

               - and -

          Floyd Abrams, Esq.
          Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL  LLP
          32 Old Slip
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 701-3622
          Email: FAbrams@cahill.com
                 JKurtzberg@cahill.com

The Intervenor is represented by:

          Karen Anne Newirth, Esq.
          Scott Drury, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: (718) 490-0028
          Email: karen@loevy.com
                 drury@loevy.com


CLIPPER LLC: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAIM SARWAR, individually, Plaintiff v. CLIPPER, LLC, Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00009-GZS (D. Me.,
January 7, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is bound to ambulate in a wheelchair or with a cane
or other support, has limited use of her hands because she cannot
tightly grasp, pinch and twist of the wrist to operate, and is also
a vision impaired.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
Websites for the purpose of reviewing and assessing the accessible
features at the Defendant's Property to ascertain whether they meet
the requirements of the ADA's 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302 and her
accessibility needs. However, the Defendant allegedly failed to
comply with the requirements, which has deprived the Plaintiff the
same goods, services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages,
and accommodations of the Property available to the general public.
Specifically, the Defendant's hotel online reservations service
operating through various websites failed to identify accessible
rooms, failed to provide an option for booking an accessible room,
and did not provide sufficient information as to whether the rooms
or features at the hotel are accessible.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant infringed her right to
travel free of discrimination. As a result, the Plaintiff has
suffered frustration and humiliation. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs.

Clipper, LLC operates a lodging place known as Yankee Clipper Motel
50 Searsport Avenue, Belfast, ME 04915. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Ruggiero, Esq.
          275 Grove St., Suite 2-400
          Newton, MA 02466
          Tel: (339) 237-0343
          E-mail: druggieroesq@gmail.com


CORVIAS GROUP: Another Fort Bragg Family Enters Into Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Riley, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports that
another Fort Bragg family has entered into a class-action complaint
against Fort Bragg's housing provider, Corvias, as Corvias looks to
have the class-action complaint dropped.

On June 24, three Fort Bragg families filed complaints against
Corvias and its partners.

The plaintiffs dismissed their claims Sept. 1 against Corvias
founder John Picerne and Heather Fuller, operations director for
Corvias at Fort Bragg, but amended the complaint for Corvias and
its affiliates to remain on the complaint.

The remaining defendants include Corvias Group, Bragg Communities,
Corvias Management-Army, Bragg-Picerne Partners, Corvias Military
Living, and Corvias Construction.

The amended complaint also includes new plaintiffs Cpl. Timothy
Murphy and his wife, Katelyn Murphy.

Staff Sgt. Shane Page and his wife, Brittany Page, Spc. Spenser
Ganske and his wife, Emily Ganske, and Sgt. 1st Class Christopher
Wilkies and his wife, Ashley Wilkies, are listed on the original
and amended complaint.

Lawyers for the defendants have asked the court to strike the class
allegations in the amended complaint for not meeting requirements
for class certification.

The complaint alleges the defendants "conspired to conceal harmful
environmental and structural housing defects from unsuspecting
service members and their families and failed to comply with
applicable building and housing codes."

The complaint continues to allege that the defendants "knowingly
leased substandard homes" while "charging grossly excessive rents
swallowing up the whole of servicemembers' basic allowance for
housing."

It alleges service vendors were instructed to "conceal defects from
tenants" and maintenance recordkeeping was "misleading."

"The court need not take plaintiffs' word for it: a critical mass
of tenant pleas for help has led to congressional and federal
governmental agency investigation, hearings and reports which have
revealed the unreasonable practices and intolerable conditions,"
the families allege in their complaint, referring to Government
Accountability Office reports and congressional hearings.

The Pages started living in Fort Bragg housing in 2016.

The Ganskes started living at Fort Bragg in September 2018, the
Wilkeses have lived at Fort Bragg since March 2017, and the Murphys
have lived at Fort Bragg since February 2019.

The defendants are seeking class-action damages exceeding $5
million.

On Oct. 30, lawyers for the Corvias defendants asked the court to
strike the allegations in the complaint, arguing it does not meet
requirements for class certification.

"Plaintiffs assert a series of individualized claims arising from
diverse and distinct maintenance issues and housing experiences
that allegedly occurred in the homes they rented from Defendant
Bragg Communities," the defense attorneys wrote in their motion.

The defense says in its response that a class-action complaint
would require inquiries of tenants of more than 6,000 homes on Fort
Bragg.

"Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of these individual allegations,
and not from any general conduct directed toward the class as a
whole," attorneys wrote. "Proving that one Plaintiff's house had a
particular maintenance issue does not prove the same issue occurred
at any other plaintiff's house."

"This remains true even if one accepts (the) plaintiffs' allegation
that (the) defendants are guilty of consistently poor maintenance
practices -- an allegation that (the) defendants categorically
deny," the Corvias attorneys argued.

Corvias maintains more than 6,500 homes across Fort Bragg spread
across 11 different communities that were built at different times
by different contractors, court documents show.

The majority -- including the units the plaintiffs live or lived in
-- were constructed before Corvias signed an Aug. 1, 2003, ground
lease and started operating at Fort Bragg, the Corvias attorneys
argued.

In a Dec. 21 filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers said their clients'
claims are "well-grounded."

"These service members are excellent individuals and credible
claimants and they and their families deserve access to justice,"
their attorneys wrote. "A judicial remedy is further appropriate
given as that, to date, legislative remedies have only sought to
reform privatized housing practices prospectively, without making
any provision for compensating servicemembers."

Lawyers filed a motion on Jan. 5 seeking a Jan. 18 extension to
respond to the plaintiffs' opposition to dismiss the class
allegations. [GN]


COUNTERPATH CORP: Facing Chamala Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
CounterPath Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 13, 2021, that
the company is facing a putative class action complaint, captioned
Chakra Chamala v. CounterPath Corporation, et al., NYCSC Index No.
650111/2021.

On December 6, 2020, CounterPath Corporation, entered into an
agreement and plan of merger, which, as it may be amended from time
to time, with Alianza, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
CounterPath Merger Sub, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Alianza. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into CounterPath,
with CounterPath continuing as the surviving corporation and
becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alianza.

On December 29, 2020, CounterPath filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
anticipation of a forthcoming special meeting of CounterPath's
stockholders to determine whether the Merger should be approved.

On January 7, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
captioned Chakra Chamala v. CounterPath Corporation, et al., NYCSC
Index No. 650111/2021, against CounterPath and its directors.  

The complaint alleges that CounterPath's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to engage in a sufficiently
robust sales process prior to the Merger, allegedly failing to
obtain sufficient consideration for CounterPath's stockholders in
connection with the Merger, and purportedly failing to make
adequate disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy regarding the Merger.


The Company cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss from this matter.  

CounterPath said, "It is possible that additional, similar
complaints may be filed, or that the complaint described above may
be amended. If this occurs, the Company does not intend to announce
the filing of each additional, similar complaint or any amended
complaint unless it contains materially new or different
allegations."

CounterPath Corporation designs, develops, and sells software and
services that enable enterprises and telecommunication service
providers to deliver unified communications services over Internet
protocol-based networks in North America and internationally.  The
Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Vancouver,
Canada.

CREDIT SERVICE: Court Nixed Gasper FDCPA Class Suit w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gasper, Steven v. Credit
Service International Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00465 (W.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order
dismissing case without prejudice.

The Court said, "The parties have notified the court that they have
reached a settlement on plaintiff's individual claims. As a result,
this case is dismissed without prejudice. Any party may move to
reopen the case on a showing of good cause. After the settlement is
executed, the parties may move to dismiss the case with prejudice
if they wish. Because plaintiff did not move for class
certification, the members of the proposed class are not parties to
this case or the settlement, and this order does not prevent them
from bringing their own claims in a separate lawsuit."

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Credit Service is an Wisconsin collection agency.[CC]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Appeals N.D. Ohio Ruling to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tarrify Properties, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, et
al., v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 30,
2020, the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order:

   1. denying Tarrify's class certification motion and limine
motion;

   2. granting Cuyahoga County's limine motion.

Plaintiff Tarrify Properties, LLC failed to pay $35,000 in Cuyahoga
County property taxes on a southeast Cleveland commercial property.
For real estate tax purposes, Cuyahoga County had earlier valued
Tarrify's property as worth significantly more than the $35,000 tax
debt. The County foreclosed Tarrify's property. But instead of
selling it, the County transferred the property to a county-run
land bank. Tarrify received no compensation for any property value
exceeding its tax liability. Tarrify brought this putative class
action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on behalf of itself and other
Cuyahoga County landowners in hopes of retrieving money damages for
any surplus land value.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the said order by
Judge Gwin.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Tarrify Properties, LLC,
et al., Case No. 21-301, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539

Defendant-Respondent CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH is represented by:

          Michael Edward Cicero, Esq.
          NICOLA, GUDBRANSON & COOPER
          25 W. Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 621-7227

DART CONTAINER: Conditional Settlement Class Wins Initial Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA FLORES,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and
former employees, v. DART CONTAINER CORPORATION, a Nevada
corporation; DART CONTAINER CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a Michigan
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-00083-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb
entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
      certification of a conditional settlement class and
      preliminary approval of the class action settlement;

   2. provisionally certifying the following classes for the
      purpose of settlement:

      a. the "Sick Pay Class"

         "all current and former non-exempt California employees
         of the Defendants who were eligible for and used paid
         sick leave during a workweek when he/she also earned
         shift differentials, non-discretionary bonuses,
         commissions, or other remuneration between January 11,
         2015 and November 30, 2020 or Preliminary Approval,
         whichever is earlier, and who did not participate in
         the class action settlement in Alvarado v. Dart
         Container Corp., Riverside County Superior Court Case
         No. RIC1211707;"

      b. the "Former Employee Sub-Class"

         "all Sick Pay Class Members who separated from 23
         employment at any time between January 11, 2016 and
         November 30, 2020 or Preliminary Approval, whichever is
         earlier, and who did not participate in the class
         action settlement in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp.,
         Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC1211707;"
         and

      c. the "Non-Exempt Wage Statement Class"

         "all current and former hourly, nonexempt California
         employees of Defendants who received a wage statement
         between January 11, 2018 and November 30, 2020 or
         Preliminary Approval, whichever is earlier, and (1)
         worked at least one shift during which he/she both
         worked overtime and earned a shift differential and (2)
         did not participate in the class action settlement in
         Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., Riverside County
         Superior Court Case No. RIC1211707;"

   3. appointing Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions
      as the settlement administrator;

   4. approving the form and content of the proposed Notice of
      Class Action Settlement, except to the extent that it
      must be updated to reflect dates and deadlines specified
      in this Order and to reflect the fact that the final
      fairness hearing will occur over Zoom;

   5. directing the defendants' counsel, no later than 10
      business days from the date this Order is signed, to
      provide the names and contact information of all
      settlement class members to Phoenix Class Action
      Administration Solutions; and

   6. setting a final fairness hearing, with all parties
      appearing via Zoom, on Monday, 21 May 17, 2021, at 1:30
      p.m.

   The proposed Settlement Agreement:

   -- The Agreement establishes two 2 distinct classes: the
      "Sick Pay Class" and the "Non-Exempt Wage Statement
      Class."

   -- The Sick Pay Class contains one subclass for former
      employees who separated from employment at any time
      between January 11, 2016, and November 30, 2020 (the
      Former Employee Sub-Class")

   -- The Defendants have agreed to pay up to $411,000 to create
      a common fund (the "Maximum Settlement Amount" or "MSA"),
      from which payments will be made for (1) attorney's fees
      in an amount up to $137,000 or 33% of the fund; (2)
      litigation costs incurred by class counsel, estimated at
      $7,500; (3) an incentive award for the plaintiff of
      $2,500; (4) settlement administration costs estimated at
      $8,850, payable to Phoenix Class Action Administration
      Solutions; and (5) PAGA penalties in the amount of
      $15,000, $11,250 of which will be paid to the California
      Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $3,750
      of which be paid to members of the Non-Exempt Wage
      Statement Class members.

    --The remaining funds ("Net Settlement Amount"), estimated
      at $243,900, will be distributed to class members who do
      not opt out of the settlement. $25,000 will be allocated
      to the Sick Pay Class, $109,450 will be allocated to the
      Former Employee Sub-Class, and $109,450 will be allocated
      to the Non-Exempt Wage Statement Class.

The Plaintiff Angela Flores, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, brought this putative class
action against the defendants alleging violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff began working for the defendants on September 11,
2017, as an "inspector/packer." As an inspector/packer, the
plaintiff's primary job duty was to ensure quality control and pack
products on the production line. Many of defendants' employees,
including plaintiff, are paid hourly and thus are not exempt from
minimum wage or overtime pay laws and regulations.

Dart Container Corporation is the world's largest manufacturer of
foam cups and containers, producing about as many as all
competitors combined. Dart Container is privately held by the Dart
family.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bM6b7o at no extra charge.[CC]

DEADWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Cabrera Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deadwood Construction
Inc. The case is styled as Edgar Cabrera, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
Deadwood Construction Inc. v. Deadwood Construction Inc., Case No.
154481/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Jan. 12, 2021).

The case type is stated as "E-contract for E-Filed Commercial
Case".

Deadwood Construction Inc. -- http://www.deadwoodconstruction.com/
-- specializes in custom homes, commercial construction, and
residential remodeling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
          40 Broad St., 7th Fl.
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:

          MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3000 Marcus AV, Suite 3W8
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (516) 328-8899


DEITSCH AND WRIGHT: McCray Appeals FDCPA Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Desseri McCray filed an appeal from court rulings entered
in the lawsuit entitled DESSERI MCCRAY, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, v. DIETSCH AND WRIGHT, P.A., Case
No. 8:18-cv-00731-WFJ-SPF, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by, among other things, conveying to the Plaintiff a
false sense of urgency in its collection letter.

Ms. McCray is seeking an appeal for review of the Court's rulings
granting in part and denying in part a motion to compel discovery;
denying a motion for reconsideration; granting in part and denying
in part a motion for attorney fees and costs and directing Clerk to
enter judgment and thereafter to close case; and denying a motion
for reconsideration/clarification.

The appellate case is captioned as Desseri McCray v. Deitsch and
Wright, P.A., Case No. 20-14875, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Dec. 31, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that Appellee's
Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before January 28,
2021 as to Appellee Deitsch and Wright, P.A.[BN]

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

          Amorette Rinkleib, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          5235 E Southern Ave D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 845-5969
          E-mail: arinkleib@thompsonconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander Daniel Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S Flamingo Rd Ste 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com   

Defendant-Appellee DEITSCH AND WRIGHT, P.A. is represented by:

          Stephen Deitsch, Esq.
          DEITSCH & DEITSCH, PLLC
          420 S State Rd Ste 114
          Wellington, FL 33414

DELGADO'S DELI: Faces Villacis Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIA VILLACIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DELGADO'S DELI & RESTAURANT INC. and CORINA ORTIZ, Case
No. 7:21-cv-00230 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' practice of failing to pay overtime wages, failing to
provide accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay wages,
failing to pay spread of hours compensation, and for unlawful
deductions from Plaintiff's wages, all in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Ms. Villacis worked for the Defendants as a cook from approximately
2007 until in and about March 2018, when Defendants terminated
her.

Delgado's Deli & Restaurant Inc. is a restaurant located in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

DOMINO'S PIZZA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Carmona Employment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Edmond Carmona, et al v. Domino's
Pizza, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01905-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to reimburse for necessary work expenditures,
unfair competition, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks,
failure to separately pay all wages for work performed, failure to
issue accurate itemized wage statements, and waiting time
penalties.

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated December 9, 2020, denying its motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Edmond Carmona, et al. v.
Domino's Pizza, LLC, Case No. 21-55009, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Jan. 6, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Domino's Pizza, LLC Mediation Questionnaire is due
on January 13, 2021;

   -- Appellant Domino's Pizza, LLC opening brief is due on March
8, 2021;

   -- Appellee Edmond Carmona answering brief is due on April 5,
2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee EDMOND CARMONA is represented by:

          Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com

Defendant-Appellant DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, is
represented by:

          Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US, LLP
          550 S. Hope St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-7727
          E-mail: steve.hernandez@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Taylor H. Wemmer, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US, LLP
          4365 Executive Drive
          San Diego, CA 92121-2133
          Telephone: (858) 677-1400
          E-mail: taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com

ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL: Ellington Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Eclipse Recreational Vehicles filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TY ELLINGTON, on
behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00800-JWH-SP, in the U.S.
District Court for Central California, Riverside.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
consumers who purchased model years 2012 through 2016 recreational
vehicles manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendant
Eclipse reasonably expected, and were promised, merchantable
recreational vehicles with frames that would not fracture under
ordinary use. However, the Class vehicles were designed,
manufactured, and sold with frames that were too thin and/or
composed of poor-quality metal with an insufficient tensile
strength (referred to herein as the "Frame Defect"). As a result,
the frames on all Class vehicles are prone to fracture under
ordinary use, rendering the Class Vehicles unstable, dangerously
unsafe, and often useless, the suit alleges.

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated December 14, 2020, denying Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay litigation by Judge John W. Holcomb.

The appellate case is captioned as Ty Ellington v. Eclipse
Recreational Vehicles, et al., Case No. 21-55021, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, January 11, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Eclipse Recreational Vehicles, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire is due on January 19, 2021;

   -- Appellant Eclipse Recreational Vehicles, Inc. opening brief
is due on March 9, 2021;

   -- Appellee Ty Ellington answering brief is due on April 8,
2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, TY ELLINGTON, on behalf of himself and a class
of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          David S. Casey, II, Esq.
          Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq.
          CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK, FRANCAVILLA, BLATT
           & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
                  dcasey@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com

Defendant-Appellant ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, INC., a
California corporation, is represented by:

          Mark D. Baute, Esq.
          BAUTE CROCHETIERE HARTLEY & VELKEI LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 630-5000
          E-mail: mbaute@bautelaw.com

EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Ballard Says BridgeBio Merger Deal Lacks Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EIDOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; NEIL KUMAR;
SUZANNE SAWOCHKA HOOPER; WILLIAM LIS; ALI SATVAT; DOUGLAS ROHLEN;
and UMA SINHA, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00228 (N.D. Cal., Jan.
11, 2021) is an action against Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. ("Eidos" or
the "Company") and the members of Eidos's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of their attempt to be
acquired by BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. ("BridgeBio") through its wholly
owned subsidiaries Globe Merger Sub I, Inc. and Globe Merger Sub
II, Inc. (the "Proposed Transaction").

According to the complaint, on October 5, 2020, Eidos announced
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") pursuant to which, each holder of Eidos common
stock will have the right to receive, at their election, either (i)
1.85 shares of BridgeBio common stock, or (ii) $73.26 in cash,
subject to proration such that the aggregate amount of cash is no
greater than $175 for each Eidos share that they own.

On December 16, 2020, Eidos filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. The Proxy is materially
deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose
material information regarding: (i) Eidos and BridgeBio
management's financial projections; (ii) the financial analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by the special committee
of the Board's ("Special Committee") financial advisor, Centerview
Partners LLC ("Centerview"); (iii) Centerview's potential conflicts
of interest; and (iv) the background of the Proposed Transaction.
Without additional information, the Proxy is materially misleading
in violation of the federal securities laws, the suit says.

Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-pharmaceutical company.
The Company discovers and develops novel oral therapy for the
treatment of diseases. Eidos Therapeutics serves clients in the
State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENOVA INT'L: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Access of Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RADLEY J. BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
d/b/a CNU ONLINE HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00065 (S.D.
Tex., January 8, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful
systematic practice of accessing consumers' credit reports in
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the ChexSystems credit report he
requested on or about January 4, 2021 revealed that Clarity
Services obtained his credit report from the ChexSystems on or
around August 26, 2019 on behalf of the Defendant. The Plaintiff
confirmed this when he placed a call to Clarity Services, and was
able to talk to a certain Jasmine, who stated that the Plaintiff
was rejected for a payday loan although he never applied for a
payday loan with the Defendant or any of its companies, and who
provided him a credit report, as he requested, revealing that the
Defendant obtained his credit report on August 26, 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts that he did not have any form of relationship
with the Defendant, and he did not provide consent to the Defendant
to access his ChexSystems or Clarity Services credit report. To be
able to access the Plaintiff's credit report, the Defendant falsely
represented to ChexSystems and Clarity Services that the Plaintiff
had a relationship with the Defendant or that it was attempting to
collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendant's unauthorized access of the
Plaintiff's credit information, the Plaintiff suffered significant
harm for damaging his credit worthiness by giving off false
impression that he applied for a payday loan but was rejected, and
other damages, such as invasion of privacy, mental and emotional
distress, and time wasted monitoring his credit reports for
fraudulent activity, the suit says.

Enova International, Inc. d/b/a CNU Online Holdings is a debt
collector that collects consumer debt owed to third parties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630) 575-8180
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmettroff@sulaimanlaw.com


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Benson Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELVA BENSON, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., and ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF
ORLANDO, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00891-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Worker Adjustment and Retraining
      Notification Act (WARN Act) Nationwide Class consisting
      of:

      "all Enterprise employees who worked at or reported to
      Enterprise facilities in the United States and were
      terminated without cause on or about April 24, 2020, or
      within 14 days of April 24, 2020, or in anticipation of,
      or as the foreseeable consequence of, the mass layoff or
      plant closing ordered on or about April 24, 2020, and who
      are affected employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
      section 2101(a)(5), who do not file a timely request to
      opt-out of the class, and who also did not sign a
      severance agreement with Enterprise;"

   2. appointing herself as Class Representative;

   3. appointing her counsel as class counsel; and

   4. allowing her counsel to notify the class members with a
      Court-approved notice.

According to the complaint, the putative Class Members each hold
claims for statutory WARN Act remedies consisting of back pay and
loss of benefits. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
violated the WARN Ac by dismissing her with no advance notice in
violation of the WARN Act. The same, or a very similar, set of
facts took place throughout the country as to thousands of others.
In fact, discovery has revealed that approximately 10,000 people
working nationwide for Enterprise lost their jobs during the mass
layoffs at issue. Approximately 9,000 of those people signed
severance agreements.

Ms. Benson worked as a rental agent for Enterprise in Orlando,
Florida, from June of 1986 through April 27, 2020. On April 27,
2020, Ms. Benson received a written notice dated April 24, 2020,
terminating her employment effective April 30, 2020. However, Ms.
Benson had already been verbally terminated a few days prior to
receiving the notice. This means she received zero days' advance
notice of her termination.

Enterprise Holdings is a private holding company headquartered in
the Clayton suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. It is the parent company
of car rental companies Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental,
Alamo Rent a Car, and Enterprise CarShare. Enterprise Leasing
Company of Orlando, LLC provides transportation solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oOvd9N
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Direct No. (813) 379-2565
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

EXPRESS PICKUP: Perez Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS PICKUP & DELIVERY TRANSPORT
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00013 (W.D. Tex.,
January 8, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violation of the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver
from December 2019 until August 2020, and as a Supervisor from
August 2020 until December 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that although he regularly worked more than 40
hours per week, the Defendant paid him a flat day rate only
regardless of how many hours he worked in a day. Thereby, the
Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of 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 suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of all the
Defendant's delivery drivers seeking to recover unpaid overtime
premiums for all hours they worked over 40 in any week, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Express Pickup & Delivery Transport Services, Inc. operates a
contracting delivery service for FedEx to deliver packages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FCI SCHUYLKILL: Murphy Suit Seeks Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James E. Murphy, et al.,
v. Attorney General William Barr; and Scott Firley, unknown agents
(employer), Case No. 1:21-cv-00070-JEJ-EBC (M.D. Pa.), Plaintiff
Murphy asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class action certification.

Mr. Murphy contends that he and approximately 40-150 inmates housed
at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Schuylkill have
unnecessarily infected by Coronavirus (COVID-19) in violation of
the Center for Disease Control Guidelines and the statement of the
U.S. Constitution.

FCI Schuylkill is a medium-security United States federal prison
for male inmates in Pennsylvania. It is operated by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of
Justice.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39yLMjz
at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRST REPUBLIC: Hampel Sues Over Illegal Charges on Loan Balances
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY S. HAMPEL, an individual; AMIT M. HAMPEL, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. FIRST
REPUBLIC BANK, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-00068-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2021)
seeks to recover damages, restitution, civil penalties, and
attorneys' fees for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
violations of the California and federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts, the Truth in Lending Act, and the California
Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the First Republic has overbilled
Plaintiffs and other borrowers with home equity lines of credit by
charging excessive and incorrect monthly payments on their
outstanding loan balances during the first half of their respective
15-year Repayment Periods. The Defendant's system-wide overcharges
to borrowers in the first 90 months of their respective 15-year
prepayment periods cause borrowers to, in effect, prepay excess
amounts of principal before such repayment is required by the loan
documents, thereby depriving Plaintiffs and class members of the
use of those funds.

First Republic Bank, a California corporation, is an American bank
and wealth management company offering personal banking, business
banking, trust and wealth management services, catering to
low-risk, high net-worth clientele. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Pettis, Esq.
          Sarah B. Burwick, Esq.
          PETTIS LAW FIRM LLP
          2447 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (213) 545-6448
          Facsimile: (213) 816-1966
          E-mail: jimpettis@pettislawfirm.com
                  sarah@pettislawfirm.com

FORD MOTOR: Lyman Sues Over Automobiles' Oil Consumption Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LYMAN, TIMOTHY THUERING, and VINCENT BRADY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Case No. 2:21-cv-10024-GAD-EAS (E.D. Mich., Jan. 6, 2021) arises
from Ford's failure, despite its longstanding knowledge of a
material manufacturing defect, to disclose to Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers that the Class vehicles are
predisposed to an excessively high rate of engine oil consumption
in violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, the New York
General Business Laws, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the California Unfair Competition Laws, the California False
Advertising Law, the Song-Beverly Act, and the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act.

The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and classes of current and former owners of model year
2018-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles containing the 5.0L engine
manufactured by the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the defect -- which typically manifests
itself during and shortly after the limited warranty period has
expired -- will inevitably cause the Class vehicles to prematurely
burn off and/or consume abnormal and excessive amounts of engine
oil. Significantly, the existence of the defect poses a safety risk
to the operator and passengers of the vehicle because it prevents
the engine from maintaining the proper level of engine oil, and
causes an excessive amount of engine oil consumption that can
neither be reasonably anticipated nor predicted.

Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (888) 711-9975
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com
   
               - and -

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          4730 Table Mesa Drive Suite G-200
          Boulder, CO 80305
          Telephone: (303) 800-9109
          Facsimile: (844) 300-1952
          E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
          BARON & HERSKOWITZ
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1704
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 670-0101
          Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
          E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com

FOREST LAB: Bid to Exclude Expert's Opinions Nixed in Namenda Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge C.J. McMahon entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiff expert Laura R.
Craft, which Plaintiff offers in support of class certification.

On July 7, 2020, SBA filed its motion for certification. Included
in its attachments were the expert reports of Russell Lamb, Ph.D;
William B. Vogt, Ph.D; and Laura Craft. On August 24, the
Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of
Laura Craft. Craft's report goes to the identifiability and
ascertainability of the proposed class, but the motion to exclude
argues that she does not have the data she says she needs, and that
her methodology is unreliable.

The Plaintiff Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare
Fund (SBA) is a fund that administers the prescription drug benefit
plan for active and retired New York City Police Department
sergeants and their dependents. It represents a class of "end
payors" of Namenda, which includes -- subject to some exceptions --
"All Third-Party Payors who indirectly purchased, and/or paid,
and/or provided reimbursement for, some or all of the price for
Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets and/or Namenda XR capsules[.]" These
end payors include entities like insurers and welfare plans like
SBA.

Defendant Forest Laboratories is a limited-liability company
incorporated in Delaware that manufactures and sells branded
pharmaceutical products. Forest is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Defendant Actavis PLC (now known as Allergan PLC). The Defendants
Merz GmbH & Co. KgaA.; Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA; and Merz
Pharmaceuticals GmbH are headquartered in Germany and are also
engaged in the development, production, and distribution of
pharmaceutical products.

SBA seeks to certify the following class:

   "all Third-Party Payors who indirectly purchased, and/or
   paid, and/or provided reimbursement for, some or all of the
   purchase price for branded Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets,
   their AB-rated generic equivalents, and/or Namenda XR
   capsules, other than for resale, in Alabama, Arizona,
   California, D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
   Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
   Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
   York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island (for
   purchases after July 15, 2013), South Dakota, Tennessee,
   Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, for consumption
   by themselves, or their members, employees, insureds,
   participants, beneficiaries, from June 1, 2012 through
   December 31, 2017;"

   Excluded from the proposed Class are: (a) the Defendants and
   the Defendants' parents, subsidiaries and affiliates; (b)
   fully-insured health care plans (i.e., health plans that
   purchased insurance from another third-party payor covering
   100% of the insureds' prescription drug benefits on behalf of
   the Plan's members and beneficiaries); (c) all federal or
   state governmental entities, excluding cities, towns or
   municipalities with self-funded prescription drug plans; and
   (d) Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs).

A copy of the Court's decision and order denying the defendants'
motion to exclude the opinions of Laura R. Craft dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3suVnR4
at no extra charge.[CC]

FORSTER & GARBUS: Singer Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHAVA SINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, and John Does 1-25,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00121 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2021)
brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has a debt that was
allegedly incurred to Discover Bank, who contracted to the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
January 8, 2020, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff. However, the Defendant's letter confused and misled the
Plaintiff whether she must pay the full judgment balance or the
lower amount stated on the letter to avoid enforcement proceedings,
when the letter stated that arrangements must be made to pay the
"full judgment balance" and yet it failed to state the full
judgment balance.

Moreover, the Defendant's letter is allegedly misleading and
deceptive because it informs the Plaintiff that post judgment
interest would only be based on the principal balance while in fact
the post judgment interest rate would be based on a larger amount.

The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by omitting material
information and stating false information creating a false and
misleading representation of the status of the debt, and by falsely
representing the character, amount of legal status of the debt, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and other relief that the Court may deem just and
proper.

Forster & Garbus LLP 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
          Fax: (201) 282-6501


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

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

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

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

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


FTS INT'L: April 12 Fairness Hearing Set for Glock Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 29 issued the following
statement regarding the FTS International, Inc. Securities
Settlement:

CAROL GLOCK, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

vs

FTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-03928
Judge: Lee H. Rosenthal
SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED FTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("FTSI" OR THE "COMPANY") PUBLICLY TRADED
COMMON STOCK IN OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY’S FEBRUARY 2, 2018
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO"), INCLUDING ALL PERSONS WHO
PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED FTSI COMMON STOCK ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 2,
2018 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, the
above-captioned action (the "Litigation") has been provisionally
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Litigation, Carol
Glock, on behalf of herself and the other Settlement Class Members,
has reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation with Defendants
FTS International, Inc., Michael J. Doss, Lance Turner, Goh Yong
Siang, Boon Sim, Domenic J. Dell'Osso, Jr., Bryan J. Lemmerman, Ong
Tiong Sin, Carol J. Johnson, Maju Investments (Mauritius) Pte Ltd,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
(collectively, "Defendants") for the sum of $9,875,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all
claims in the Litigation.

A hearing will be held on April 12, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. CT, before
the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal at the Bob Casey United States
Courthouse, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated November 19, 2020; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this Litigation, together with interest thereon
(which request may include an award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995).

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED FTSI PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK IN
OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY’S FEBRUARY 2, 2018 IPO, INCLUDING
PURCHASES OR ACQUISITIONS ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 2, 2018, YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS LITIGATION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If
you have not received a detailed Notice as referred to above and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to FTSI Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43314, Providence, RI 02940-3314, or by
downloading this information at www.FTSISecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release online at www.FTSISecuritiesSettlement.com by
March 22, 2021, or by mail postmarked no later than March 22, 2021,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, received by March 22, 2021.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FTSI publicly traded common
stock in or traceable to the Company’s February 2, 2018 IPO,
including purchases or acquisitions on or after February 2, 2018,
and you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later
than March 22, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Settlement
Class who do not validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class will be bound by any judgments or orders entered in the
Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or First-Class
Mail to each of the following addresses such that it is received no
later than March 1, 2021:

COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Bob Casey United States Courthouse
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX  77002

LEAD COUNSEL:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
THEODORE J. PINTAR
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

SETTLING DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL:
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
JESSICA B. PULLIAM
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
Dallas, TX  75201

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

                  About FTS International Inc.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, FTS International Inc. --
http://www.FTSI.com/-- is an independent hydraulic fracturing
service company and one of the only vertically integrated service
providers of its kind in North America.

As of March 31, 2020, the Company had $616 million in total assets,
$587 million in total liabilities, and $29 million in total
stockholders' equity.

On Sept. 22, 2020, FTS International and two affiliates sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-34622) to
seek confirmation of a prepackaged plan.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP are acting as legal
counsel, Lazard Freres & Co., LLC is acting as financial advisor,
and Alvarez & Marsal LLP is acting as restructuring advisor to the
Company in connection with the restructuring. Epiq is the claims
and solicitation agent.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN PEREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign insurance company Case No.
5:20-cv-07436-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a Class Action on behalf of the
      class of:

      "all individuals insureds under a California policy issued
      by GEICO Indemnity Company covering a leased vehicle with
      private-passenger auto physical damage coverage with
      comprehensive or collision coverage, who made a first-
      party claim determined by GEICO to be a total loss, and
      where the total loss payment did not include sales tax
      calculated as the applicable state and local percentage of
      the adjusted vehicle value (ACV Sales Tax)
      within four years prior to the date on which this lawsuit
      was filed through the date of any certification order;"

   2. granting an award of attorney's fees and expenses as
      appropriate pursuant to applicable law; and

   3. granting pre- and post- judgment interests on any amounts
      awarded.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, the named
insured under a GEICO automobile policy issued for private
passenger auto physical damage including comprehensive and
collision coverage (the Policy).

The Defendant's Policy promises payment of "Actual Cash Value"
("ACV") in the event of a total loss of an insured vehicle.
Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, ACV includes, State sales tax.
GEICO acknowledges that its Policy includes these taxes: as part of
its ACV payment to insureds who own vehicles that have sustained a
total loss, GEICO pays sales tax; and as part of its ACV payment to
all insureds. However, in violation of its Policy, during most of
the Class Period, GEICO refused to pay sales tax (or, in rare
cases, underpays sales tax) when it purported to pay ACV to
insureds who suffered a total loss of their leased (as opposed to
owned or financed) insured vehicle, the Plaintiff contends.

GEICO operates as an insurance company. The Company provides
vehicle, property, business, and life insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's amended complaint dated Jan. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3snbnVfat no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Edmand A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: service@ednormand.com
                  ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Vortec Engine 5.3L Oil Consumption Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a GM
5.3L oil consumption lawsuit includes Generation IV Vortec 5300 LC9
engines in these models.

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

The Vortec engine lawsuit alleges the vehicles suffer numerous
problems, including:

"[E]ngine failure and engine damage, including spark plug fouling,
ring wear, lifter collapse, bent pushrods, camshaft wear, valve
wear, rod bearing wear, rod breakage, wristpin wear, wristpin
breakage, crankshaft wear andmain bearing wear or destruction and
other forms of internal component wear/breakage due to unacceptable
heat and friction levels and oil breakdown."

According to the 5.3L oil consumption lawsuit, the engine cannot
receive proper lubrication, allegedly because the piston rings fail
to keep oil in the crankcase.

GM 5.3L Oil Consumption Lawsuit Says Oil Monitoring Systems Don't
Help
The excessive oil consumption leaves the vehicles too low on oil
while a driver is allegedly fooled by the oil pressure gauge on the
dash and an oil canister image that will illuminate when a vehicle
is low on oil.

But the plaintiffs claim the system doesn't protect the engine
because the oil pressure warnings don't indicate when the oil
reaches levels that damage the engine.

And the GM oil consumption class action also alleges the oil life
monitoring system is just about useless because it allegedly
doesn't monitor oil levels. Instead, the system monitors engine
conditions to estimate the oil quality to recommend when to change
the oil.

The plaintiffs say a driver can drive thousands of miles with low
oil levels without ever knowing the engine components are being
damaged from low oil levels.

The General Motors 5.3L oil consumption lawsuit further alleges the
active fuel management system has an oil pressure relieve valve
that sprays oil directly at the piston skirts. But the oil spray
allegedly overloads and fouls the defective piston rings which
triggers oil migration past the rings.

The oil either burns or accumulates as carbon buildup on the
surface of the combustion chamber.

Joining those allegedly defective components and systems is the PCV
system that vacuums atomized oil from the valvetrain into the
intake system. But the plaintiffs claim the system contributes to
excessive oil consumption in the GM vehicles.

The plaintiffs also claim the vehicles suffer fouled spark plugs
which cause engine misfires and stalled engines that strand
occupants.

GM dealers allegedly perform repairs that are only "stop-gap fixes"
that don't prevent the engines from consuming excessive amounts of
oil. Dealers decarbonize the combustion chambers and rings with
chemical abrasives, but the 5.3L class action lawsuit alleges
owners complain the vehicles still need too much oil.

The GM 5.3L oil consumption lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Tucker, et al., v.
General Motors LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. [GN]


GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Halcom Suit Over Increase of Premiums Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY HALCOM; HUGH PENSON; HAROLD CHERRY; and RICHARD LANDINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and GENWORTH LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00019-REP (E.D. Va., Jan. 11, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants intentionally withheld material information from
policyholders with respect to the full scope and magnitude of the
Defendant's rate increase action plans.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class members
each purchased and currently have long term care ("LTC") insurance
policies provided by Genworth. Those policies include Genworth LTC
product "blocks" referred to as PCS I (issued from 1994-1997) and
PCS II (issued from 1997-2001). None of these products are still
being sold by Genworth.

The Plaintiffs and the Class members seek to remedy the harm caused
to them from Genworth's partial disclosures of material information
when communicating the premium increases, and the omission of
material information necessary to make those partial disclosures
adequate. Without this material information, the Plaintiffs and the
Classes could not make informed decisions in response to the
premium increases and ultimately made policy option renewal
elections they never would have made had the Company adequately
disclosed the staggering scope and magnitude of its internal rate
increase action plans in the first place.

To allow policyholders to make informed decisions, any insurance
company that raises premiums must inform their insureds of all
material information in its possession regarding these important
recalculations. Only a full-disclosure of all these material data
points will allow insureds to fairly evaluate the new policy terms
in light of a rate increase, the suit says.

Genworth Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance
services. Genworth Life Insurance serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Petty, Esq.
          Michael G. Phelan, Esq.
          PHELAN PETTY PLC
          3315 W. Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 980-7100
          Facsimile: (804) 767-4601
          E-mail: jpetty@phelanpetty.com
                  mphelan@phelanpetty.com

               -and-

          Brian Douglas Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com

               -and-

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                  bbeall@rgrdlaw.com

               -and-

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  gabramson@bm.net


GISLASON & HUNTER: Stuckey Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian and Rebecca Stuckey,
v. Gislason & Hunter LLP, Case No. 0:20-cv-01859-PAM-LIB (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant Gislason & Hunter LLP's Motion to
      Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6);
      and

   2. dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

The Court said, "The Amended Complaint raises a single claim
contending that the letter and preforeclosure notice violated the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). The Defendant moves to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing
that it is not a debt collector under the FDCPA's primary-purpose
definition, and therefore is not subject to the FDCPA's
requirements. The Defendant further contends that the Plaintiffs
have not pleaded sufficient facts to show that it is a debt
collector under even the limited-purpose definition found in 15
U.S.C. section 1692f(6). Because Plaintiffs’ pleading provides no
explanation for the contradicting secured-claim amounts, and indeed
lists the secured-claim amount as $53,847.27, their argument that
Defendant sought to collect more the secured-claim amount fails."

