/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210119.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 8

                            Headlines

2015 HALLADAY: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Lemus Suit Alleges
3D IDAPRO: February 4 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Eckman Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Sakamoto Claims
3M COMPANY: Audritsh Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Due to Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Estabrook Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic AFFF, Talbott Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposes AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, McMurray Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Products, Luedtke Says

3M COMPANY: Firefighting Foam Multidistrict Litigation Pending
3M COMPANY: Hines Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Salcetti Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Sharpe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Zisa Alleges Complications From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

A & S VEGETABLES: Aguirre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AA JEDSON: Romero Sues Over Denial of Overtime Payment
AKHIL GARLAND: Former Walden Eco Village Tenants Await Ruling
ALIBABA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
ALLSTATE LENDING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Criminal Background Check Class Action
APPLE INC: Claims in Shay Suit Over Fraudulent Gift Cards Narrowed
APPLE INC: Judge May Deny Sales Figure Request From Antitrust Suit
ASIAN IMPORT: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Evan Claims

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Swanson Hits Overpriced Crop Inputs
BERRY CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
BERRY CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
BLACKROCK INC: Must Face ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
BREEN BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Mechanics, Nestor Claims

BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces 2018 Customer Data Breach Class Action
C PEPPER: Court Grants Flinn Leave to Amend Count II of Wage Suit
CANADA: Faces Inmates Suit Over Systemic Bias in Risk Assessments
CANCUN AND CANCUN: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CD PROJEKT: RM Law Files Video Game Consoles Class Action

CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Davis Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Must Face Christchurch Quake Class Action
CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Staples, Grant Fail to Avert Class Action
CLEARVIEW AI: Burke CCPA and BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

CLEARVIEW AI: Calderon BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Ill.
CLEARVIEW AI: John BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois
CLEARVIEW AI: McPherson BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois
COCKE COUNTY, TN: Sheriff, Jailers Face Civil Rights Class Action

COLORADO WEST: Underpays Peer Specialists, Futch Suit Alleges
CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Martinez-Sanchez Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
CONSTRUCTION & TURNAROUND: Sica Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings
CORAL CAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Duran Claims

CORAL SPRINGS: Faces Snarski Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
D&S CLEANERS: Holgado FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT
DARIOHEALTH CORP: Chavakula Sues Over Removal Provision in Bylaws
DARKTRACE INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Der-Hacopian Suit
DIETZ & WATSON: Faces Smoke Flavoring Labeling Class Action

EAST PALACE: Court Dismisses Dong's Claims From Cui FLSA Suit
ELENI'S NYC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bid to Strike Defenses in Fodera Suit Denied
ERIE INSURANCE: Highland Park Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
EXODUS BUILDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Lok FCRA Class Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Class Suit Goes to N.D. California
FASTRAK: Court Rules on Class Action Over Unfair Toll Penalties
FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Dodge Demon Class Action
FUNIMATION GLOBAL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GIFT SERVICES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOEDECKER INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cabrera Class Suit
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
GRETNA, LA: $106.5K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Nelson Suit
GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Insulin Pens
GT EXPRESS INC: Rogers Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Suit Transferred to N.D. California
HIGGINS BENJAMIN: N.C. Court Refuses to Dismiss Golden FDCPA Suit
HOWMET AEROSPACE: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
HP HOOD: Faces Binns Suit Over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
HSBC BANK: New York Eastern Dist. Tosses EFTA Claim in Cheng Suit

HY-VEE INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
iANTHUS EMPIRE: Dorsey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
IQVIA: Supreme Court Won't Overturn Junk Fax Case Ruling
JATOLA HOMES: Kallai RESPA Class Suit Removed to D. Ohio
JEANNIE'S DELI: Faces Arriaga Suit Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages

JOYY INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline
KAEL FOODS: Salazar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
KEURIG GREEN: June 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set

LANDRY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ontiveros et al. Claim
LAROSA'S PIZZERIA: Franchisees Settle Delivery Drivers' Class Suit
MAJOR ENERGY: Customer Must Arbitrate Rate-Change Class Claims
MAJOR ENERGY: Maryland District Court Dismisses Amended Brito Suit
MASS PRECISION: Failed to Pay All Wages Owed, Zamora Says

MEDNAX SERVICES: Data Breach Exposes Customers' Info, Davis Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gross Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Stekel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ziegler Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
MOHAWK CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing

NEVADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID Vaccine Distribution
NEVADA: Gorsline Alleges Injuries Over Unsafe Prison Environment
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hospitals' Claims for Nominal Damages in Doe Tossed
NEW YORK, NY: United Probation Alleges Job Discriminatory Practices
OMNILIFE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Alleges

ON CAMPUS MARKETING: Richwine Suit Alleges Retaliatory Dismissal
PAREA GROUP: Filing of Bid for Final Nod of Argudo Deal Due Jan. 21
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: High Court Refuses to Hear Coverage Suit
POINT 2 POINT: Cotzomi FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rottenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection

POSH TOT: Fuino Sues Over Member's Unauthorized Use of Firm's Money
QIWI PLC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Remind of February 9 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 8 Deadline
RAPI INC: Resto Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
READING, PA: Declaratory Judgment in Ziegler Class Suit Affirmed

REALPAGE INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Austin Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
SINAI I INC: Faces Jenkins Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Estrada Sues Over Misleading SEC Statement
SOBE USA: Penalba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff

SOLARWINDS CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 12 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Magistrate Recommends Mock Suit Dismissal
STATE FARM: Vogt's Bid to Shift Notice & Distribution Costs Denied

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bare Consumers Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
THAI UNION: Settles Canned Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action
TORRI OHIO: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Quinlan Suit Claims
TRANSUNION LLC: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
TRICEDA INC: Portnoy Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

TRICIDA INC: Scott+Scott Attorney Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
TSC DIGITAL: Blecha Suit Alleges Misclassification, Unpaid Wages
TURQUOISE HILL: Faces Securities Class Action in Montreal Court

TYSON FOODS: Settles Price Collusion Class Action Lawsuit
UBER EATS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Exorbitant Commissions
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Sexual Abuse Class Settlement
US FOODS: Osorio Employment Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
UZZAL EXPRESS: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Required Wages

WELLPET LLC: Bush Sues Over Mislabeled Grain-Free Pet Foods
WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barron Suit Says
YUM! BRANDS: Coons Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
ZILLOW INC: Nears $1.1-Mil. Labor Class Action Settlement
[*] AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Covid-19 Restrictions

[*] Brownstein Hyatt Discusses COBRA-Related Litigation Trend
[*] Central District Court Dismisses Several ASL Class Actions
[*] Krieg DeVault Discusses Class Action Waiver, Arbitration
[*] New York State Legislature Introduces Standalone BIPA Bill
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Action Trends


                            *********

2015 HALLADAY: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Lemus Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LEMUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 2015 HALLADAY WELLNESS, INC. d/b/a WEST
CLINIK, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00044 (C.D. Cal., January 11,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and
Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system in an
attempt to promote its business without obtaining prior express
written consent. The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused
the Plaintiff and Class members actual harm, including invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion.

2015 Halladay Wellness, Inc., doing business as West Clinik, is a
cannabis dispensary located in the Santa Ana, California. [BN]

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

3D IDAPRO: February 4 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jade McDowell, writing for East Oregonian, reports that settlement
of a class action lawsuit on behalf of Stanfield residents against
3D Idapro Solutions is winding down.

Those who qualify for payment under the settlement have until Feb.
4 to submit a claim, according to documentation on the website of
Liddle & Dubin P.C., a Detroit-based law firm handling the
lawsuit.

3D Idapro Solutions operated a dehydration plant in Stanfield for
several years before closing the plant in 2019. In 2017, a fire
burned equipment at the plant that helped reduce the odors coming
from rotting potato scraps there. The company replaced the
fire-damaged scrubber and made other changes designed to reduce
odor, but area residents continued to complain in city council
meetings and elsewhere that strong odors from the plant were
reducing their quality of life. Some told the city council at the
time that the odors had triggered physical responses, such as
vomiting.

Liddle & Dubin P.C. did not return a request for comment, but court
documents show a lawsuit was filed against 3D Idapro Solutions in
February 2019, alleging the company's actions had caused a decrease
in the plaintiffs' property values due to the odor. According to
the firm's website, the company has "vigorously denied and
continues to deny all claims of wrongdoing and liability" but
agreed to a settlement of $500,000 to avoid further legal
expenses.