This lawsuit concerns that letter and preforeclosure notice, which
informed the Plaintiffs that Northwoods Bank had retained Defendant
to collect the $53,847.27 debt for defaulting on their
home-mortgage loan.

The Plaintiffs Brian and Rebecca Stuckey obtained a home loan of
$63,063.00 through Northwoods Bank in 2014. In 2018, the Plaintiffs
filed for bankruptcy and listed Northwoods Bank as a creditor with
a secured claim of $53,349.00 on their home-mortgage loan. The
Bankruptcy Court entered an Order of Discharge on July 24, 2018,
and Northwoods Bank was notified of that Order. In 2019, Mr.
Stuckey filed a lawsuit against Northwoods Bank for violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Bank hired Defendant Gislason &
Hunter LLP to represent
it. Stuckey v. Northwoods Bank of Minnesota, No. 19cv2525-NEB-LIB
(D. Minn. 2019). The Bank also hired the Defendant to collect the
debt from the Stuckeys. On February 11, 2020, the Defendant
initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure by mailing the Plaintiffs a
letter with Notice of Default of Note and Mortgage, which included
a preforeclosure notice.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39GO8g2 at no
extra charge.[CC]

HAYTAYAN JEWELERS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Merrell Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. HAYTAYAN JEWELERS, INC., a California
corporation, d/b/a LEON'S OF BEVERLY HILLS and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02614-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 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 the 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 due to 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://leonsbeverlyhills.com/, will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers.

Haytayan Jewelers, Inc. is a wholesale jeweler in Beverly Hills,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HERMES B NY: Faces Tolentino Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ADRIAN SAN JUAN TOLENTINO and WILSON BENJAMIN VASQUEZ RAMOS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HERMES B
NY LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA EXPRESS), PGNV LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA
MAMA), and SOCRATES NANAS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00198 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The complaint asserts that Defendants' violations include failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers accurate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium for all hours worked in excess of 10 hours
in a day, failure to furnish a wage notice upon hiring, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse the costs
and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment, and unlawful
deductions from tips.

Plaintiff San Juan Tolentino was employed by the Defendants as a
delivery worker from approximately November 2013 until on or about
December 31, 2014 and from approximately November 2015 until on or
about November 18, 2019.

Plaintiff Vasquez Ramos was employed by the Defendants as delivery
worker at Empanada Mama from approximately June 2013 until on or
about December 2019.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three restaurants and
catering services in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

HOMEBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Connor Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Connor, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Homebridge Financial Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2085CV01263A, was removed from the Worcester Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on Jan. 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-40005 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Real Property: Foreclosure.

HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc. -- https://www.homebridge.com/
-- provides mortgage and lending services. The Company offers
financial solutions including home purchasing and refinancing
lending, reverse mortgages, and other loan products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Krystle S. Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2800 Financial Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: (401) 274-9200
          Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com


HOSPICE OF PALM: Admore Sues Over Illegal Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------
SHEKEARA ADMORE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPICE OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC. d/b/a
TRUSTBRIDGE HOSPICE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:21-cv-80047 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 11, 2021) alleges violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff applied, was hired, and
performed work for the Defendant. During the application process,
the Plaintiff filled out Defendant's standard application form
permitting Defendant to obtain a consumer report verifying
Plaintiff's background and experience.

By including a liability release in its standard application form
permitting the Defendant to obtain a consumer report verifying the
applicant's background and experience, the Defendant's conduct is
contrary to the plain language of the FCRA, the suit says.

Trustbridge Hospice Foundation, formerly Hospice of Palm
Beach/Broward County Foundation and Hospice by the Sea Foundation
is the philanthropic arm of Trustbridge. The Foundation is
dedicated to raising funds to support the unfunded patient programs
and services offered by Trustbridge, which are not covered by
Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: chris@fgbolaw.com
                  wolfgang@fgbolaw.com


HUTTIG BUILDING: 4th Cir. to Review Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Huttig Building Products, Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled In re: Interior Molded
Doors Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00718-JAG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Grubb Lumber Company brings this action on its own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover treble damages
and other appropriate relief based on Defendants' violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, arising from the Defendants' collusive pricing and
illegal scheme for "interior molded doors."

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order
dated December 28, 2020, denying the non-parties' motions to
intervene. Because the Court has denied the non-parties' motions to
intervene, it DENIES their other pending motions, including the
motion to stay. Further, because Defendants Jeld-Wen and Masonite
have voluntarily dismissed their appeals of this Court's denial of
their motions to reconsider the Unsealing Order, the Court VACATES
its Orders staying the Unsealing Order. The Court directs the
parties to file public copies of the documents in this case, with
the redactions discussed in the Unsealing Order, on or before
January 11, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Grubb Lumber Company, Inc. v.
Huttig Building Products, Inc., Case No. 21-1006, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and PHILADELPHIA
RESERVE SUPPLY CO. are represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC
          1111 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com  

               - and -

          Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC
          440 Monticello Avenue
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628-5525
          E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com

               - and -

          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 Saint Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0202
          E-mail: jsindoni@bonizack.com

Defendant-Appellant HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. is represented
by:

          Anand Vijay Ramana, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE, PC
          1401 I Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 312-3325
          E-mail: aramana@vedderprice.com

IKEA US: Kingsley Sues Over Denied Wages, Breaks, Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Kingsley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ikea US Retail, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-09327, (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages plus an equal amount as liquidated damages,
damages from unreasonably delayed payment of wages, redress for
missed breaks, reimbursement of business-related expenses,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of this
action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jason Kingsley operated a forklift, stocked shelves and other
general duties for Ikea US Retail. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins. Esq.
     Sean S. Vahdat, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive. Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: (949) 387-7200
     Fax: (949) 387-6676
     Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com


INSTORE GROUP: Hogan Gets Certification of Vendor Associates Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARADISE HOGAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
v. THE INSTORE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-10717-DPW (D. Mass.),
the Hon. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock entered an order:

   1. granting Mr. Hogan's Motion for Leave to Amend his
      Original Complaint;

   2. granting Mr. Hogan's Motion for partial summary judgment
      establishing statutory employee status on his First
      Amended Complaint;

   3. granting Mr. Hogan's Motion for class certification;

   4. denying InStore's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   5. directing the parties to submit on or before January 25,
      2021 a status report with a proposed scheduling order
      designed to bring this case to final judgment.

Given the common evidence and common issue of employment
classification under InStore's policies, a class action is the
superior method for adjudicating this case. Accordingly, "I will
allow Mr. Hogan's motion for class certification," says Judge
Woodlock.

Plaintiff Hogan brought this action seeking damages for his
misclassification as an independent contractor by Defendant
InStore, allegedly in disregard of his status as a statutory
employee. Mr. Hogan seeks to represent a class of:

   "similarly situated plaintiffs "vendor associates" who have
   worked on behalf of InStore in Massachusetts since January 6,
   2014."

InStore, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carlina is one of
America's leading nationwide retail merchandising advisory
organizations.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Iicc1 at no
extra charge.[CC]

INT'L CONFERENCE: Faces Loftus Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE MANAGEMENT INC.
d/b/a AUSTIN ICM INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00163 (C.D. Cal., January 8,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On or about December 19, 2019, the Plaintiff received a call on his
cellular telephone number ending in -8898 from the Defendant that
was not for emergency purposes. In an attempt to promote its
services, the Defendant allegedly contacted the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons on their cellular telephone numbers via
an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) without obtaining
their "prior express consent" to receive such calls using an ATDS.


According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons were harmed as result of the Defendant's
unsolicited calls, which caused them to incur certain charges or
reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and
invaded their privacy.

International Conference Management Inc. d/b/a Austin ICM Inc. is
in the business of producing conventions and trade shows. [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


J&J VINYL: Underpays General Labor Crews, Lloyd Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J&J VINYL SIDING, LLC and JERRY DEVILLE, Case No.
2:20-cv-03419-GGG-KWR (E.D. La., Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the
engagement of the Defendants in a pay scheme that violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act, depriving workers of minimum wages and
overtime pay.

According to the complaint, the Defendants directly employ crew
leaders who supervise general labor crews who install vinyl siding,
gutters, patio covers, screen room enclosures, and fiber cement
board. The Defendants failed to pay general laborers overtime, and
in most cases, their compensation violates the FLSA minimum wage
compensation requirements. Further, the Defendants direct the crew
leaders to pay the general laborers directly in an attempt to
insulate Defendants from their obligation as employers to comply
with the requirements under FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer
in October and November 2020.

J&J Vinyl Siding, LLC is a contractor providing installation of
vinyl siding, fiber cement board, gutters, patio covers and screen
room enclosures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Lofaso, Esq.
          LOFASO LAW FIRM, LLC
          11404 N. Lake Sherwood Avenue, Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70816
          Telephone: (225) 293-6330
          Facsimile: (225) 293-6332
          E-mail: matt@lofasolawfirm.com

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Jan. 14 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in KNDI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12150&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Kandi artificially inflated its reported
revenues through undisclosed related party transactions, or
otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated those
customers did not have an arms length relationship with Kandi; (ii)
the majority of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to
undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close
relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the
arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity
of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable
negative impact on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until February 9, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the KNDI lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


KEYME INC: Grey Says Kiosks Inaccessible to Disabled Persons
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEREMY GREY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYME, INC., and KEYME, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02019 (W.D. Tenn., January 7, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff, who is a wheelchair bound individual and a member of
a protected class under the ADA and the regulations implementing
the ADA, alleges that the Defendants violated his civil rights
under the ADA, as well as those other similarly situated wheelchair
bound individuals, for failing to design, construct, own, operate
and/or control key duplication kiosks at tens of thousands
locations throughout the U.S. that are fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, wheelchair bound individuals.

The Plaintiff asserts that he had experienced the inaccessibility
of the Defendants' Kiosks to wheelchair bound individual like him
when he attempted to operate a KeyMe Kiosk locate inside the Kroger
Store. The Defendants incorporated touch screen interfaces that
require the operator to press buttons over the maximum allowable
height and did not provide any auxiliary aids or services
calculated to make their Kiosks fully accessible to, and
independently usable by individual like him. Thereby, the Plaintiff
cannot independently browse, select and pay for duplicated keys at
Kiosks, and must divulge personal information to sighted
non-wheelchair companions or strangers in order to complete a
transaction at their Kiosks, the suit says.

Keyme, Inc. and Keyme, LLC provide self-service key duplication
kiosks to the retail industry and regularly conducts business
through the U.S and the State of Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Luke Sanderson, Esq.
          WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, P.C.
          44 N. 2nd Street, Suite 500-502
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Tel: (901) 523-1844
          E-mail: luke@wcwslaw.com


KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Brandy Gomes.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee, Brandy Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

On July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action.

In addition, the first amended class action complaint added new
causes of action alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws including a cause of action brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act.

On August 7, 2020, the Company filed its answer to the first
amended complaint, generally denying the allegations in the
complaint.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible
losses associated with this proceeding.

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

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience." The company is based in Irvine,
California.

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Choate Putative Class Suit in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a shareholder derivative action and putative
class action complaint, entitled, Choate v. Kovacevich, et al.,
filed October 1, 2020, Case No. 8:20-cv-01904-JLS-KES.

O October 2020, a purported Company shareholder filed a shareholder
derivative action and putative class action complaint (Choate v.
Kovacevich, et al., filed October 1, 2020, Case No.
8:20-cv-01904-JLS-KES, U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California) against certain current Company directors.

The suit alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty with
respect to the administration of the Company's 2016 Stock Incentive
Plan. The Company is named as a nominal defendant.

The suit seeks declaratory relief and, from the director
defendants, unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

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

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child-resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Dismissal of May Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the lead plaintiffs
in May v. KushCo Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, filed a notice of appeal of the judgment
entered by U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13,
2017 and April 9, 2019, inclusive.

In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint was filed in November 2019.

In February 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In September 2020, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

On November 2, 2020, after the lead plaintiffs failed to file an
amended complaint, the Court entered judgment in favor of the
defendants, dismissing the action with prejudice.

On December 2, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
of the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Zwillo Seeks 8th Cir Review in Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Zwillo V, Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Zwillo V, Corp. d/b/a Westport Flea
Market Bar and Grill, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO., Case No.
4:20-cv-00339-RK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought for declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising
from the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related to COVID-19 as
required by its property insurance agreements it sold to the
Plaintiff and other businesses.

The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from the Defendant to protect it in the event of property
loss and business interruption. COVID-19 and the resulting response
by state and local governments have caused physical loss to the
Plaintiff's property and have interrupted the Plaintiff's business,
according to the complaint. Yet, the Defendant has refused to honor
its promise to provide the protection that the Plaintiff
purchased.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated Dec. 2, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Zwillo V, Corp. v. Lexington
Insurance Company, Case No. 21-1015, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on February 16, 2021;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Zwillo V, Corp. 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]

Plaintiff-Appellant Zwillo V, Corp., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, doing business as Westport Flea
Market Bar & Grill, is represented by:

          Michael Barzee, Esq.
          Richard Frank Lombardo, Esq.
          Rachael Doyle Longhofer, Esq.
          Dawn M. Parsons, Esq.
          SHAFFER & LOMBARDO
          2001 Wyandotte Street
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 931-0500
          E-mail: mbarzee@sls-law.com
                  rlombardo@sls-law.com
                  rlonghofer@sls-law.com
                  dparsons@sls-law.com

               - and -

          Patricia L. Campbell, Esq.
          Brett A. Emison, Esq.
          James Kent Emison, Esq.
          LANGDON & EMISON
          911 Main Street, P.O. Box 220
          Lexington, MO 64067-0000
          Telephone: (660) 259-6175
          E-mail: tricia@lelaw.com
                  brett@lelaw.com
                  kent@lelaw.com   

               - and -

          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          MILLER & SCHIRGER
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          E-mail: jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jschirger@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          Christopher Curtis Shank, Esq.
          Patrick Joseph Stueve, Esq.
          Bradley Wilders, Esq.  
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: shank@stuevesiegel.com
                  stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com    

Defendant-Appellee Lexington Insurance Company is represented by:

          Erin E. Bradham, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 850
          Phoenix, AZ 85106
          Telephone: (602) 508-3962
          E-mail: erin.bradham@dentons.com

               - and -

          Keith Moskowitz, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
          Chicago, IL 60606-6404
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: keith.moskowitz@dentons.com  

               - and -

          Gregory Thomas Wolf, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          1100 Twentieth Century Tower II
          4520 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111-0000
          Telephone: (816) 460-2400
          E-mail: gregory.wolf@dentons.com

LIFESTYLE NUTRITION: Cooperative Medical Alleges Unsolicited Faxes
------------------------------------------------------------------
COOPERATIVE MEDICAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, P.A., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESTYLE
NUTRITION, INC., c/o its statutory agent, Christopher Fuzy,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00045-JG (N.D. Ohio, January 8, 2021)
alleges the Defendant of violations under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff had no prior or
existing business relationship with the Defendant nor had it
provided its fax number or consent to be sent facsimile, it
received an unsolicited one-page long facsimile from the Defendant
on or about April 21, 2020 advertising its services. As part of its
national marketing campaign, the Defendant allegedly continues to
send such facsimile nationwide without prior consent to do so.

As a result of the Defendant's illegal transmission of facsimile,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated suffered damages,
including monetary loss due to the costs of paper, ink and toner;
monetary loss due to work interruption and the loss of employee
time to review the fax; invasion of privacy; nuisance; trespass to
its chattel by interfering with its office facsimile used to aid
patients; stress; and aggravation, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant
from engaging in the wrongful and unlawful acts, statutory damages,
reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other relief as equity and justice
may require.

Lifestyle Nutrition, Inc. is in business of selling nutritional
products and services that it markets through medical practices.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Tel: (216) 502-1055
          Fax: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


MANHATTAN LUXURY: Faces Greene Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNMARIE GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN LUXURY
AUTOMOBILES, INC. d/b/a LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Defendant, Case No.
650094/2021 (N.Y. Sup., January 7, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to consumers'
telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, who is a customer of Honda of Manhattan, claims that
the Defendant sent her an unsolicited text message to her cellular
telephone number ending in 7786 on or about February 2017 in an
attempt to promote its services by convincing her to let the
Defendant handle her New York vehicle inspection. The Defendant's
text message received by Plaintiff was allegedly uniform in nature
sent to thousands of the Honda customers via Zipwhip, which is an
"automatic telephone dialing system" platform that enabled the
Defendant to utilize a function known as group texting in order to
text many people at one time with a single click. The Plaintiff did
not provide the Defendant her prior express consent to receive an
unsolicited text message via an ATDS.

The Plaintiff seeks only statutory damages on behalf of the Class,
the suit says.

Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. engages in car sales and
maintenance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Patterson, NJ 07514
          Tel: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com


MANHATTANVILLE COLLEGE: Laudati Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattanville
College. The case is styled as Joseph Laudati, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Manhattanville College, Case
No. 7:21-cv-00272 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Manhattanville College -- https://www.mville.edu/ -- is a private,
liberal arts college offering undergraduate and graduate degree
programs, located just miles from New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Macleod Bradham, Esq.
          MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
          444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 695-8050
          Email: jbradham@msbllp.com



MARIA D'S: Jackson Slams Illegal Tip Pool, Seeks Minimum Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jowanda Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Maria D's Inc., Virgil L. Adkins, Sr.,
Reginald Walker, Doe Managers 1 through 10 and Does 1 through 10
and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01441, (M.D.
Fla., December 22, 2019) seeks damages for violations of the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and illegally withholding tips.

Defendants operate as "Bottomz Up" and "Thunderbird Gentlemen's
Club" in Jacksonville, Florida where Jackson worked as an "exotic
dancer." Plaintiff was compensated exclusively through tips from
customers. Bottomz Up failed to pay her minimum wages and overtime
wages for all hours worked and failed to notify her about the tip
credit allowance before the credit was utilized. Dancers did not
rretain all of their tips and instead required that she divide her
tips amongst other employees who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips in violation of the tip-pool law thus Defendants are
not allowed to take a credit toward minimum wage, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
     FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
     12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 209
     North Miami, FL 33181-2536
     Telephone: (305) 901-2209
     Fax: (786) 870-4030
     Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

            - and -

     Alejandro Marin, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN LLP
     12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90066
     Telephone: (310) 507-7924
     Fax: (310) 507-7906
     Email: alejandro@kristensenlaw.com


MARKEL INSURANCE: Fountain Enterprises Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Markel Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Fountain Enterprises, LLC doing
business as: Anytime Fitness - West Point; Vita Grata LLC doing
business as: Anytime Fitness Spokane Valley; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Markel Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00027-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., Jan. 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Markel -- https://www.markelinsurance.com/ -- is a holding company
for insurance, reinsurance, and investment operations around the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kip Andrew Harbison, Esq.
          Marc Christian Greco, Esq.
          Michael Andrew Glasser, Esq.
          William Hanes Monroe, Jr., Esq.
          GLASSER & GLASSER PLC
          580 E Main St., Suite 600
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Phone: (757) 625-6787
          Email: marcg@glasserlaw.com
                 michael@glasserlaw.com
                 bill@glasserlaw.com


MARKETPRO HOMEBUYERS: Bid to Stay Akselrod Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUSTAVE AKSELROD v.
MARKETPRO HOMEBUYERS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02966-CCB (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Catherine C. Blake entered an order:

   1. denying MarketPro's request to stay the case;

   2. granting MarketPro's request to bifurcate liability and
      class discovery;

   3. permitting limited discovery into (1) the capabilities of
      the system used to make the communications at issue in
      this case; and (2) whether the communications sent to the
      plaintiff were "telephone solicitations" under the
      Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA);

   4. directing Akselrod to subpoena the third party at issue or
      take some other action to ensure the preservation of
      records, to prevent the possibility of evidence
      spoliation;

   5. setting initial deadline for the limited discovery to be
      complete by April 15, 2021, with a status report due the
      same day; and

   6. directing Counsel to notify the court when an opinion has
      been issued in Facebook v. Duguid.