According to Liddle & Dubin P.C., the $500,000 settlement will be
split between parties to the lawsuit after legal fees and attorney
expenses are deducted. The settlement class includes people who
live or own residential property within a 4-mile radius of the
plant at 405 Hoosier Road, Stanfield, any time after Feb. 26, 2013,
and those who submitted a residential data sheet to the firm before
April 15, 2020.

The law firm's website states that qualifying individuals who wish
to receive part of the settlement must submit a claim for
compensation by Feb. 4. Those who wish to object to the terms of
the settlement or exclude themselves from the settlement have until
Jan. 20 to do so. Those who are part of the settlement class but do
nothing before those deadlines will not receive part of the
settlement, but will also release their claims on the defendant,
meaning they could not file their own lawsuit for the same thing.

The East Oregonian could not locate a website or contact
information for 3D Idapro Solutions, but reached out to 3D
Corporate Solutions, which lists the same address for its
headquarters as previously listed by 3D Idapro Solutions, and did
not receive a response.

For more information, visit
www.ldclassaction.com/class-action/3d-idapro-solutions-llc-settlement-2,
email info@ldclassaction.com or call 1-800-536-0045. [GN]


3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Eckman Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT EDWARD ECKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00127-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Sakamoto Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST KARL SAKAMOTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00120-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters
employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of
and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS
and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop serious
medical conditions and complications.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Audritsh Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP MATTHEW AUDRITSH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00125-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Due to Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FREDERICK BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00121-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Estabrook Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
BROC EDWARD ESTABROOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00124-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are highly
toxic and dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees,
including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health.

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

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic AFFF, Talbott Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PERRY TALBOTT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00082-RMG
(D.S.C., January 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Exposes AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, McMurray Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RALPH MCMURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00129-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants knew that their AFFF products contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, but they failed to warn end
users of the products about the health risks. The Plaintiff was
unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF
products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products.

As a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities, he developed serious medical conditions and
complications.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Products, Luedtke Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LEE LUEDTKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00126-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants due to
their failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans. The Defendants' failure to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, about
the danger of the products to human health caused the Plaintiff to
develop serious medical conditions and complications.

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

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Firefighting Foam Multidistrict Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy D. Oppenheim, Esq., of Oppenheim Law, reports that need a
firefighter foam lawsuit attorney? Contact Oppenheim Law at
954-384-6114 to discuss your firefighter foam cancer lawsuit. Have
you used fire fighting foam (AFFF) and been diagnosed with cancer?

About The Fire Fighting Foam Lawsuit
3M and DuPont, two of the world's largest chemical manufacturers,
are now involved in multi-district litigation over lawsuits
claiming that they exposed individuals to grave danger when they
manufactured aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs), and both
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),
two substances used to make AFFFs. PFOA and PFOS are part of a
highly resistant group of substances, called the "forever
chemicals", that are able to linger in the environment and in the
human body for extremely long periods of time since they do not
degrade by themselves. Both PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic to
humans and have been linked to various diseases and types of
cancers.

A Toxic History
PFOA and PFOS were first manufactured in the 1940s to use in
coating for various products, but it was not until 1960 when 3M
created the infamous AFFFs. AFFFs were quickly adopted by the
military, airports, refineries, and fire departments worldwide. Ten
10 years later, PFAS (the substance type that includes PFOA and
PFOS) was found in blood samples of occupationally exposed workers,
and not long after that, the US Air Force and Navy started to
notice that AFFFs were toxic to the environment. Nevertheless,
AFFFs were still used and praised for their effectives at putting
out liquid-fueled fires.

The problem with going decades without stopping the use of AFFFs
containing PFAS is that these chemicals are extremely persistent in
the environment, and when they come in contact with the human body,
they will not leave any time soon. Multiple decades of exposure to
a chemical that does not degrade catalyzed the widespread presence
of PFAS in blood samples of the general population. Firefighters,
however, are particularly at risk of being exposed, since they are
using AFFFs when putting out fires and, as a result, come directly
in contact with air containing PFOA/PFOS. Firefighters take in one
of these substances through inhalation, contact with the skin,
and/or pores. Individuals who are exposed to PFAS are likely to be
compromised for years, as these substances are able to bind to
blood proteins and remain in the human body for extended periods of
time.