The Court said, "A stay of the case is not warranted. In
considering whether the court should exercise its inherent
authority to stay a proceeding, three factors are relevant: (1)
whether the stay will promote judicial economy, measured by whether
a stay would simplify or complicate the issues in the case; (2) the
hardship to the moving party if the case is not stayed; and (3) the
potential prejudice to the non-moving party if the stay is
granted."

In this action, the plaintiff Gustave Akselrod brings a class
action complaint alleging two claims under the TCPA, against the
defendant MarketPro -- (1) a violation of the TCPA's prohibitions
on autodialing the telephones of individuals without their consent,
and (2) making telephone solicitations to individuals who are
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bKarEh at no
extra charge.[CC]

MASIMO CORPORATION: Sanchez Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Masimo Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-10986, (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 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, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a home health device manufacturing company, and owns
and operates the website, www.masimopersonalhealth.com, that
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State. Sanchez is legally blind and claims that
said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTERCARD INC: Supreme Court Tosses Appeal in Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Freeman, Esq., and Harry Denlegh-Maxwell, Esq., in an
article for The Law Society Gazette, report that on December 11, in
a long-awaited judgment (and in perhaps unique circumstances), the
Supreme Court dismissed Mastercard's appeal in the 'gargantuan'
collective action brought by Walter Merricks CBE. In doing so, the
court has markedly lowered the bar to be applied at the
certification stage for competition collective actions. This
judgment will have a significant impact on collective actions -
which are still in their relative infancy - for years to come.
Merricks' claim will now return to the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT), which will decide again (now with clear guidance from the
Supreme Court) whether to certify the claim by granting a
collective proceedings order (CPO).

The judgment also means that other collective action claims, which
had either been stayed or are waiting in the wings pending Merricks
- including those related to trucks, railway tickets and FX - will
now also be able to proceed. [GN]


MCCAFFREE-SHORT: Craven et al. Seek Unpaid OT & Unreimbursed Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA KAY CRAVEN and DEBRA HUTSON, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. McCAFFREE-SHORT
TITLE COMPANY, INC., and CARL McCAFFREE, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02003 (D. Kan., January 7, 2021) bring this complaint as a
collective action against the Defendant for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Craven was employed by the Defendants as a escrow
processor from July 2019 until September 2020, while Plaintiff
Hutson still works for the Defendant as an escrow officer since
October 2018.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated escrow processors and
escrow officers as salaried employees, exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. Although they regularly worked more than
40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them their awfully
earned overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Hutson asserts that the Defendant regularly required to
drive to credit unions or customer homes in order to get signatures
and finalize loan documents, but the Defendant did not reimburse
him for gasoline or automobile expenses

McCaffree-Short Title Company, Inc. is an abstract and title
company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Tel: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

                - and –

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


MDL 2543: Order Issued on Actions Tossed With Prejudice in GM Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION,
This Document Relates to the Following Actions: Bledsoe, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, No. 14-CV-7631, Elliott, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, et al., No. 14-CV-8382, Sesay, et al. v. General Motors
LLC, et al., No. 14-CV-6018, Yagman v. General Motors Company, et
al., No. 14-CV-9058, Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York has entered an order regarding
certain economic loss actions dismissed with prejudice by the Dec.
18, 2020 Final Order and Final Judgment approving the Economic Loss
Class Action Settlement.

Actions for economic loss in MDL 2543 were subject to Order Nos. 29
and 50, which allowed a plaintiff to pursue economic loss claims
independently of the master complaint only if no class were
certified or if the plaintiff opts out of a certified class.  With
the exception of the complaints in Elliott, Sesay, and Bledsoe
(which were reinstated pursuant to Order No. 29), all such economic
loss actions in MDL 2543 were dismissed without prejudice and
administratively closed by the Court.

Notably, on June 1, 2020, Order No. 171 administratively closed 97
economic loss actions that had previously been dismissed without
prejudice by Order Nos. 29 and 50.  Order No. 171 allowed any party
who believed that their case had been erroneously closed by the
Order to file a letter motion by June 18, 2020 to re-open the case
and explain why the case should remain open.  It also allowed a
plaintiff who elected to opt out of the Economic Loss Class Action
Settlement to file a letter motion to reopen their case within 28
days of the date that the plaintiff opted out of the Class
Settlement.  The opt out period closed on Oct. 19, 2020, and no
plaintiff subject to Order No. 171 has sought to reopen their
case.

On Dec. 18, 2020, the Court issued its Final Order and Final
Judgment and confirming the certification of the settlement class.
The Final Order and Final Judgment dismissed with prejudice 108
economic loss actions in MDL 2543 that had previously been
dismissed without prejudice and administratively closed.  In
addition, it dismissed with prejudice the Elliott, Sesay, and
Bledsoe cases and ordered them closed as well.

None of the plaintiffs in the Elliott, Sesay, and Bledsoe cases
opted out of the Economic Loss Class Action Settlement.  In
addition, the counsel for those plaintiffs has informed the Court
that all of their economic loss claims against New GM are released
under the class settlement, with the sole exception of Lawrence and
Celestine Elliott's claims under Counts I and X of the Second
Amended Class Complaint in the Bledsoe case (Case No. 14-CV-7631,
ECF No. 176).  The Counsel for New GM and the Elliotts have further
informed the Court that they have reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Elliotts' remaining claims.

In addition, in the Bledsoe case, plaintiff Tina Farmer has settled
her personal injury claims and dismissed them with prejudice, and
plaintiff Sharon Bledsoe is not pursuing and will voluntarily
dismiss with prejudice her personal injury claims.  Accordingly,
all of the claims in the Elliott, Sesay, and Bledsoe cases have
been resolved and are, or will shortly be, dismissed with
prejudice.

Another of the actions that the Final Order and Final Judgment
dismissed with prejudice was Yagman v. General Motors Company, et
al., No. 14-CV-9058.  On Dec. 21, 2020, the plaintiff in that
action, Stephen Yagman, filed a motion seeking remand of his case
to the transferor court in the Central District of California.  Mr.
Yagman's motion stated that he did not agree to be a member of any
class or settlement and that he opted-out of the settlement.

On Dec. 23, 2020, in response to the Court's Dec. 21, 2020 order,
New GM notified the Court that it did not consent to remand of Mr.
Yagman's case.  The Court denied Mr. Yagman's motion without
prejudice to renewal, subject to the procedures the Court adopts
concerning further proceedings in MDL 2543.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Furman ordered Mr. Yagman to
indicate on Jan. 25, 2021 in a filing made on the main MDL 2543
docket as well as in his individual docket the specific factual and
legal bases as to why he believes the claims pled in his operative
complaint are not released under the Settlement Agreement and
dismissed with prejudice under the Final Order and Final Judgment.

The Judge noted that Mr. Yagman's name does not appear on the list
of opt-outs determined to be valid in the Final Order and Final
Judgment, and thus Mr. Yagman's filing will address whether and how
he timely and validly opted out of the Class Settlement.  New GM
will file any response to Mr. Yagman's filing by Feb. 5, 2021.  Mr.
Yagman will file any reply by Feb. 12, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4hnq73k from Leagle.com.


MDL 2972: Second CMO Issued in Blackbaud Customer Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, has entered Case
Management Order No. 2 in the case, IN RE: BLACKBAUD, INC.,
CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL
ACTIONS, MDL Case No. 3:20-mn-02972-JMC (D.S.C.), on organizational
structure and appointment of the counsel leadership.

The Court intends to appoint the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, a
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC"), and the Plaintiffs' Liaison
Counsel as promptly as practicable.  It is considering whether the
litigation will necessitate sub-tracks with their own leadership
structures.

Reimbursement for costs and/or fees for services will be set at a
time and in a manner established by the Court after due notice to
all the counsel and after a hearing.  Any counsel who anticipates
seeking an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement expenditures
from the Court will comply with the directives contained in the
Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Section 14.213 regarding the
maintenance and filing of contemporaneous records reflecting the
services performed and the expenses incurred.

Organizational Structure of Plaintiffs' Counsel Leadership

The Court currently envisions the following roles and
responsibilities for the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, the PSC, and the
Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel:

   a. The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel will be responsible for
      coordinating pre-trial proceedings.

   b. The PSC will conduct and coordinate the discovery stage of
      the litigation with defense representatives.  It will be
      chaired by the Lead Counsel.  The Court may amend or expand
      the PSC upon request from the PSC or on its own motion, if
      and as circumstances warrant.  The PSC is given the
      responsibility to create such committees and subcommittees
      as are necessary to efficiently carry out its
      responsibilities, designate members thereof, and to
      delegate common benefit work responsibilities to selected
      counsel (including non-members of the PSC), as may be
      required for the common benefit of the Plaintiffs.

   c. The Liaison Counsel will be charged with administrative
      matters.  Notwithstanding the appointment of the Liaison
      Counsel, each counsel will have the right to participate in
      all proceedings before the Court as fully as such counsel
      deems necessary.  The Liaison Counsel will not have the
      right to bind any party as to any matter without the
      consent of counsel for that party, except Liaison Counsel's
      own clients.  Further, the Liaison Counsel will remain free
      to represent the interests and positions of their clients
      free of any claim (including without limitation any claim
      of conflict) arising from service as the Liaison Counsel.

Appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel Leadership

The Court desires to appoint individuals, not firms, who have the
time and resources available to effectuate the just and efficient
resolution of the litigation.  All leadership appointments are for
a period of one year.  Each appointee must apply for continued
service thereafter.  The Court is committed to the diversity of MDL
leadership.  Given the multitude of claims in the MDL from diverse
Plaintiffs across the country, diverse leadership is integral to
the success of these proceedings.

The Court also seeks to develop the future generation of diverse
MDL leadership by providing competent candidates with opportunities
for substantive participation now.  Additionally, it will carefully
monitor the litigation to ensure that counsel is performing their
assigned duties in a manner that is free of invidious
discrimination and bias.  It expects that leadership will choose a
diverse slate of vendors, including accountants and e-discovery
teams.

Application Process for Plaintiffs' Counsel Leadership

The Court will only consider attorneys who have filed a civil
action in the litigation for leadership positions.  However, it
does not preclude the selection of other counsel to assist in the
matter to ensure diverse leadership.  Applications for leadership
positions must be filed in the Master Docket (3:20-mn-02972) by
Feb. 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. (EST).

The Court asks that counsel refrain from sending courtesy copies.
Those applying as part of a slate should limit their application to
25 pages, double-spaced, with attachments of no more than 50 pages.
An applicant applying as an individual should identify what role
they are seeking and limit the application to 10 pages,
double-spaced, with attachments of no more than 25 pages.
Applicants filing as part of a slate are not permitted to file a
separate individual application.  Each application will include a
resume no longer than three pages.

Defense Leadership

The Defendant will propose specific lawyers as Defense Co-Lead
Counsel, together with a general description of their
qualifications and experience, by Feb. 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. (EST).
The proposal should be filed on the Master Docket.  The Court will
defer a decision on whether appointment of a Defense Steering
Committee is appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5awtt6l from Leagle.com.


MEDICAL SYNERGY: Cooperative Medical Sues Over Illegal Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
COOPERATIVE MEDICAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, P.A., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL
SYNERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-PAB (N.D. Ohio,
January 8, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant
seeking statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for its alleged violations of sending unsolicited marketing and
advertising facsimiles.

The Plaintiff claims that it received an unsolicited two pages long
facsimile from the Defendant on or about February 20, 2020 in an
attempt to promote its services. The Plaintiff asserts that it had
no prior or existing business relationship with the Defendant, and
it did not provide its fax number to the Defendant nor its prior
consent to receive such fax ads.

As a result of the Defendant's illegal transmission of facsimile,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated suffered damages,
including monetary loss due to the costs of paper, ink and toner;
monetary loss due to work interruption and the loss of employee
time to review the fax; invasion of privacy; nuisance; trespass to
its chattel by interfering with its office facsimile used to aid
patients; stress; and aggravation.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant
from engaging in the wrongful and unlawful acts, statutory damages,
reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other relief as equity and justice
may require.

Medical Synergy, Inc. is in the business offering and selling
various services to medical and chiropractic practices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Tel: (216) 502-1055
          Fax: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


MELTECH INC: Bid to Reconsider Class Status Order Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GROVE, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. MELTECH, Inc.;
H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., and SHANE HARRINGTON, Case No.
8:20-cv-00193-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon
entered an order:

   1. denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration;

   2. directing the defendants, within seven days of the date of
      this order, to produce to the plaintiff the names, last
      known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers
      for:

      "all individuals who currently work and/or previously
      worked at Club Omaha as exotic dancers at any time in the
      three years preceding the date of the Court's conditional
      class certification order;"

   3. holding in abeyance the plaintiff's motion for civil
      contempt pending the defendants' compliance with this
      Memorandum and Order; and

   4. directing the defendants to promptly obtain local counsel
      to assist in the defense of this action.

The Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court's order granting
the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of class, and
ask for a stay pending resolution of the plaintiff's motion to
dismiss, They also seek a protective order with respect to the
production of names and contact information of potential collective
class members. They contend the Court's ruling on the plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification was premature absent a
ruling on their then-pending motion to dismiss, for summary
judgment and to compel arbitration. The Court has now entered an
order denying the defendants' earlier motion, so the defendants'
arguments in that regard have been rendered moot.

This is an action for damages and injunctive relief brought
pursuant to the fair Labor Standards Act.

Meltech provides general contracting, construction management,
environmental, and electrical services. The Company offers
designing, healthcare, program management, education, aviation,
warehousing, military housing, power plants, and laboratory
construction.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XJPl0y at no extra charge.[CC]

MENARD INC: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Menard, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled In re: Interior Molded Doors Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00718-JAG, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Grubb Lumber Company brings this action on its own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover treble damages
and other appropriate relief based on Defendants' violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, arising from the Defendants' collusive pricing and
illegal scheme for "interior molded doors."

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order
dated December 28, 2020, denying the non-parties' motions to
intervene. Because the Court has denied the non-parties' motions to
intervene, it DENIES their other pending motions, including the
motion to stay. Further, because Defendants Jeld-Wen and Masonite
have voluntarily dismissed their appeals of this Court's denial of
their motions to reconsider the Unsealing Order, the Court VACATES
its Orders staying the Unsealing Order. The Court directs the
parties to file public copies of the documents in this case, with
the redactions discussed in the Unsealing Order, on or before
January 11, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Grubb Lumber Company, Inc. v.
Menard, Inc., Case No. 21-1009, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and PHILADELPHIA
RESERVE SUPPLY CO. are represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC
          1111 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com  

               - and -

          Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC
          440 Monticello Avenue
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628-5525
          E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com

               - and -

          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 Saint Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0202
          E-mail: jsindoni@bonizack.com

Defendant-Appellant MENARD, INC. is represented by:

          Timothy D. Belevetz, Esq.
          ICE MILLER, LLP
          200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 572-1605
          E-mail: timothy.belevetz@icemiller.com


MGT CAPITAL: Settlement in 2018 Securities Class Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 12, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the class
settlement in the 2018 Securities Class Actions has been finally
approved.

In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and certain of its individual officers
and shareholders, alleging violations of federal securities laws
and seeking damages.

The 2018 Securities Class Action followed and referenced the
allegations made against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
others in the SEC Action.

The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28,
2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and alleges that the named defendants engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock and that, as a result, defendants' statements about
the Company's business and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at relevant times.

The second putative class action was filed on October 9, 2018, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and makes similar allegations.

On May 28, 2019, the parties to the 2018 Securities Class Actions
entered into a binding settlement term sheet, and on September 24,
2019, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.

On August 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the first class action
filed a notice and order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and
on October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the second class action
filed in the federal court in New York an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.

On December 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Final approval of the settlement of the 2018 Securities Class
Actions was granted on May 27, 2020. The plaintiff shareholder
class received $750 in cash settlement, inclusive of attorney fees.


This amount was paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

MGT Capital Investments, Inc. engages in bitcoin mining operations
in the Wenatchee Valley area of central Washington. At March 30,
2018, it owned and operated approximately 500 miners located in a
leased facility in Quincy, Washington; and 4,200 miners located in
a leased facility in Sweden, as well as operated approximately
2,100 miners in the Sweden location. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.

MIDWEST COMPOSITE: Trautman Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARC TRAUTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MIDWEST COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-43
(E.D. Wis., Jan. 11, 2021) is a collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws for purposes of obtaining relief for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the court may deem
appropriate.

Mr. Trautman was hired as polymer additive technician working at
the Defendant's Hartland, Wisconsin production facility from
approximately October 2018 to approximately August 2020.

Midwest Composite Technologies, Inc. provides industrial
prototyping technologies. The Company offers additive
manufacturing, model making and large prototypes, industrial design
and CAD, and low volume production. Midwest Composite Technologies
serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

MIDWEST MOLDING: Semper Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Semper, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Midwest Molding, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2020L001484 (Ill. Cir., December 23, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Midwest Molding, Inc., supplies manufactured components and
assemblies supporting the automotive, transportation, electronic
and consumer goods industries. Its employees are required to scan
their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means
of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards. Defendant allegedly collected the biometrics
of its employees exposing their data to serious and irreversible
privacy risks.

Ivan Semper worked at Midwest's warehouse in Bartlett, Illinois
from approximately September 2020 until November 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 201-0575
      Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
             cpsons@bormeslaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726-3400
      Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com


MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Genetic Screening Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Mickleboro, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that
fertility company Monash IVF Group Ltd's shares have been sold off
in recent weeks after it was hit with a class action. These
proceedings are in relation to the company's non-invasive
preimplantation genetic screening technology. As things stand, no
details have been provided in respect to the amount of damages
sought. [GN]

NATURAL POWER: Faces Landy Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRENNAN LANDY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURAL POWER RESOURCES, LLC d/b/a
SUNTUITY, a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00425 (D.N.J., January 8, 2021), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed a call on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 5129 on or around
October 29, 2020 in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase
its products. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS). This was confirmed by the Plaintiff by
answering the call, in which she was being transferred to three
different phone operators of the Defendant soliciting the Plaintiff
to purchase solar panels or other green energy solutions, solar
energy products, and Suntuity's products. The Plaintiff added that
she never provided any oral consent or written consent to the
Defendant to receive such ATDS solicitation call.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has caused actual harm and
cognizable legal injury by continuing to make unauthorized calls,
such as aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy. Thus, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action against the
Defendant to stop its practice of making unsolicited autodialed
telephone calls to consumers' cellular telephones without procuring
prior express written consent as required by the law, and to obtain
redress for all persons similarly situated injured by the
Defendant's unlawful conduct, the suit says.

Natural Power Resources, LLC d/b/a Suntuity is a supplier of solar
energy solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.
          ARONS & ARONS, LLC
          76 South Orange Ave., Suite 100
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Tel: (973) 762-0795
          Fax: (973) 762-0279
          E-mail: ja@aronslaw.net

                - and –

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Tel: (720) 213-0675
          Fax: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


NAZCA PERUVIAN: Corrales Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Corrales, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nazca Peruvian Restaurant Inc., Armando's
Pollo Rico 2 Corp., Karen Tapia and Christian Tapia, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-06273 (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 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 Peruvian restaurant, located
at Ozone Park, New York under the name "Nazca" where Corrales was
employed as a dishwasher and ostensibly as a delivery worker. He
claims 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.
Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite
requiring Corrales to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding
20% of the total hours worked each workweek. He also claims to have
never received wage statements. [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


NEO CABINET: Galigher Gets Conditional Cert. of Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA GALIGHER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEO
CABINET, INC., NEO HOLDINGS, LLC, and NATHAN FRITZE, Case No.
2:20-cv-02140-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge P.K. Holmes, III
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification of a collective action and approval of
      notice;

   2. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and authorizing
      notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs;

      -- The opt-in class will consist of:

         "all current and former hourly employees of NEO
         Cabinet, INC., NEO Holdings, LLC, and/or Nathan Fritze
         who worked more than forty hours in any week any time
         after August 12, 2017;"

      -- Within 10 days after receiving the contact information
         for potential opt-in plaintiffs, the Plaintiff must
         prepare and distribute notice to all putative
         plaintiffs as allowed by this order;

      -- The Plaintiff must file any opt-in plaintiffs' signed
         consent-to-join forms with the Court within 60 days
         after receiving the contact information of potential
         opt-in plaintiffs;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide the names, mailing
      addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of all
      putative members of the collective action;

      -- The Defendants may provide this information in any
         reasonable format;

      -- The Defendants have until January 21, 2021 to deliver
         the contact information to Plaintiff;

   4. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent-to-
      join forms; and

   5. directing the Defendants to post a copy of the notice in a
      conspicuous location at their facilities in an employee
      common area or where other notices of employee rights are
      posted.

The Court finds that under the lenient standard applicable to this
notice stage of certification, the Plaintiff has met her burden to
demonstrate that she is similarly situated with other putative
class members. Accordingly, the Court will conditionally certify
this action. Regarding the class definition, the Plaintiff requests
that the Court conditionally certify and approve notice for the
following class:

   "all hourly employees who worked more than 40 hours in any
   week within the past three years.

The Court said, "The Defendants make no objection to this class
definition. However, because the definition does not clarify the
time frame, the definition must be amended as follows:

   “all hourly-paid employees who worked more than forty hours
   in any week anytime since August 12, 2017."

The Plaintiff alleges she was a shared employee of the Defendants
from July 2019 to July 2020. The Plaintiff worked as a bookkeeper
for the Defendants until March 2020, when she began working as both
a bookkeeper and a property manager.

The Plaintiff contends that she and other hourly employees
regularly worked over 40 hours a week but Defendants did not pay
them an overtime premium of 1.5 times their hourly rate for hours
worked in excess of 40. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

NEO Cabinet is a furniture and cabinet installation company, and
NEO Holdings is a real estate and property management business.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/35IlyKkat no
extra charge.[CC]

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Fails to Provide CFI Waiver Services, Price Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE PRICE, EMILY FITZMORRIS, KATHLEEN BATES, and PAUL SCOTT,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
COMMISSIONER, currently Lori Shibinette, in their official capacity
as Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human
Services; and NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D.N.H., Jan. 11, 2021) challenges
the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services' (NHDHHS)
violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the
Medicaid Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

The Plaintiffs, who are people with disabilities enrolled in New
Hampshire's Choices for Independence Medicaid Waiver (CFI Waiver),
bring this class action, on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated individuals for NHDHHS' alleged failure to
provide them with the community-based, long-term care services
available through the CFI Waiver and for which the state has found
them eligible.

These long-term care services are supposed to help seniors and
adults with chronic illnesses to continue living independently in
their own homes and communities.

However, the complaint says, the NHDHHS' failure places the
Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, at risk of going into an
institutional setting to secure the services that they need and
should be able to get in their homes. NHDHHS' failure in this
regard is all the more harmful -- and potentially lethal -- in the
context of the COVID-19 public health crisis, which has hit the
state's nursing facilities particularly hard, the suit says.

The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services is the
state's single state Medicaid agency which receives federal funding
under the Medicaid Act and is responsible for administering New
Hampshire's Medicaid programs, including the CFI Waiver, in
compliance with the Medicaid Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
          Mark Tyler Knights, Esq.
          Kierstan E. Schultz, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          900 Elm Street, 14th Floor
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Telephone: (603) 628-4047
                     (603) 628-4031
          Facsimile: (844) 675-4275
          E-mail: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com
                  mknights@nixonpeabody.com
                  kschultz@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Kelly Bagby, Esq.
          M. Geron Gadd, Esq.
          Susan Ann Silverstein, Esq.
          AARP FOUNDATION
          601 E Street NW
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-2060
          Facsimile: (202) 434-6622
          E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org
                  ggadd@aarp.org
                  ssilverstein@aarp.org

               - and -

          Cheryl S. Steinberg, Esq.
          NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          117 N. State Street
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 206-2210
          E-mail: csteinberg@nhla.org

               - and -

          Kay E. Drought, Esq.
          NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          154 High Street
          Portsmouth, NH 03801
          Telephone: (603) 206-2253
          E-mail: kdrought@nhla.org

               - and -

          Pamela E. Phelan, Esq.
          Todd R. Russell, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER – NEW HAMPSHIRE
          64 North Main Street, Suite 2
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 228-0432
          Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
          E-mail: pamelap@drcnh.org
                  toddr@drcnh.org

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: New York Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the lawsuit entitled IN RE NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18-CV-7143 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs in the putative securities-fraud class action --
brought pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder -- are
investors in Nielsen, a publicly traded data analytics company most
famous for its television ratings service. The Plaintiffs allege
that Nielsen and several of its officers, Dwight Mitchell Barns,
Jamere Jackson, and Kelly Abcarian, made various false and
misleading statements overstating the strength of Nielsen's
business segments.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false or misleading
statements in Securities and Exchange Commission filings and during
earnings calls and industry conferences over a Class Period
spanning from February 11, 2016, to July 25, 2018. The alleged
false or misleading statements can be broadly grouped into two
categories: statements concerning the Buy Segment and statements
concerning the effect of the European Union's General Data
Protection Regulation ("GDPR") on Nielsen's Watch Segment.

The Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in 2016, the Defendants
repeatedly made three kinds of misstatements about Nielsen's Buy
Segment. First, in a Feb. 11, 2016 press release reporting results
for the fourth quarter of 2015, Nielsen projected that its Buy
Developed Market ("BDM") segment would report 1.5% to 3.5% growth
in BDM revenue. Contrary to these assertions and projections,
however, discretionary spending was actually declining throughout
2016. Indeed, on Oct. 25, 2016, Barns and Jackson admitted during
an earnings call that they knew discretionary spending had been
declining throughout the year, that the decline was permanent, and
that it caused BDM revenues to fall 2.5% in the third quarter of
2016. When this news broke, Nielsen's stock plummeted nearly 17%.

Second, Barns and Jackson misrepresented the value of Buy Segment
goodwill in Nielsen's Forms 10-K for the years ending Dec. 31,
2016, and Dec. 31, 2017, by making unreasonable and baseless cash
flow assumptions that caused Nielsen to report inflated earnings,
assets, and capital. In reality, after the Class Period and after
Barns and Jackson left Nielsen, Nielsen recorded a $1.4 billion
impairment charge that reduced the value of the Buy Segment's
goodwill by 54%.

Third, in 2017 and 2018, Barns and Jackson represented that
Nielsen's Buy Emerging Market ("BEM") revenue would increase by 8%
to 10% in 2018, that business was exceptionally strong and robust,
and that Nielsen continued to see solid growth from both local
clients and multinationals across the emerging markets. Barns and
Jackson also represented that any revenue execution issues in China
that had contributed to lower revenue than projected for the fourth
quarter of 2017 had been resolved and that the Chinese Buy market
was "very healthy," with "tremendous growth opportunities." In
actuality, Nielsen's BEM clients were significantly reducing
spending throughout 2018, particularly in China and Southeast Asia,
and the revenue execution issues were ongoing.

The Plaintiffs also allege false or misleading statements about the
effect of GDPR on Nielsen's ability to acquire data from providers
such as Facebook. GDPR, a sweeping data privacy regulation adopted
in April 2016, and effective on May 25, 2018, created a system of
rules restricting the use of personal data. On Sept. 12, 2018,
however, Megan Clarken, then the President of Product Leadership,
revealed that, on the day GDPR was enacted, Nielsen's clients cut
the company's access to their data, shutting off 120 of Nielsen's
campaigns and raising doubts with respect to the truth of Nielsen's
past assurances.

On their allegations regarding the Defendants' BDM-related
statements in 2016 and 2017, the Plaintiffs point to a series of
press releases and earnings calls in which the Defendants assured
investors that the BDM was "stable" and projected to see 1.5% to
3.5% growth in revenue in 2016. Nielsen's initial forecast and
later reaffirmations were untenable, the Plaintiffs allege, because
senior management knew as early as 2015 that it was the "new norm"
for Nielsen's CPG clients to reduce their discretionary spending on
Nielsen's analytical services, preferring instead to buy only
"real-time data" and run their own analyses.

Because discretionary spending constituted 30% of total revenue,
the Defendants knew the decline would have a negative impact on its
BDM business and misled investors with optimistic statements and by
failing to disclose the trend, District Judge Jesse M. Furman
opines. He finds that the Complaint does not adequately allege that
the Defendants were aware of the trend in 2015 or in the first
quarter of 2016 -- that is, when they filed the Company's 2016 Form
10-K or April 2016 Form 10-Q. He adds that the Plaintiffs'
allegations do not suffice to show that the Defendants actually
possessed knowledge about the trend in 2015.

Broadly speaking, the Plaintiffs' claims relating to these
allegations are premised on two distinct theories: first, that the
Defendants failed to disclose in Nielsen's 2016 Form 10-K and 10-Qs
that discretionary spending was trending downward as a result of
its clients' lack of interest in the Company's analytics offerings,
in violation of Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Section
229.303; and second, that the Defendants made materially misleading
revenue forecasts and other statements about the stability of the
BDM business from 2016 to 2017.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege an Item 303 violation with
respect to Nielsen's 2016 Form 10-K and April 2016 Form 10-Q based
on a failure to disclose a downward trend in discretionary
spending, the Defendants' motion is granted and such claims are
dismissed, Judge Furman rules. By contrast, the Defendants' motion
is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants
failed to disclose the trend in Nielsen's July 2016 Form 10-Q and
thereafter. He adds that the Defendants' motion with respect to the
Plaintiffs' claims based on the BDM-related revenue forecasts must
be and is granted.

The Plaintiffs allege similar claims regarding the Defendants'
statements concerning the BEM business between Oct. 25, 2017, and
May 31, 2018. Specifically, they allege that on Oct. 25, 2017,
Barns and Jackson falsely represented that an "exceptionally
strong" and "robust" BEM business was "led by strength in Latin
America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and Greater China" and that
it would "continue to be a growth engine." In the second quarter of
2018, however, BEM revenue increased just 0.3%, upon news of which
Jackson acknowledged that client spending had been weak throughout
the quarter.

Judge Furman holds that these claims are easily rejected. Indeed,
the Plaintiffs' BEM-related allegations are even thinner than their
unsuccessful BDM-related allegations and ultimately fail because
scienter is not sufficiently pleaded. To establish scienter,
Plaintiffs rely on general statements from confidential witnesses,
and subsequent, unexpected negative quarterly results. But the
confidential witness statements do not support the weight the
Plaintiffs put on them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' BEM-related
claims must be and are dismissed.

The Court also considers the Plaintiffs' allegations that the
Defendants misrepresented the fair value of Nielsen's Buy Segment
and its goodwill in the Company's 2016 and 2017 Form 10-Ks. The
Plaintiffs contend that the $1.4 billion impairment charge that
Nielsen recorded in 2019 should have been recorded during the Class
Period. In light of that, they allege that the Defendants misled
investors in the 2016 and 2017 Forms 10-K by representing that,
among other things, any downward revisions in the fair value of
Nielsen's goodwill were just a risk that "could" materially affect
the Company's financial performance and that total assets in the
Buy business were $6.697 billion (including $2.696 billion of
goodwill).

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' goodwill-related claims
pass muster. Notably, the Defendants do not raise any serious
arguments against the Plaintiffs' allegations except to assert that
the "Plaintiffs cannot state a claim of fraud through a retroactive
math exercise lacking any allegation that Defendants disbelieved
their goodwill valuations at the time they were publicly
presented." The Plaintiffs adequately allege that the Defendants'
rosy valuation of Buy Segment goodwill was based on baseless cash
flow growth rates that they failed to disclose in their 2017 and
2018 Form 10-Ks, Judge Furman holds.

Judge Furman also notes that Nielsen's cautionary language preceded
GDPR and its negative effects on the company and adequately warned
investors of the impending risk. This language not only establishes
that the Defendants' forward-looking statements are inactionable,
but it also establishes that the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently
allege an Item 303 violation based on the pre-GDPR statements.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' pre-GDPR-related Item 303 claim must
be and is also dismissed.

Judge Furman also holds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege
that the Defendants made misleading guarantees about GDPR's impact
on Nielsen's business that negate any previous disclosure and
plausibly allege scienter. Accordingly, while the Defendants'
motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' pre-GDPR-related claims, it
is denied as to their post-GDPR-related claims.

For the stated reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part. In particular, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the Defendants
(1) failed to disclose a downward trend in discretionary spending
in Nielsen's July 2016 Form 10-Q and subsequent Forms filed with
the SEC during the Class Period; (2) made misleading opinion
statements about the BDM business in July 2016; (3) made misleading
statements about the fair value of Buy Segment goodwill in
Nielsen's 2016 and 2017 Form 10-Ks; and (4) made false and
misleading statements about GDPR's effect on the Watch Segment
after the regulation went into effect. It follows that the
Plaintiffs' claims relating to these statements -- under Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) -- survive. By contrast, the
Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims relating to the failed Section
10(b) claims must be and are dismissed.

The only remaining question is whether the Plaintiffs should be
permitted to replead their claims to the extent they have been
dismissed. Given the deficiencies discussed and the fact that the
Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend already, the Court is
skeptical that the Plaintiffs can cure the defects that it has
found in their claims and, thus, would likely be on firm ground
denying leave to amend.

Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court will grant the
Plaintiffs leave to amend once more. No later than Jan. 19, 2021,
the parties will confer and submit a proposed stipulation setting
forth deadlines for the filing of any amended complaint and any
answers or motions with respect to the existing Complaint or any
amended complaint

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 75.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 4,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y24bk7j5 from
Leagle.com.


NORTH DAKOTA: Sorum Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Paul Sorum, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Paul Sorum, Marvin Nelson, Michael Coachman, Charles Tuttle
and Lisa Marie Omlid, each on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated tax payers of the State of North Dakota,
Petitioners v. The State of North Dakota, The Board of University
and School Lands of the State of North Dakota, The North Dakota
Industrial Commission, The Hon. Douglas Burgum, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of North Dakota, and the Hon.
Wayne Stenehjem, in his official capacity as Attorney General of
North Dakota, Respondents, Case No. 20-899.

Response is due on February 4, 2021.

Mr. Sorum, et al., petition the Court for a Writ of Certiorari to
review the Judgment of the North Dakota Supreme Court in the case
titled Paul Sorum, Marvin Nelson, Michael Coachman, Charles Tuttle
and Lisa Marie Omlid, each on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated tax payers of the State of North Dakota,
Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants v. The State of North
Dakota, The Board of University and School Lands of the State of
North Dakota, The North Dakota Industrial Commission, The Hon.
Douglas Burgum, in his official capacity as Governor of the State
of North Dakota, and the Hon. Wayne Stenehjem, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of North Dakota, Defendants,
Appellants, and Cross-Appellees, Case No. 20190203.

The questions presented are:

     1. In 2017, the North Dakota legislature directed transfer to
private interests of 96,000 acres in the sovereign bed of the
Missouri River and payment of $187 million. The bed was submerged
by the Federal Garrison Dam Project. Petitioners, taxpayers of the
State, challenged the statute as violating the Public Trust
Doctrine and the State Constitution's Anti-Gift Clause and Flowing
Waters Clause. Employing principles of "conflict preemption," the
North Dakota Supreme Court held the Federal Flood Control Act of
1944 (33 U.S.C. 701-1) and Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Section
1301) preempt all state law determining ownership of submerged
lands. However, "After statehood, the extent of ownership of lands
under navigable waters is decided solely as a matter of State law."
Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429
U.S. 363, 378, 97 S. Ct. 582, 591, 50 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1977). The
question presented is: Does Federal law preempt State law for the
purpose of determining ownership of the bed of navigable waters
within a State?

     2. The Court held that the broad grant made by the Submerged
Lands Act excluded all land acquired by eminent domain, whereas the
plain language of the statute excludes only land acquired in the
Government's "proprietary capacity." (43 U.S.C. Section 1313(b)).
The question presented is: After it is permanently submerged, is
land acquired by the Federal Government as part of Federal dam
projects included in the broad grant to the states made by the
Submerged Land Act?

The case turned on the ownership of the bed of the Missouri River
and its proceeds. If the State owns these assets, the Act violates
the Public Trust Doctrine (prohibiting divestiture of sovereign
trust land) and the North Dakota State Constitution, including the
Anti-Gift clause (Art. X., Section 18) (prohibiting gifts of State
assets to private interests) and the Flowing Waters Clause (Art.
XI, Section 3) (prohibiting divestiture of lands under navigable
waters).

According to the petition, the North Dakota Supreme Court decision
is the result of two material errors. First, the Court erroneously
held that the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Submerged Land Act
preempt State law in determining ownership of navigable waters
within the State. The Court should have applied State law, not
Federal law, in determining the ownership of the land submerged by
the Garrison Dam. Second, in applying the Submerged Land Act, the
Court erred by finding that the grant excluded all land acquired by
eminent domain. To the contrary, the Submerged Land Act grant only
excludes "land acquired by eminent domain [or other means] in a
proprietary capacity."[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Paul Sorum, Marvin Nelson, Michael Coachman,
Charles Tuttle and Lisa Marie Omlid, each on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated tax payers of the State of North
Dakota, are represented by:

          Terrance William Moore, Esq.
          J. Robert Keena, Esq.
          Joseph M. Barnett, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: tmoore@hjlawfirm.com
                  jkeena@hjlawfirm.com
                  jbarnett@hjlawfirm.com

NORTHERN DYNASTY: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Jan. 10 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK)

Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021

The complaint alleges that during the class period Northern Dynasty
Minerals Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project
was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public
interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be
larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a
result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project
would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in NAK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=12051&from=1

Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI)

Class Period: March 28, 2019 - December 9, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021

During the class period, Qiwi plc allegedly made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping
were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia
would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose
restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign
merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in QIWI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form?id=12051&from=1

GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX)

Class Period: September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period GoodRx
Holdings, Inc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst
to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon
introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before
Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate
the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold
therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and
the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants'
knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical
business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's
competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge,
defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged
herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Learn about your recoverable losses in GDRX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12051&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


OREPAC BUILDING: 4th Cir. to Review Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant OrePac Building Products, Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled In re: Interior Molded
Doors Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00718-JAG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Grubb Lumber Company brings this action on its own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover treble damages
and other appropriate relief based on Defendants' violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, arising from the Defendants' collusive pricing and
illegal scheme for "interior molded doors."

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order
dated December 28, 2020, denying the non-parties' motions to
intervene. Because the Court has denied the non-parties' motions to
intervene, it DENIES their other pending motions, including the
motion to stay. Further, because Defendants Jeld-Wen and Masonite
have voluntarily dismissed their appeals of this Court's denial of
their motions to reconsider the Unsealing Order, the Court VACATES
its Orders staying the Unsealing Order. The Court directs the
parties to file public copies of the documents in this case, with
the redactions discussed in the Unsealing Order, on or before
January 11, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Grubb Lumber Company, Inc. v.
OrePac Building Products, Inc., Case No. 21-1007, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and PHILADELPHIA
RESERVE SUPPLY CO. are represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC
          1111 East Main Street, P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com  

               - and -

          Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC
          440 Monticello Avenue
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628-5525
          E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com

               - and -

          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 Saint Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0202
          E-mail: jsindoni@bonizack.com

Defendant-Appellant OREPAC BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. is represented
by:

          Patrick James McDonald, Esq.
          CAMERON MCEVOY, PLLC
          4100 Monument Corner Drive
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 460-9344

PDR NETWORK: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs' TCPA World, reports that
a Christmas Eve decision from the Northern District of California
addressed an important and recurring issue in the TCPAWorld:
Whether the Hobbs Act requires a district court to accept the FCC
Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau's (the "Bureau's") legal
interpretation of the TCPA. The district court held that the
Bureau's Amerifactors Ruling "is authoritative and establishes that
those who received faxes via an online fax service have different
legal rights than those who received faxes via a traditional
physical fax machine." See True Health Chiropractic Inc. v.
McKesson Corp., Case No. 13-cv-02219-HSG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
242297, *21-22 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020).