The EPA's Verdict
After the danger PFOA and PFOS posed was understood, various
studies were conducted to understand the impact these substances
had on both humans and animals. Occupational exposure studies that
took place in 3M plants identified the likely effects of PFOA and
PFOS, including, but not limited, to changes in cholesterol and
triglycerides. Studies that examined contaminated communities and
the general population also found a link between PFOS and PFOA with
higher total cholesterol, as well as a wider array of effects such
as, increased difficulty in having pregnancy, undesired effects
during pregnancy, unnatural changes in thyroid hormones, increased
liver enzymes, lower presence of some antibodies, increased asthma
severity, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy,
and more. Moreover, PFOA or PFOS (in some cases both substances)
were also linked to multiple types of cancer and tumors such as
liver tumors, thyroid follicular cell tumors, Leydig cell tumors,
ovarian tumors, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, prostate cancer,
ovarian tubular hyperplasia, and others.

Other studies have been conducted in Nordic countries observing
firefighters specifically, and those studies have found an even
more unsettling pattern. One study conducted in Sweden found that
firefighters suffered from non-melanoma skin cancer at a higher
rate than the rest of the Swedish population. Another Nordic study
found that firefighters suffered from all cancer types studied at
higher rates than the rest of the population, particularly from
prostate cancer and skin melanoma cancer.

Looking Ahead
Although the 500 lawsuits filed over AFFFs have just been recently
consolidated under an MDL and no settlements have been reached,
both 3M and DuPont have already settled on claims over PFAS
contamination in the past. If both 3M's and DuPont's settlements,
$850 million and $670 million respectively, are any indication of
what may come in terms of financial compensation, firefighters
remain optimistic as they are likely to get justly compensated for
the wrongdoings they have experienced.

Do You Have Any Of These Conditions?
If you are (or know of a loved one who is) a firefighter who,
served prior to 2003, was exposed to AFFFs, and suffers from any of
the following conditions, you may be entitled to compensation:

• High total cholesterol
• Triglycerides
• Increased time to pregnancy
• Infertility
• Reduced fecundity
• Gestational diabetes
• Pregnancy-induced hypertension
• Changes in thyroid hormones
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Lower presence of antibodies
• Increased asthma severity
• Ulcerative colitis
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Cerebral palsy

Cancers And Tumors
If you are (or know of a loved one who is) a firefighter who was
exposed to AFFFs, and suffers from any of the following cancers or
types of tumors, you may be entitled to compensation:
• Kidney cancer
• Liver cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Ovarian tubular hyperplasia
• Leydig cell tumors
• Thyroid follicular cell tumors

AFFF Firefighter Foam Cancer Lawsuit
Our team at Oppenheim Law recognizes the emotional burden these
conditions and cancers can have on individuals and their lives.
That is why our firm provides a team of professionals committed to
zealously represent our clients.
Please feel free to contact us 24/7 at (954) 384-6114 so we can
inform you of your legal rights so you can obtain the compensation
to which you are entitled.

Oppenheim Law | Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Attorneys
2500 Weston Rd #209
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33331
954-384-6114 [GN]


3M COMPANY: Hines Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TYRELLE BERNARD HINES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00122-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Salcetti Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHN SALCETTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00128-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Sharpe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN WILLIAM SHARPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00119-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Zisa Alleges Complications From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GEORGE ZISA JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00123-RMG
(D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters
employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of
and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS
and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications.

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

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

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

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

A & S VEGETABLES: Aguirre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Fernando Osorio Aguirre, Selan Villanueva, Salvador Montoya
Ramirez, Neri Palacios, and Jose Odin Canales Dominguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A &
S VEGETABLES INC., MAHARAJA ASIAN SUPERMARKET INC., JAR 259 FOOD
CORP., KRISHNA HOLDING INC., AMANDEEP SINGH, NARINDER SINGH GAHRA,
and KULJIT KAUR, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-00191
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid minimum
wage and unpaid overtime premiums owed to Plaintiffs pursuant to
both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

For their work at the Defendants' grocery stores, the Plaintiffs
were paid a flat weekly rate that did not compensate them at the
minimum wage for all hours worked, did not provide them with
overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 each week, and did
not provide them with spread-of-hours premiums for days when they
worked in excess of ten 10 hours, asserts the complaint. In
addition, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate
wage statements and wage notices, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiffs performed work for Defendants at their grocery
stores.