This case offers the TCPAWorld a number of important takeaways.
First, despite holding that recipients of online faxes "have
different legal rights," the district court refused to decertify
the class. Instead, the district court decided to treat the online
fax recipients as a distinct subclass, opining: "the question of
whether the Online Fax Service subclass has a claim under the TCPA
is simply a common merits question whose answer will be the same
for all members of that subclass." Id. at *22. Practically then,
despite receiving the benefit of the Amerifactors Ruling, the
defendant did not escape class certification. And the district
court did not address ascertainability or due process issues
implicated by a "subclass" of online fax recipients who likely
cannot state a claim under the TCPA.

Second, the district court held that the 2019 Supreme Court's
decision in PDR did not control. See PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton &
Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2015 (2019). The district
court explained that the Supreme Court in PDR "granted certiorari,
but ultimately did not resolve whether the Hobbs Act requires a
district court to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the
TCPA." 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242297, at *15. Without Supreme Court
guidance, the district court concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent
required the district court to "treat Amerifactors as
authoritative." Id. at *16. That is because in the Ninth Circuit,
"district courts do not have jurisdiction to question the validity
of FCC final orders." Id. at *18 (citing US West Communs., Inc. v.
Hamilton, 224 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that
while "we doubt the soundness of the FCC's interpretation . . . we
are not at liberty to review that interpretation)).

Third, the district court mentioned its agreement with "the
reasoning of Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in PDR Network,
because requiring federal courts to treat administrative agencies'
legal interpretations as invariably binding under these
circumstances would appear to pose practical as well as
constitutional problems." Id. at *19, n.7. "But," the district
court admitted, "these questions are obviously for another day, and
for a higher court than this one." Id.

Finally, the district court's decision treating the Bureau's Ruling
as binding contradicts the Fourth Circuit's decision last month on
remand in PDR. See Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. v. PDR
Network, LLC, No. 16-2185, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38074, (4th Cir.
Dec. 7, 2020). Namely, as we covered in closer detail, in that case
the Fourth Circuit held that TCPA interpretive rulings (at least
those lacking notice and comment) are not entitled to Hobbs Act or
even Chevron deference.

We'll continue to cover this critical issue for the TCPAWorld.
[GN]


PECKHAM INC: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PECKHAM, INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00565-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) Collective;

   2. authorizing the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and
      implementing a procedure whereby the notice of Plaintiffs'
      FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text
      message) to:

      "all current and former hourly call center agents who
      worked in Peckham's Battle Creek call center at any time
      during the past three years";

   3. requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by providing names, dates of employment, job
      titles, and last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and
      email addresses in an agreeable format for mailing within
      14 days of the entry of the order;

   4. appointing their counsel as counsel for the Collective;
      and

   5. giving members of the Collective 60 days from the date the
      notice is mailed to join this case if they so choose.

Plaintiff Lori Wilson, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated call center agents, filed this lawsuit against
Peckham challenging its willful violations of the FLSA. More
specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Peckham willfully violated
the FLSA by knowingly suffering or permitting them to perform
unpaid work before and during their scheduled shifts but failed to
pay these employees the federally mandated overtime compensation.

Peckham is a Michigan corporation that describes itself as "a
national award-winning non-profit organization" that works "with
community partners and through our own diverse business lines
consisting of apparel manufacturing, warehousing, call centers,
environmental services, and farming." According to its website,
Peckham maintains a "Contact Center Solutions" business line (i.e.,
call centers), which "provides best in class pre sales, post sales,
and IT support services that meet or exceed the most demanding
brand standards, all delivered from a hyper scalable and flexible
platform."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 13,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nSQ22z
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
          Telephone: (269) 324-3000
          E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com

PERFORMANCE MASTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL CAMEY MORALES, HECTOR MARTINEZ, LUIS MAURAT, ISAIAS NOE
HERRERA, RIGOBERTO ALFARO, ANGEL ARANA, ALBERTO MORALES, CARLOS
GUARDODA, GONZALO CORDOBA, and SAUL REYES RAMOS, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFORMANCE MASTER,
INC., FIVE HORSEMEN CONSTRUCTION INC., FIVE HORSEMEN LLC, and
RONALD CHIEN, and JOAH SAMUEL, as individuals, Case No.
1:21-cv-00097 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2021) seeks to recover damages for
the Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs'
employment by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them
minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to provide with a
written wage notice, and failed to provide wage statements upon
each payment of wages.

The Plaintiffs, former employees of Defendants, were employed to
perform construction, carpentry, and other related work at various
times during the period spanning in or around November 2018 to in
or around March 2020.

Performance Master, Inc., Five Horsemen Construction INC. and Five
Horsemen LLC are construction companies based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

PETER NYGARD: Lawyer Issues Apology to Sexual Assault Victim
------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Barghout, writing for CBC News, reports that Winnipeg
lawyer Jay Prober says he wasn't talking about KC Allan when he
called women accusing his client Peter Nygard of sexually
assaulting them liars and criminals.

Allan filed a professional misconduct complaint with the Law
Society of Manitoba in October 2020 about comments Prober made to
CBC News and the Winnipeg Free Press about her and other alleged
rape victims suing Nygard. In June, CBC reported Prober claimed the
allegations were fabricated in a bid to destroy Nygard's
reputation.  

"They are more of the same by women jumping on the perceived money
train who are likely to have been paid to make these fabricated
accusations," said Prober in June 12 email to CBC News in response
to allegations of sexual assault, including Allan's.

Months later on Jan. 8, 2021, an agreement was reached between
Prober and Allan and that included a public apology in exchange for
not pursuing a defamation suit against Prober.

"I am truly sorry that she felt that the comments I made were
related to her, they were not, and for that I sincerely and
publicly apologize," said Prober in a written apology to Allan,
that she shared with CBC News.

Allan says the apology amounts to a "dog ate my homework apology."

"I wanted him to publicly stand up and act like a mensch and, you
know, say he'd done wrong, that he had misspoken and that it was
bad. And I didn't get that," said Allan in a phone interview with
CBC News from her home in Savannah, Georgia.

Nygard, was arrested Dec. 14 in Winnipeg and is awaiting
extradition to the U.S. for allegations of sex trafficking and
racketeering conspiracy.

Fifty-seven women are part of a class action lawsuit in New York
alleging they were sexually assaulted by the 79-year-old fashion
designer, some dating as far back as 1977. The lawsuit is now on
hold until the criminal investigation is complete.

On Feb.18, 2020, when 10 women had initially accused Nygard of
assault, Prober, Nygard's longtime lawyer, was quoted in the
Winnipeg Free Press as saying: "a lot of people see dollar signs in
their jumping on the bandwagon."

By April 21, 46 women had joined the lawsuit against Nygard. At
that time, Prober told the newspaper, "As I predicted before, more
women are jumping on what they perceived to be the money train, the
gravy train. They see this as a cash cow. I believe that explains
the rather ludicrous number of additional plaintiffs."

Two months later on June 11, an additional 11 women added their
names to the lawsuit, including Allan, bringing the total to 57.

On June 14th, CBC's The Fifth Estate published Prober's comments
which led to Allan's complaint with the law society.

In the back-and-forth with the law society, Prober said his
comments were about the class action as a whole and not about Allan
specifically.

"How can Prober expect me, the media and the public to understand
that when he says, '. . . the allegations from the women are
fiction . . . more women are jumping on what they perceive to be
the money train . . . They see this as a cash cow . . .' he is
referring to the class generally, not the women who comprise it?,"
wrote Allan in a rebuttal to Prober's response to the law society.

Allan is a former model who grew up in Winnipeg and now lives in
the U.S.

She says in 1979, when she was 17 years old, Nygard raped her. They
met at a nightclub and he offered her a ride home, but stopped at
his Winnipeg warehouse on the way.

Allan says she decided to add her name to the class action lawsuit,
in part because of the horrible things Prober was saying about the
other women.

"The rape that I endured at his client's hands was 41 years ago. I
knew it could not be said of me that I was part of a conspiracy. I
thought that I brought credibility to everybody else's testimony,"
said Allan.

She said when Prober continued to accuse the women of conspiracy
and lies, she had enough. Allan hired Winnipeg lawyer Robert Tapper
and threatened Prober with a defamation lawsuit.

"She had the right to have this issue dealt with", said Tapper. "I
reviewed the materials, and put Prober on notice."

After months of back-and-forth, Allan says Prober finally agreed to
issue a public apology, which his lawyer is supposed to send to CBC
News and the Winnipeg Free Press on Jan. 4.

Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman questions whether the
apology is in fact an apology

"Apart from the title of 'Apology', I see little to nothing from
Jay Prober's statement that takes responsibility and expresses
remorse for repeatedly spreading historical stereotypes about women
who complain of sexual assault," he said

In June, Warman complained to the Manitoba Law Society about
similar comments Prober made to the media about Nygard's accusers.
His complaint was dismissed because he had no personal connection
to the case.

Warman appealed that decision and won.

"I believe the Manitoba Law Society should have taken action on its
own when I first contacted them as a member of the legal profession
to deal with Jay Prober's unprofessional comments rather than
dismissing my complaint out of hand, forcing a victim of sexual
assault to again ask them to fulfil their legal mandate," said
Warman.

He said Prober's apology is anything but.

"I don't believe that does anything to address Jay Prober's
unprofessional conduct as a lawyer and I would hope that the
Manitoba Law Society will hold him accountable for his actions," he
said.

Allan is also disappointed in the way the law society handled her
case.

"They sat back and let Jay Prober and I exchange, like, notes in
class. It felt like we were passing notes to one another. We could
have just mailed the letters to ourselves for all the help, the Law
Society has been thus far," said Allan.

"I just feel retraumatized by him and ergo by Nygard."

She said at the very least Prober should be written up for
professional misconduct or put on notice.

"I wanted them to professionally censure him. I knew they wouldn't
disbar him, but I thought what I was going to get out of it was
action," said Allan.

CBC asked for comment on the perceived inadequacies of Prober's
apology.

"[Allan] accepted our apology which we agreed to make public and
she gave us a full and final release from taking legal action,"
said Prober's lawyer Dave Hill.

Allan said she looks forward to a day when victims of sexual and
gender-based violence are no longer seen as brave when calling out
their attackers. She said that's part of the reason why she wanted
a public apology from Prober and is fighting for professional
censure against his conduct.

"Jay Prober was not misunderstood in his intent nor its outcome. He
intended and succeeded at systematically tarring all complainants
with a tainted brush as part of a, 'liar, liar, your pants are on
fire' defence of his client," she said.

"If anything, Prober's latest communication demonstrates his
inability or unwillingness to be held accountable to a professional
standard. It is entirely irrelevant to whom he directed his
comments or why. They do not meet the test of standard industry
practices." [GN]


PINTEREST INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Jan. 10 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS)
Class Period: May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021

Throughout the class period, Pinterest, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was
reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated
Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per
user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing
advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

Learn about your recoverable losses in PINS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12048&from=1

QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)
Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021

QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's purported success
related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy
density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is
unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell
necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Learn about your recoverable losses in QS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=12048&from=1

Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA)
Class Period: September 4, 2019 - October 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021

The complaint alleges Tricida, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tricida's
NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it
was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for
veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in TCDA:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12048&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


PNC BANK: Borrowers Slam Undisclosed Fees and Charges
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Barli and Bardan One, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank, National Association,
Midland Loan Services, CoreVest Finance, AlterDormus, John Prins,
Matthew Vilimas, CoreVest American Finance Lender LLC, RWT
Holdings, Inc. and John Does 1-50, and XYZ Corporations 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-11027 (S.D. N.Y., December 29, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief and damages resulting from alleged unfair
and deceptive practices in connection with their mortgage
origination and mortgage loan servicing businesses.

PNC is a national banking association with Midland as its real
estate business. Corevest is a mortgage originator and is a
subsidiary of RWT Holdings with John Prins as the Vice President of
Corevest. AlterDormus is a loan servicer with Matthew Vilimas as
the Associate Director for North America.

PNC, Midland, Corevest and AlterDormus are accused of predatory
lending practices in their mortgage loans using a uniform and
nonnegotiable mortgage security agreement.

Corevest solicited Barli for four different mortgage loans,
spanning over 60 single-family homes as collateral and explained
that, that as part of the mortgage payment, there would be an
escrow for Capital Expenditures, which could be drawn upon request.
Corevest never disclosed that there would be a fee incurred for
each draw request of the borrower's own funds.

After making mortgage payments for several years, Barli contacted
Corevest to recapture some of his escrowed funds for Capital
Expenditures performed on the properties. PNC, Corevest and Midland
charged Barli $250.00 per draw request. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Rita Dave, Esq.
      DAVE LAW, PC
      26 Court Street, Suite 1212
      Brooklyn, NY 11242
      Telephone: (518) 782-1614
      Email: ritadaveesq@gmail.com

             - and -

      Daniel Barli, Esq.
      BARLI & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      600 Getty Avenue, Suite 304
      Clifton, NJ 07011
      Telephone: (973) 638-1101
      Fax: (201) 326-5176
      Email: office@barlilaw.com


PREMIER HEALTH: Bellomy Files Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PREMIER HEALTH
PARTNERS. The case is styled as Joseph Bellomy, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PREMIER HEALTH
PARTNERS; PHYSICIANS SURGEONS AMBULANCE SERVICE INC. (AKA: AMR OF
OHIO, AKA: AMR, AKA: AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF OHIO, AKA:
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE), Case No. 2021 CV 00134 (Ohio Ct. of
Commmon Pleas, Montgomery Cty., Jan. 12, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER TORT".

Premier Health -- https://www.premierhealth.com/ -- is a medical
network of three hospitals and two major health centers in the
Dayton region.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryce A. Lenox, Esq.
          3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 103
          Cincinnati, OH 45209


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Gamble Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES L.P., et al. The case is styled as Cassandra Gamble,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P.; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; John Does 1-25;
Case No. 2:21-cv-00628 (D.N.J., Jan. 12, 2021).

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

Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Exposed Customer Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS.com reports that a California man has sued Robinhood
Financial and Robinhood Securities, claiming he lost thousands of
dollars after his brokerage account with the firm was breeched,
according to a complaint.

Siddharth Mehta, who filed the lawsuit in Superior Court for the
state of California, is seeking class-action status in his case
against the provider of low-fee brokerage services. Among its
offerings, Robinhood lets accountholders buy fractional shares.
This lets investors of limited means buy stakes in high-priced
equities.

In October, Robinhood reported hackers had obtained some customers'
account information. Robinhood has insisted its internal systems
weren't compromised and that unauthorized access was due to
identity theft.

Reports at the time noted that customers watched as their accounts
were drained but couldn't reach anyone at Robinhood.

Mehta's lawyers argue in the suit's introduction: "The explosion of
'FinTech,' digital financial services, and mobile banking has
created new pressure points for criminals to exploit. Responsible
financial institutions have reacted by implementing better training
practices, increasing their security workforces, and increasing
invest in new and more secure technologies."

Robinhood, the lawyers state, hasn't kept up.

They wrote: "While the company has narrowly focused on break-neck
growth, it has neglected to build out its security infrastructure
to adequately protect its customers' sensitive information."

Mehta's lawyers argue that when Robinhood discovered the attacks,
"Rather than freezing the accounts and alerting its customers of
the breach right away as required under California law, Robinhood
said and did nothing. Only when news outlets reported on the breach
did Robinhood acknowledge it had occurred."

Bloomberg, which reported the suit would be filed, stated that
Robinhood declined to comment.

Mehta is represented in the matter by the California law firm
Erickson Kramer Osborne. [GN]


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lemon Files Suit Over Trading Platform
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin William Lemon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial, LLC,
Robinhood Securities, LLC and Robinhood Markets, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-09328 (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2020), seeks an order
for relief including but not limited to damages and restitution,
enjoining Robinhood's payment for order flow collection scheme and
requiring Defendants to publicly correct the false and misleading
statements and omissions pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law.

Robinhood is an online brokerage firm that allows users to place
securities trades through its website where Lemon is a Robinhood
user. Defendants failed to disclose that Robinhood's business
operations relied extensively upon "payment for order flow," in
which Defendants received payment from market makers in exchange
for executing the service's trades using a "commission free"
trading platform. Defendants allegedly profited extensively from
consumers who executed trades on Defendants' platform at inferior
execution prices compared to competitors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Bradley K. King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com

             - and -

      Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
      Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
      LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
      975 E. Jefferson Ave.
      Detroit, MI 48207
      Tel: (313) 392-0015
      Fax: (313) 392-0025
      Email: ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
             mrobb@ldclassaction.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to April 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN
CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN
HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, DAVID WILSON, ANNA STARK,
GERALD STARK, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No.
3:17-cv-02324-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia entered an order granting joint motion extending the
briefing schedule regarding the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification:

   -- The Defendant's Response to the Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification is now due on February 2, 2021;

   -- The Plaintiffs' Reply to the Defendant's Response to the
      Renewed Motion for Class Certification is now due on
      February 9; and

   -- The hearing on the Renewed Motion for Class Certification
      is continued to April 1, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for
its beaches, parks, and warm climate.

A copy of the Court's order granting joint motion extending the
briefing schedule regarding plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35J8KU4 at no extra charge.[CC]

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Probes Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is investigating potential
claims on behalf of purchasers of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
("Sarepta" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:SRPT). Investors who purchased
Sarepta securities are encouraged to obtain additional information
and assist the investigation by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/srpt.

The investigation concerns whether Sarepta and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated federal securities laws.

On January 7, 2021, Sarepta revealed that its one-time gene therapy
for Duchenne muscular dystrophy did not show benefits compared to a
placebo. Following this news, Sarepta stock dropped roughly 49.7%,
during after-market trading, and opened at $85.00 on January 8,
2021.

If you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, or
purchased Sarepta shares, you can assist this investigation by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/srpt. You can also contact
Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212-697-6484.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


SECURITAS SECURITY: Paulick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securitas Security
Services USA, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Paulick,
Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v.
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Case No. SCV-267667 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., Jan. 12, 2021).

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

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. --
https://www.securitasinc.com/ -- provides security services. The
Company offers services such as guard, patrol and inspection,
access control, security console operators, alarm response, and
specialized client requested services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Dates OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSIE ROMERO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; CALIFORNIA
REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06369-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hon.
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting the parties'
stipulation and continues the following dates:

                                 Current Date       New Date

   Deadline to file Motion      Jan. 15, 2021     Apr 30, 2021
   for Class Certification

   Opposition to Motion         Jan. 29, 2021     May 14, 2021
   for Class Certification

   Reply re: Motion for         Feb. 5, 2021      May 21, 2021
   Class Certification

   Hearing re: Motion           Mar. 12, 2021     Jun. 18, 2021
   for Class Certification

Select Employment Services Inc. is primarily in the business of
services-specialty outpatient facilities. California Rehabilitation
Institute is a 138-bed all-private-room physical medicine and
rehabilitation hospital located in the Century City area of Los
Angeles. Select Medical is a healthcare company based in
Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's order granting stipulation to continue class
certification dates dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bJfCEA at no extra charge.[CC]

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Pomerantz Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Semiconductor Manufacturing International
Corporation ("SMIC" or the "Company") (OTCQX: SMICY) and certain of
its officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under
21-cv-00067, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
SMIC securities between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United
States ("U.S.") Securities and Exchange Commission.