The Defendants have owned and operated multiple supermarkets in the
New York City area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 385-9700
          Web: www.peltongraham.com


AA JEDSON: Romero Sues Over Denial of Overtime Payment
------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Romero, Jairo Ford, Rafael Amparo, and Marlon Reyes, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AA JEDSON
COMPANY LLC, JEDSON COMPANY LLC, and MICHAEL BORDES, Case No.
7:21-cv-00288 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought to remedy
violations of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by Defendants that have deprived the
Plaintiffs of their lawfully earned wages.

The complaint says the Plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours
per workweek but were paid the same hourly rate for all hours
worked per week, including those over forty. In addition to denying
the Plaintiffs overtime wages, the Defendants failed to furnish the
Plaintiffs with wage notices and with compliant wage statements at
the end of every pay period, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former carpenters and general construction
workers at Jedson.

The Defendants are New York Corporations that own and operate
Jedson, a "general development and design build firm with over 40
years experience in construction management".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Vivianna Morales, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 583-9500
          Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                 morales@pechmanlaw.com


AKHIL GARLAND: Former Walden Eco Village Tenants Await Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbe Hamilton, writing for Monadnock Ledger-Transcript, reports
that the former tenants of the Walden Eco Village in Peterborough
who joined a class action lawsuit against landlord Akhil Garland
are awaiting a judge's order following a hearing on Jan. 7. The
order could award immediate damages to tenants, which attorney
Jason Bielagus argues are essential for their rehoming in the wake
of the Dec. 16 eviction of the Eco Village's 25 tenants.

"I was trying to express a sense of urgency," Bielagus said on Jan.
11, and that he hopes that reflects in the timing of the judge's
upcoming decision.

Many of the 13 former tenants who have joined the class action
lawsuit were present for the Jan. 7 virtual hearing for a temporary
order associated with the suit, during which Bielagus and Garland's
attorney Steve Dutton argued their respective cases before Judge
Diane Nicolisi.

"Being homeless in New England, in the winter, during a
once-in-100-years global pandemic is irreparable harm," Bielagus
said, justifying his motion for a temporary order that could
quickly grant tenants some funds. He argued that although Garland
and his associated trust and company could not immediately return
tenants to the Eco Village due to the site's multiple code and
permit violations, Garland could begin to remedy the situation by
immediately returning security deposits and December rent checks,
and reimbursing tenants' out-of-pocket expenses associated with
moving out and finding emergency housing, and paying for a real
estate agent to help tenants find new places to stay. "When you go
to a new place, it's not unusual to have to come up with three
times the monthly rent in order to get in," Bielagus said, and that
damages paid to tenants would directly facilitate them finding
their next place to live.

Represented tenants sought a total $17,845.86, plus court and
attorney fees, in reimbursements of costs incurred in December.
Listed costs include storage unit rentals, storage containers,
mover's fees and trailer rentals, lost wages for days spent packing
and moving, increased costs of living in emergency housing, kennel
fees for pets, P.O. box rentals, security deposits, and gas and
vehicle mileage associated with relocating. Former residents are
currently living in hotels with no kitchen access, Bielagus
said,with the inability to cook substantially increasing their food
costs. One succeeded in finding a new place to live, but it costs
$225 a month more than what he'd been paying at the Eco Village,
Bielagus said. Another still hasn't received her security deposit,
Bielagus said, and another couple didn't cash the security deposit
check they received from Garland  because there was language in the
memo line that "could be construed as some sort of payoff of all
claims," Bielagus said.

Nicolisi could also opt to award additional damages, between $1,000
and $3,000 per day, per tenant, under the state's consumer
protection statute, Bielagus said. Although some leases were
renewed on a month-to-month basis, at least one plaintiff's lease
was in effect through Sept. 2021, Bielagus said.