If you are a shareholder who purchased SMIC securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 8, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

SMIC purports to be an investment holding company principally
engaged in the computer-aided design, manufacture, testing,
packaging, and trading of integrated circuits ("IC"), as well as
the provision of other semiconductor services. The Company is also
involved in the design and manufacture of semiconductor masks and
various types of wafers. The Company distributes its products in
China and to overseas markets, such as Europe and the U.S.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) there was an "unacceptable risk" that equipment
supplied to SMIC would be used for military purposes; (2) SMIC was
foreseeably at risk of facing United States restrictions; (3) as a
result of the restrictions by the United States Department of
Commerce, certain of SMIC's suppliers would need
"difficult-to-obtain" individual export licenses; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 4, 2020, after market hours, Reuters published an
article entitled "EXCLUSIVE-Trump administration weighs
blacklisting China's chipmaker SMIC".

On this news, SMIC's ADR price fell $3.08 per ADR, or over 20%, to
close at $12.02 per ADR on September 8, 2020, the next trading
day.

Then, on September 26, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled
"U.S. tightens exports to China's chipmaker SMIC, citing risk of
military use".

On this news, SMIC's ADR price fell $0.57 per ADR, or 4.7%, to
close at $11.47 per ADR on September 28, 2020, the next trading
day.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]


SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Rosen Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Semiconductor Manufacturing
International Corporation (OTC: SMICY) between April 23, 2020 and
September 26, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important February 8, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for SMIC investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the SMIC class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there was an "unacceptable risk" that equipment supplied
to SMIC would be used for military purposes; (2) SMIC was
foreseeably at risk of facing U.S. restrictions; (3) as a result of
restrictions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC's
suppliers would need "difficult-to-obtain" individual export
licenses; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


SENTINEL SECURITY: Johansen Files TCPA Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentinel Security
Life Insurance. The case is styled as Kenneth Johansen, James E.
Shelton, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Sentinel Security Life Insurance, Case No. 2:21-cv-00021-JCB (D.
Utah, Jan. 12, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sentinel Security Life Insurance Co -- https://sslco.com/ --
provides insurance services. The Company offers life insurance,
final expense life insurance, medicare supplemental insurance, and
annuity products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW OFFICE
          1887 N 270 E
          Orem, UT 84057
          Phone: (801) 845-2581
          Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com


SHANE SMITH: Oden Appeals E.D. Ark. Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kimberly Oden filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled KIMBERLY ODEN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SHANE SMITH
ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00693-BRW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas -
Central.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for
violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the minimum wage and overtime provisions
of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 30, 2020, denying her motion to recuse, and Court's
Order dated December 16, 2020, granting in part and denying in part
her motion to approve attorney fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Kimberly Oden v. Shane Smith
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 21-1070, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, January 11, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on February 22, 2021;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Kimberly Oden is due on February 22, 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 Kimberly Oden, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others SImilarly Situated, is represented by:

          Courtney Elizabeth Lowery, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          Kirkpatrick Plaza, Suite 510
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee Shane Smith Enterprises, Inc. is represented
by:

          Michael Bailey Heister, Esq.
          Thomas G. Williams, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM & GROOMS
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: mheister@qgtlaw.com
                  twilliams@qgtlaw.com

SOLARWINDS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI)
between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important March 5, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SolarWinds investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the SolarWinds class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2012.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had
a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon
which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily
accessible password of "solarwinds123"; (3) consequently,
SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal
Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to
hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant
reputational harm; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 5,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2012.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: 4th Cir. Review in Planned Parenthood Suit Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Joshua Baker filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. v.
Joshua Baker, Case No. 3:18-cv-02078-MGL, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia.

Joshua Baker is sued in his official capacity as Director of the
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the dispute
arose following South Carolina's termination of two Planned
Parenthood centers as Medicaid providers. Planned Parenthood South
Atlantic (PPSAT) operates two healthcare centers in South Carolina,
one in Charleston and the other in Columbia. These centers provide
a range of family planning and preventative care services,
including physical exams, cancer screenings, contraceptive
counseling, and pregnancy testing. For four decades, PPSAT has been
a South Carolina Medicaid provider that receives reimbursements for
care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. In recent years, PPSAT's
South Carolina centers have treated hundreds of patients insured
through Medicaid annually.

In July 2018, South Carolina's Department of Health and Human
Services (SCDHHS) terminated PPSAT's Medicaid provider agreement.
SCDHHS did not contend that PPSAT was providing subpar service to
its Medicaid patients, or to any other patients. Instead, PPSAT was
terminated solely because it performed abortions outside of the
Medicaid program. According to SCDHHS, PPSAT's termination was part
of a plan by Governor Henry McMaster designed to prevent the state
from indirectly subsidizing abortion services. In 1995, the South
Carolina legislature passed a law preventing state funds
appropriated for family planning services from being used to fund
abortions.

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Judgment
dated December 14, 2020 of declaratory judgment and permanent
injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the Court's Order dated
September 17, 2020, granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment as to count one of the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Planned Parenthood v. Joshua
Baker, Case No. 21-1043, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, Jan. 12, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC and JULIE
EDWARDS, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Mary Malissa Burnette, Esq.
          Kathleen McColl McDaniel, Esq.
          BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA
          912 Lady Street, P. O. Box 1929
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 850-0912
          E-mail: mburnette@burnetteshutt.law

               - and -

          Alice Joanna Clapman, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
          1110 Vermont Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 973-4800
          E-mail: alice.clapman@ppfa.org

               - and -

          Jennifer R. Sandman, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
          123 William Street
          New York, NY 10038  
          Telephone: (212) 541-7800
          E-mail: jennifer.sandman@ppfa.org

Defendant-Appellant JOSHUA BAKER, in his official capacity as
Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services,
is represented by:

          Kelly McPherson Jolley, Esq.
          Ariail Burnside Kirk, Esq.
          JOLLEY LAW GROUP, LLC
          P. O. Box 50529
          Columbia, SC 29250
          Telephone: (803) 830-6500
          E-mail: kmj@jolleylawgroup.com

STARS BAY: Viveros Sues Over Wrongful Termination Due to Disability
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA VIVEROS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STARS BAY AREA, INC. d/b/a STARS THERAPY
SERVICES, California corporation and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
20CV374763 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 14, 2020) alleges
that the Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff, on or
about October 25, 2018, because of her disability and protected
activity, including, requesting disability accommodation and
complaining about workplace discrimination and harassment based on
her disability.

Ms. Viveros became employed by STARS, in or about early August
2018, as behavioral therapist. In or about the first week of
October 2018, Ms. Viveros developed a severe skin rash on her
buttocks and thighs that rendered her disabled and in need of
reasonable accommodation to perform her job.

Stars Bay Area, Inc., d/b/a Stars Therapy Services, provides early
intervention, speech and occupational therapy to children birth to
3 years of age. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Blake Jones, Esq.
          Rex Philipps, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  blake@crosnerlegal.com
                  rex@crosnerlegal.com

STEEL SUPPLEMENTS: Moore Slams Illegal SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------
Drew Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Steel Supplements, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11659 (C.D. Cal., December 28, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Steel Supplements, Inc. is a nutritional supplement company. It
sent promotional text messages to Moore's cellular telephone in an
attempt to promote its 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


STORED VALUE: Court Approves Class Settlement Deal in Humphrey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER HUMPHREY, On behalf
of herself and the class, v. STORED VALUE CARDS, d/b/a NUMI
FINANCIAL, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01050-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James S. Gwin entered an order:

   1. approving the class settlement agreement and
      administration;

      -- after holding a fairness hearing and considering the
         above factors, the Court finds the proposed settlement
         agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate;

      -- the Defendants have agreed to establish a $550,000 fund
         to pay: (1) Class Members who filed claims, (2) the
         costs associated with notifying the Class Members and
         administering the settlement, (3) attorney's fees and
         litigation expenses, and (4) a service payment for the
         Plaintiff Humphrey;

      -- The Settlement Class includes:

         "all persons in the United States who were taken into
         custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment
         center, or any other law enforcement facility, and upon
         release were issued a pre-activated debit card by the
         Defendants to access a bank account containing any
         funds remaining in their inmate trust account between
         April 1, 2017 and April 30, 2018;"

         in total, the final Class comprises 153,688
         individuals; and

         the settlement administrator, American Legal Claims
         Services, cost is $223,598.01.

   2. granting the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and
      costs;

      -- awarding Class Counsel $200,00 adequately compensates
         them for their work and the results they achieved for
         the Class without unduly eroding the settlement fund;

      -- reimbursing Class Counsel $23,941.77 in litigation
         costs; and

      -- Class Counsel's expenses include photocopies, database
         maintenance and online legal research, filing fees,
         transcripts, transportation, and couriers. The Court
         finds these expenses were reasonable and are
         appropriately passed on to the Class; and

   3. granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for an incentive
      payment;

      -- based on the extensive time Humphrey spent serving as a
         class representative, the Court finds a $10,000
         incentive award appropriate; and

      -- an award amounting to $125 per hour is sufficient to
         compensate Humphrey, but not so great as to encourage
         future class representatives to ignore the
         interests of the class they represent.

Numi Financial is the leader in stored value card solutions for the
criminal justice & corrections industry. Product offerings include
inmate release cards, work release cards, juror pay cards, and
other industry-specific card.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bZlyJZ at no
extra charge.[CC]

TATA CONSULTANCY: Ninth Circuit Affirms Judgment in Slaight Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT; SEYED AMIR MASOUDI; NOBEL
MANDILI, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-16806 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
judgment in favor of the Defendant Tata Consultancy Services.

In the employment discrimination class action, the
Plaintiffs-Appellants argue that the district court erred in
instructing the jury and excluding certain evidence.

The district court instructed the jury that the Plaintiffs must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TCS had a pattern or
practice of intentionally discriminating on the basis of race
against non-South Asian employees or national origin against
non-Indian employees who were then terminated."  The terms "pattern
or practice," "intentional," "race," and "national origin" were
subsequently defined.

The instructions also explained that "statistics alone can be
sufficient to establish the element of pattern or practice" and
that the Plaintiffs do not assert claims based on citizenship or
immigration status itself, but rather race and/or national origin.

According to the Plaintiffs, the district court should have either
omitted the term intent from the instruction altogether or combined
the pattern or practice and intent instructions.

The Ninth Circuit notes that the Plaintiffs' first contention is
incorrect because a disparate treatment claim requires proof of
intentional discrimination.  In fact, their preferred jury
instructions proposed that they must prove a pattern or practice of
intentional race and/or national origin discrimination.  Thus, the
inclusion of the word "intentional" was not error.

The Plaintiffs' second contention is best understood as a claim
about the formulation of the instructions.  Their argument is that
the court's instruction 'necessarily implies' to the jury that
statistics were not sufficient to satisfy the second element of
intentional discrimination.  The Plaintiffs preserved their
objection, and the instruction could certainly have been more clear
with regard to the use of statistics to prove intentional
discrimination. But the Ninth Circuit finds that the formulation of
the instruction was not sufficiently confusing or misleading to
constitute an abuse of discretion.

Based on the instructions, the jury could have found a "pattern or
practice" solely based on the statistical evidence, the Appellate
Court says. And the only pattern or practice at issue was one of
intentional discrimination, which, according to the instructions,
meant "conduct that is purposeful."  It would have been error for
instructions to state that statistics alone could not be sufficient
to satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden as to intentional discrimination,
but the instructions did not so state.  Further, even if the
instruction were sub-optimal, the Appellate Court holds that it is
more probable than not that any error was harmless.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred in
instructing the jury about the distinction between race or national
origin discrimination and citizenship discrimination.  According to
them, the jury was left to believe that citizenship discrimination
and race or national origin discrimination are mutually exclusive
concepts.  They preserved their objection, but the citizenship
instruction is a correct statement of their claims, which do not
concern "citizenship or immigration status itself."  As the
instruction did not misinform the jury about whether citizenship
discrimination could indicate race or national origin
discrimination, the formulation of the instruction was not an abuse
of discretion.

The district court granted the Defendant's motion in limine to
exclude specific exhibits in part as to evidence of discrimination
in hiring.  It did not specify the reason for the exclusion of
evidence.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the emails likely were relevant,
because they tended to show racial and national origin
discrimination in filling positions that could otherwise have been
filled by members of the Plaintiff class, thereby avoiding
termination for those class members.  But any error in excluding
the evidence was harmless.  The few excluded emails were somewhat
cumulative and did not themselves illustrate a widespread policy of
racial or national origin discrimination at the company.  They
would not have persuaded a jury not persuaded by the leadership
directive that the Defendant was engaged in a broad scale pattern
or practice of intentional discrimination.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y34ycc4x from Leagle.com.


TATE & KIRLIN: Matthias Class Suit Dismissed without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN MATTHIAS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TATE &
KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00182-slc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker
entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff Robin Matthias's motion for summary
      judgment;

   2. granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the
      defendants Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. and LVNV
      Funding, LLC;

   3. vacating the April 13, 2020 order granting class
      certification; and

   4. dismissing case without prejudice for lack of subject
      matter jurisdiction on the ground that the named class
      representative lacks standing.

The Court said, "Because this court never acquired jurisdiction
over Matthias's claim in the first place, the order certifying the
class must be vacated. Walters, 163 F.3d at 437 (all previous
rulings in litigation must be vacated and can have no preclusive
effect if new lawsuit is filed) (citing United States v.
Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39-41 (1950); Harris v. Board of
Governors, 938 F.2d 720, 723 (7th Cir. 1991); Illinois v. City of
Chicago, 137 F.3d 474, 478-79 (7th Cir. 1998)).

Plaintiff Robin Matthias brought this action on behalf of himself
and other similarly-situated individuals, alleging that the
defendants sent him and other consumers a form collection letter
that failed to clearly state the name of the current creditor to
whom their debt is owed, in violation the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

Tate & Kirlin provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bLKDHR at no
extra charge.[CC]

TEVA BRANDED: Appelbaum Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Appelbaum, Linda Hall, Kenaope Rutang, Dawn
Darrow, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. (formerly known
as Teva Global Respiratory Research, LLC, Ivax Research LLC, Ivax
Research Inc., Ivax Laboratories, Inc. and Baker Norton
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Ivax LLC (formerly known as Ivax
Corporation), Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. (formerly known as
Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc.), Ortho-Mcneil Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Research & Development LLC (formerly known as Johnson & Johnson
Research & Development, LLC), Alza Corporation, Janssen Ortho LLC
and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (formerly known as Bayer
Pharmaceuticals Corporation), Case No. 0:20-cv-62068, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Dec. 31, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-20657-BRM-ESK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&d, Inc. --
https://www.tevapharm.com/ -- is a global leader in the
Pharmaceutical Industries - developing, producing and marketing
affordable, high quality generic drugs and specialty
pharmaceuticals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra Camille Mullenax, Esq.
          Francisco Raul Maderal, Jr., Esq.
          Susan Stanfill Carlson, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, PH
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (727) 364-0757

              - and -

          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq.
          KOZYAK, TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 728-2959
          Fax: (305) 372-3508

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel Jay Gerber
          RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
          300 S Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
          PO Box 1873
          Orlando, FL 32802-1873
          Phone: (407) 839-2112
          Fax: 835-2012

              - and -

          David J. Walz
          CARLTON FIELDS, PA
          4221 W Boy Scout Blvd, Ste. 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Phone: (813) 223-7000
          Fax: (813) 229-4133


TRANS EXPRESS: Magistrate Judge to Conduct Class Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHALL PULLIAM, et al.,
v. TRANS EXPRESS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04038-SJ-RER
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr.entered an order
granting the parties consent to have a United States magistrate
judge conduct any and all proceedings and enter a final order to
the following motions:

   -- Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement;

   -- Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and

   -- Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

TransExpress is an international transportation and logistics
company with more than 30 years of experience in global package
delivery.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qnwDsa at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Haskell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
          80 Broad St Suite 703
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 430-7930

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joe Mulherin, Esq.
          MULHERIN LAWYERS
          Telephone: (912) 212-2100
          Facsimile: (912) 691-4724

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Hoffman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ESTHER HOFFMAN, et al. v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. C18-1132 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an
order ruling that:

   (1) Defendants Patenaude & Felix ("P&F") and Matthew Cheung's
       motion to dismiss is denied;

   (2) Defendant Transworld Systems Inc.'s motion to dismiss is
       denied;

   (3) Defendants National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts'
       ("NCSLT") motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied
       in part. Defendants NCSLT 2003-1, NCSLT 2004-1, NCSLT
       2005-1, NCSLT 2006-2, NCSLT 2006-4, NCSLT 2007-1, NCSLT
       2007-2, NCSLT 2007-3, and National Collegiate Master
       Student Loan Trust I are dismissed without prejudice. Any
       motion for leave to amend the pleadings will be filed
       within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order; and

   (4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order to all
       counsel of record.

The Plaintiffs are Washington consumers to whom the Defendants
allegedly made false and misleading representations and engaged in
unfair and deceptive practices in the collection or attempted
collection of alleged student loan debt, interest, and charges
using fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading affidavits prepared by
TSI employees. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
Plaintiffs consisting of "all persons residing in Washington
against whom Defendants sought to collect an alleged NCSLT loan
debt, on or after four years prior to the filing of the action,"
and two subclasses thereof.

After the district court dismissed the Amended Class Complaint
("FAC") for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute,
the Plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of all claims except for (1) the per se claims under the Washington
Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), Chapter 19.86 RCW, based on
certain violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"); and (2) the stand-alone CPA claims. The Ninth Circuit
instructed the district court to grant the Plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint to address whether P&F's and Cheung's
involvement went beyond legal representation and included
debt-collection activities and to address whether they have paid
money to the Defendants and thus incurred an injury as a result of
the default judgment obtained through the allegedly false
affidavits.

After remand, the case was reassigned to the Court for further
proceedings. The Plaintiffs then filed the SAC, alleging additional
facts to cure certain pleading deficiencies and asserting two
causes of action: (1) per se CPA claims, based on violations of 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(10), and 1692f; and (2)
stand-alone CPA claims. The Defendants now move to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

District Judge Thomas S. Zilly opines that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to assert CPA claims against nine NCSLT entities.
Defendants NCSLT contend that because the SAC does not contain any
allegations specific to nine of the NCSLT entities, those
Defendants should be dismissed, including: NCSLT 2003-1, NCSLT
2004-1, NCSLT 2005-1, NCSLT 2006-2, NCSLT 2006-4, NCSLT 2007-1,
NCSLT 2007-2, NCSLT 2007-3, and National Collegiate Master Student
Loan Trust I. The Court, therefore, grants in part the Defendants
NCSLT's Motion, docket no. 104, and dismisses without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims against the nine NCSLT entities.

Judge Zilly finds that the Plaintiffs' CPA claims against
Defendants P&F and Cheung are not barred by the judicial-action
privilege or Washington public policy. Because the Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants P&F and Cheung regularly collected money
from consumers and engaged in other pre-litigation, debt-collection
activity -- as opposed to merely engaging in the practice of law --
Defendants P&F and Cheung are not immune from liability based on
this privilege, which they concede applies to actions taken in the
course of judicial actions.

Plaintiff Hoffman is not precluded from pursuing CPA claims based
on the default judgment entered against her in state court, Judge
Zilly holds. Regardless of whether the Court characterizes the
Defendants' challenge as one of collateral estoppel (issue
preclusion) or res judicata (claim preclusion), the Judge concludes
that neither doctrine applies. He concludes that the causes of
action at issue here are not the same as the one that was litigated
in state court.

Even if the "transactional nucleus of facts" in both the state
court action and this action overlap, the actions do not involve
the same evidence or rights, Judge Zilly notes. The earlier state
court action arose out of Plaintiff Hoffman's failure to pay
student loan debt, requiring the Defendants to present evidence
that she owed a certain amount of debt to them. The present action,
however, requires Plaintiff Hoffman to present evidence that the
Defendants submitted a fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading
affidavit in that prior action and that they have a pattern and
practice of filing such affidavits.

Defendants NCSLT argue that because they were not named as
Defendants until the Plaintiffs filed the SAC in July 2020,
Plaintiffs Anthony and Il Kims' claims are time barred, as those
Plaintiffs discovered the basis for their claims in 2015 -- meaning
Washington's four-year limitations period, RCW 19.86.120, expired
the year before the SAC was filed.

The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs Anthony and Il Kims'
allegations may support claims under Washington's "discovery rule,"
citing Westcott v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 862 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1118
(W.D. Wash. 2012). The SAC alleges that the Defendants filed
fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading affidavits to collect on
debts owned by the NCSLT entities, that the originally named
Defendants are "NCSLT agents," and that the Plaintiffs Anthony and
Il Kim relied on the Defendants' misrepresentations

Based on the Defendants' alleged fraudulent concealment, the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not discover (and
could not have discovered through the exercise of due diligence)
all material facts underlying their CPA claims until September
2017, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ("CFPB")
investigation into the Defendants' debt-collection practices became
public, Judge Zilly says. Hence, the SAC alleges sufficient facts
to raise an issue as to whether Plaintiffs Anthony and Il Kims'
claims were timely under Washington law.

To the extent Defendants P&F and Cheung argue that the SAC is
insufficient because it does not plausibly allege their involvement
in the alleged deceptive practices went beyond legal representation
and included debt-collection activities, the Court rejects that
argument for the reasons discussed in the Ninth Circuit's decision
and in Section 2(b) of the Order. The motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first cause of action for failure to state a claim are,
therefore, denied.

Likewise, the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to show that
the Defendants' deceptive acts or practices proximately caused
injury to the Plaintiffs' business or property, Judge Zilly finds.
Hence, the motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second cause of
action for failure to state a claim are, therefore, denied.

Judge Zilly also finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
both that they are entitled to injunctive relief under the CPA and
that they can satisfy Article III's standing requirements by
demonstrating a real or immediate threat of an irreparable injury,
citing Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d
998, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ftoteh from Leagle.com.


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Ceres' Bid to Remand Class Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CERES ENTERPRISES, LLC, v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01925-JPC (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order denying
the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

The Court lacks discretion to remand the Plaintiff's breach of
contract and bad faith claims and declines to remand the
Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief. Having determined that
federal jurisdiction is proper, Plaintiff shall have 21 days from
the date of this order to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
says the Court.

The Plaintiff Ceres Enterprises, LLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of a
putative class against Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of
America in State court, which Defendant removed to federal court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 and 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

The Plaintiff is an Ohio limited liability company that operates
hotels in Ohio, Indiana, and Minnesota.

The Defendant is a property and casualty insurer, which issued a
commercial business insurance policy to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims it lost business income because of the
COVID-19 pandemic and that the insurance policy covers the loss.
Further, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has or will
wrongly deny insurance claims for losses caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiff' seeks to bring its claims on behalf of (1) a
nationwide class seeking declaratory relief; (2) a nationwide
sub-class seeking restitution and monetary damages; and (3) an Ohio
sub-class for insurance bad faith under Ohio law.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qw7U4G at no extra charge.[CC]

TREK BICYCLE: Faces Class Action Over Bontrager Helmet Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Road Bike Action Magazine reports that looking back at 2019 one of
the most over-hyped product launches was Trek's Bontrager Wavecel
helmet. The original release included four helmets (two road, one
mountain and one commuter). The technology has since expanded
across Bontrager's helmet catalog.

The big draw was Trek's claims that the Wavecel's honeycomb-like
design was found to be 48 times more effective in preventing
concussions caused by common cycling accidents. Trek claimed
significant research was conducted to understand the most likely
causes of brain injury with results being published in a
peer-reviewed academic paper.

A recent report from Bicycle Retailer revealed a class-action suit
was filed on Jan. 7 by Andrew Glancey of Staatsburg, New York, with
a federal judge in the Southern District of New York. The suit
states Trek's claims of improved safety are "false, deceptive and
misleading" as the helmet does not perform adequately in most
situations. The suit brought to light to the possibility the
authors of the academic paper had a financial interest tied to the
success of the safety of the WaveCel technology.

The Bicycle Retailer report also revealed "(The suit) claims the
study did not use the Trek-made Bontrager WaveCel helmet; instead,
it used a Scott ARX helmet modified to include the WaveCel
component."

A Trek representative told Bicycle Retailer "This lawsuit is
without merit, and we will vigorously defend against it. The
plaintiff has not made an allegation of physical injury. Trek will
continue to responsibly promote and improve this innovation in
helmet technology." [GN]


TRIPS INCENTIVES: Nieman et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NIEMAN and DREW MOORE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRIPS INCENTIVES CORP.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00173 (C.D. Cal., January 8, 2021) brings this complaint as
a class action against the Defendants for their alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant contacted them on their
distinct cellular telephone numbers via an "automatic telephone
dialing system" for the purpose of advertising its services. The
Plaintiffs affirms that they were never customers of the Defendants
and never provided their cellular telephone number to the
Defendants for any reason whatsoever. Moreover, the Defendant did
not obtain their "prior express consent" to receive such
unsolicited ATDS calls on their cellular telephones.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated were harmed and suffered damages. Thus, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals who
were contacted by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, statutory and treble
damages, and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper,
the suit says.

Trips Incentives Corp. is a travel agency. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Denies Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Postmedia News reports that an Alberta judge has denied a national
class-action lawsuit against Uber over a massive data breach
involving more than 800,000 Canadians, saying the claim offered no
evidence of personal harm or financial loss from the company's
actions.

The proposed action was launched by Branch MacMaster LLP in 2017
after the international ride-hailing giant admitted hackers had
accessed the personal information of 57 million users and 600,000
U.S. drivers a year earlier. Uber has said 815,000 Canadian riders
and drivers may have been affected by the breach.

Lead plaintiff Dione Setoguchi sought personal and punitive damages
from Uber and its affiliates on behalf of its Canadian customers,
claiming the company failed to properly protect their personal
data.

The claim stated hackers accessed personal information of Uber
users and contractors, including email addresses, telephone
numbers, encrypted passwords and drivers' licences. Uber argued the
stolen information was similar to what's readily available through
most electronic commerce.

"It has been over three years since that criminal incident. There
is no evidence of any confirmed case of fraud, identity theft or
other economic loss to any Canadian as a result," Uber submitted at
a hearing last year.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice John Rooke, in a ruling posted
online, said the claimants failed to demonstrate personal or
financial harm, or that any truly confidential information was
obtained by the hackers. In fact, much of the stolen data was the
kind found in old telephone directories, he stated.

"There is only speculation about a future possibility of loss or
harm. Were this case to be certified at this stage, it would go to
trial in the mere hope that evidence of loss or harm might at some
point arise," Rooke wrote in his decision against certifying the
action.

"There is no evidence of any of this data having been released
beyond the hackers in the four years since the hack."

Uber paid US$148 million in fines as part of a settlement agreement
for failing to notify clients and drivers their personal
information had been stolen. The company hid evidence of the hack
and paid a reported $100,000 ransom for the information to be
destroyed.

A former chief security officer for Uber Technologies was
criminally charged last August with working to cover up the hack.

— With files from the Financial Post [GN]


UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over TRESemme Hair Loss Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kainaat Maqbool, writing for DND, reports that a class-action
lawsuit was recently filed against Unilever by a client of the
Keratin shampoo who after such a long time of hair damage and
distress found out that TRESemme contained DMDM. She researched and
after a detailed analysis found out that this ingredient was a
reason for hair loss. This is why she decided to sue the giant and
filed a lawsuit claiming that her damage is compensated
monetarily.

No action from Unilever has been taken as a result, and no
retaliation has been noticed. The court order is also pending on
the matter. [GN]



UNIONIZED CONSERVATION: Faces Another Land Trust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes reports that things haven't been great for the Unionized
Conservation Easement (SCE) industry. At the end of December, who
focused on SCE, pleaded guilty to conspiracy. The circumstances of
their pleadings indicate that they are cooperating with the
prosecution. The last is that the company has in another class
action lawsuit - the third according to my account (you can read
about the other two as well) By its nature, a complaint is a very
one-sided document. The main plaintiffs, William Peskin and Mark
Perkins, through their attorney, allege that they were misled by a
plot by developers, professional advisers and a land trust. I
couldn't get a response from any of the accused except the one who
said they haven't been served yet, so you can if you want to know
who they all are. The complaint describes a generalized system
which took place over a period of several years and which were
representative examples. The allegation is that the defendants are
a group of conservation easement professionals and advisers "who
have deliberately joined together to give only legitimacy to the
SCE strategy" (). The story is rooted in the 2008-2009 recession
that left a widespread oversupply of devalued real estate with a
group of underemployed real estate appraisers. Non-performing real
estate could be bought at a reduced price and sold to investors at
a premium for the purpose of placing a conservation easement. [GN]

UNIQUE HEALTHCARE: Farhat Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA FARHAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIQUE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, LLC d/b/a AFC URGENT CARE
PINELLAS PARK, Case No. 21-000076-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty.,
Jan. 6, 2021) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on or about April 8, 2020, April 20,
2020, and May 1, 2020, Defendant sent text message solicitations to
the Plaintiff to advertise and promote its COVID-19 testing for
which Defendant typically charges $130.00. The Plaintiff never
provided Defendant with express written consent to contact her with
automated text message solicitations. The Defendant further failed
to honor or abide by Plaintiff's opt-out requests, and continued to
text message her after she asked for the messages to stop.

The Defendant's unsolicited calls caused Plaintiff actual harm,
including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant's calls
also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her life,
the suit says.

Unique Healthcare Systems, LLC, d/b/a AFC Urgent Care Pinellas
Park, is an urgent care center in Pinellas Park, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNIVAR USA: Edwards FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA EDWARDS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNIVAR USA, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00778-X (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Brantley Starr entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for conditional certification; and

   2. directing the parties to meet and confer in order to draft
      a proposed class notice;

      -- the proposed notice is due 21 days from the date of
         this order.

The Court said, "Thus, for the purpose of conditional
certification, Edwards provided sufficient evidence that she is
similarly situated to the aggrieved individuals. And because
Edwards presented sufficient evidence to satisfy both elements for
conditional certification, the Court grants the motion for
conditional certification."

Felicia Edwards sued Univar alleging that work requirements and
compensation related to the company's on-call schedule violated the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Univar employed Edwards as a Customer Service Representative in its
Dallas facility. Representatives' regular work schedules consist of
a forty-hour workweek. But once a month, representatives are also
required to work an "on-call" schedule in addition to the regular
workweek. The on-call schedule requires the representative to be
available to answer customer calls at all hours of the day, each
day for that week. However, the representative is only required to
perform company tasks during after-hours if a call is actually
received, and Univar gives the representatives equipment to fulfill
on-call duty remotely. For each week of on-call duty, Customer
Service Representatives are compensated with the choice of four
additional hours of straight time pay for that week or four
additional hours of paid time off. After Edwards filed this
lawsuit, two more Customer Service Representatives filed their
consents to join the litigation. All three representatives provided
declarations in support of the motion for conditional
certification.

Univar is a global chemical and ingredients distributor and
provider of value-added services that works with leading suppliers
worldwide. The company was founded in 1924 as Van Waters & Rogers.
It was also formerly known as Royal Vopak and later Univar.

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3p1zLtaat
no extra charge.[CC]

VEGGIE GRILL: Letiecq Demands Card BalanceRefund
-------------------------------------------------
Nicole Letiecq, individually, on behalf of herself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Veggie Grill,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20CV375057 (Cal. Super., December 21, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Veggie Grill to honor all gift card holders' requests for
the cash value of any of gift cards that have a balance of less
than $10.00 pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The Veggie Grill, Inc. is a restaurant in California. It also sells
gift cards, which can be used to buy food items in its restaurants.
Letiecq visited a Veggie Grill location in California and purchased
items with a Veggie Grill gift card. After paying for the items
selected using the Veggie Grill gift card, her gift card balance
was less than $10.00 and did not want any other items.  However,
Defendants refused to refund the remaining balance, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
      Neil B. Fineman, Esq. - SBN 177915
      FINEMAN POLINER LLP
      155 North Riverview Drive
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
      Tel: (714) 620-1125
      Fax: (714) 701-0155
      Email: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
             Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


VENUS ET FLEUR: Satovsky Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SATOVSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VENUS ET FLEUR LLC, a New Jersey Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-10075-MAG-CI (E.D. Mich., Jan.
11, 2021) seeks to secure redress for Defendant's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, to
promote its services. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide
Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an
automatic telephone dialing system. Through this action, Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals, the suit added.

Venus Et Fleur LLC is a luxury florist with principal office in
Santa Fe Springs, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

VISA INC: Clients Can File Antitrust, Class Settlements Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DCap provides services to businesses and industry associations in
the U.S. that have valid claims involving Antitrust and Class
Action Settlements. DCap works directly with, and on behalf of, our
clients to file claims, maximize their value, communicate with the
claims administrator, counsel and service the claim through
ultimate recovery.

There is currently a $5.4 billion Visa-Mastercard settlement that
DCap is helping clients recover funds from. Any company in the U.S.
that accepted Visa or Mastercard payments between 2004 and January
2019 is eligible to file a claim.

Additional information is available at the court approved website:
paymentcardsettlement.com. DCap directs clients to the settlement
website in compliance with class council requirements. There is
currently no claim form available however DCap is pre-enrolling our
clients.

Please feel free to reach out to anyone of us for more detail or
questions.

Marshall Pepper CEO Founder – mpepper@dcapclaims.com
Mark Valenti VP Development – mvalenti@dcapclaims.com
Samantha Goodman VP Operations – sgoodman@dcapclaims.com
http://www.dcapclaims.com/

Thank you for your interest in Alliance ACA endorsed vendor
programs. [GN]


WAL-MART: Joint Stipulation on Class Certification Briefing Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM'S WEST,
INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01926-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. entered an order that the briefing schedule on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be as follows:

        Event                                   Date

   Motion for Class Certification          May 31, 2021

   Opposition to Motion for Class          July 12, 2021
   Certification

   Reply to ISO Motion for                 Aug. 9.2021
   Class Certification

   Hearing on Motion for                   Sep. 3, 2021, 10 a.m.
   Class Certification

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Sam's West, Inc. is an American chain of membership-only retail
warehouse clubs owned and operated by Walmart Inc., founded in 1983
and named after Walmart founder Sam Walton.

A copy of the Court's order re: Joint stipulation to continue
briefing schedule for motion for class certification dated Jan. 12,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iqmRmk
at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Sold Mislabeled Ground Coffee, Smith Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Rodger Smith, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
CACE-20-021823, (Fla. Cir., December 28, 2020), seeks an award of
equitable relief, actual damages, an award of attorney's fees and
costs and any other relief and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded pursuant to the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Smith purchased Folgers Classic Decaf Medium Roast Ground Coffee
(Net Wt. 30.5 Oz) at a Walmart located at 1199 S Federal Hwy,
Pompano Beach, FL 33062. The product's front label prominently
states that the product "Makes Up to 240 Cups." Smith claims that
it does not produce anywhere close to 240 tablespoons of coffee and
therefore, when the directions are followed, will not produce
anywhere close to 240 6 fluid ounce cups of coffee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Oster, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
     22052 W. 66th St., #192
     Shawnee, KS 66226
     Telephone: (913) 206-7575
     Fax: (561) 688-0630
     Email: joel@joelosterlaw.com

            - and -

     Lydia S. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
     Nicholas T. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
     SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     99 6th Street SW
     Winter Haven, FL 33880
     Telephone: (863) 656-6672
     Emails: lydia@southernatlanticlaw.com
             nick@southernatlanticlaw.com
             kara@southernatlanticlaw.com
             mark@southernatlanticlaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Lichtman Sues Over Store Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Lichtman, Samantha Reese, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00082-ENV-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's minimum wage violations under New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Whole Foods' team meetings constitute
reports for work within the meaning of New York call-in pay
requirements. Because these team meetings are not regularly
scheduled, no set shift duration controls the minimum call-in pay.
As a result, when Whole Foods employees report for work by
attending team meetings, they are entitled to call-in pay.

The Plaintiffs allege that although they reported for team meetings
pursuant to their employment with Whole Foods, and on each
occasion, they were only paid wages for the duration of the meeting
and did not receive all call-in pay required at their applicable
wage rate.

Whole Foods employed Plaintiff Karen Lichtman at its Chelsea store,
250 Seventh Avenue, New York in approximately 2016 and 2017. Whole
Foods subsequently employed Ms. Lichtman at its Gowanus store, 214
Third Street in Brooklyn, New York from 2017 through 2020. Whole
Foods employed Plaintiff Samantha Reese at its Gowanus store from
2018 through 2020.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. is an American multinational supermarket
chain which sells products free from hydrogenated fats and
artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
          ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C.
          733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 354-6270
          E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          E-mai: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                 samoriarity@baillonthome.com

[*] South Korea Enacts Class Action Law on Workplace Accidents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Korea Herald reports that the National Assembly passed a bill on
punishment for serious industrial accidents on Jan. 8 despite
strong protests from business circles. Under the new law, business
owners and chief executives can face at least one year in jail or a
fine of up to 100 million won ($91,500) for workplace deaths.

Companies are in danger of being subject to harsh punishment. The
law obliges them to take necessary measures to prevent accidents.
But it defines their obligations broadly, so there is room for
arbitrary interpretation. It will be practically impossible to
prove they fulfilled their obligations. Once workplace deaths or
other serious mishaps happen, it is almost certain that they will
be jailed or fined.

Some small and midsized companies operate dozens of business
establishments. Construction companies have work underway at
numerous sites. Workplaces are too numerous for business owners or
chief executives to manage. Few of the companies will remain
unharmed if business owners or chief executives are jailed whenever
serious accidents happen at a site among their many workplaces.

Business lobbies appealed to lawmakers to put the bill on hold,
arguing it would impose an excessive punishment on top of existing
penalties prescribed in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. But
their appeal was not accepted.

The new law exempts business owners with fewer than five employees
from punishment and gives a three-year grace period to those
employing fewer than 50 workers. This reduces the effectiveness of
the law and goes against equity.

Chiefs of central government agencies and heads of provincial
governments have been exempted from punishment, too. It is hard to
understand why public servants deserve this exemption.

No one will oppose calls for workplace safety. But a harsh
punishment of the top management does not necessarily guarantee the
prevention of industrial accidents. Rather, it may be
counterproductive. Large companies will likely reduce domestic
subcontracts and increase overseas outsourcing. Foreign companies
may relinquish operations in Korea.

The government and the ruling party vow to help businesses whenever
the opportunity arises. But in light of their erstwhile policies
and approach to legislation, it seems they are just paying lip
service. The business community has already been dispirited by
tightened anti-business and anti-market regulations since the Moon
Jae-in administration launched.

Businesses were almost stifled by the passage of three regulatory
bills late last year -- amendments to the commercial law, the fair
trade law and enactment of the financial group supervision law. To
make matters worse, the law on corporate punishment for severe
accidents will demotivate them further.

In a special parliamentary session next month, the ruling party
plans to push through a controversial amendment to the distribution
industry act to force shopping complexes to close two Sundays a
month in a bid to help traditional markets and neighborhood shops.
It also plans to enact a class action law and expand punitive
damages. According to the Korea Enterprises Federation, more than
200 bills increase the burden on businesses. This is a result of
the ruling party giving in to stubborn demands from labor and civic
groups.

Moon did not attend the New Year greeting ceremony for
businesspeople for the fourth consecutive year since he took office
in 2017. This shows an aspect of his unfriendliness with business
circles. The ceremony is the largest annual event hosted by the
Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry for its 180,000 members.
Previous presidents had attended it all but three times since it
was first held in 1962.

The Korean economy has managed to hold out amid the coronavirus
pandemic largely thanks to companies putting up a good performance
on the exports front. And yet the ruling party sides with labor
circles and treats businesspeople as potential criminals. This will
prompt them to consider pulling their businesses out of Korea. If
it discards such views and motivates them, it will see more Korean
companies perform remarkably in the global market. [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 ***