On behalf of Garland, Dutton disagreed that the landlord was
obligated to reimburse residents for anything other than their
security deposits, all but one of which had already been returned,
he said. Several tenants listed in the suit had accepted payments,
some in excess of the security deposit owed, Dutton said, and that
residents uncomfortable with "amounts that were negotiated as a way
to resolve this" could return the checks in exchange for checks
with just the security deposit amount.

A number of tenants not included in the suit "accepted final
payments and signed releases," separate from anything indicated on
a check, Dutton said. He further argued that the lease agreements
accurately described the nature of the cottages and casitas on
site, and noted that residents were paying "below market rent."

"[They] can't establish that the rent they paid was greater than
the reasonable value of what they received," Dutton said, and that
no tenants had ever made a complaint prior to the Dec. 16
eviction.

Dutton also cited Garland's disagreement with the town of
Peterborough's ruling that the dwellings were uninhabitable, as
well as the town's stated timeline of events on the property.

Also included in the complaint Bielagus filed on behalf of the
tenants are longer-term damages, such as reimbursement of future
rent if it's in excess of what a tenant would have been paying to
live at the Eco Village. It also seeks past rent paid for housing
that was represented to be residential dwellings "but lacked proper
permitting, and had significant code violations that place the
structures and their occupants at immediate risk," according to the
complaint.

"Twenty-five tenants paid rent for years, and they didn't get
habitable residential dwelling. Especially not in the later half of
December 2020," Bielagus said at Jan. 7 hearing.

A motion for a pre-judgment attachment is also included in the
documents Bielagus filed on behalf of tenants. The attachment is an
attempt to afford plaintiffs security, he said, because even if
they win the suit, a defendant could bar them from ever collecting
if they succeeded in hiding money and assets. To this extent,
Bielagus said he's investigating tenant claims that Garland owns a
development project in Nicaragua, in addition to the ten properties
he owns between Peterborough and Harrisville, which include three
homes in Harrisville as well as undeveloped land, Bielagus said.

"My concern here is that he could move assets offshore and it would
make it very difficult for plaintiffs to collect," he said, even if
they did win. Garland's representatives have 30 days to respond to
the attachment, which will be handled separately to the Jan. 7
motion for a temporary order, Bielagus said.

"I do not own a development in Nicaragua and that claim is a
typical scattershot, over-reaching, non-factual statement by Mr.
Bielagus," Garland said when asked for comment. [GN]


ALIBABA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 12 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or "the Company") (NYSE:
BABA) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 9,
2020 and December 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 12, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Alibaba held a 33% ownership stake in Ant
Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"),
which planned an initial public offering ("IPO") for October 2020.
Alibaba failed to disclose that Ant Group did not meeting the
qualifications for listing. Upcoming changes to Fintech regulations
would seriously impact Ant Group. Ant Group's IPO was likely to be
suspended. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Alibaba, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


ALLSTATE LENDING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE LENDING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00228 (C.D. Cal., January 11, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant placed
multiple calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending
in -1083 within a 12-month period beginning in or around July 2019
via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The Plaintiff
asserts that she did not provide her "prior express consent" to the
Defendant to contact her using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. In addition, the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 has been
registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4,
2008.

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

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

Allstate Funding Group, Inc. is a mortgage lending company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Criminal Background Check Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a woman denied work as an Amazon delivery
driver has filed a proposed class action in Pennsylvania state
court, claiming the online retailer's alleged policy of rejecting
applicants with arrests -- but no convictions -- on their record
violated state law. [GN]

APPLE INC: Claims in Shay Suit Over Fraudulent Gift Cards Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RACHAEL SHAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC. and APPLE VALUE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20cv1629-GPC (BLM) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

The case was removed from state court on Aug. 21, 2020.  Plaintiff
Shay filed a putative first amended class action complaint ("FAC")
against Defendants Apple and Apple Value for claims under
California consumer protection laws and related claims for
marketing, selling and/or distributing defective, unsecure and
valueless Apple gift cards that Defendants knew or should have
known was subject to an ongoing scam where the funds on the gift
cards are fraudulently redeemed by third parties accessing the
Personal Identification Number ("PIN") prior to use by the
consumer.

According to the FAC, on April 3, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a
$50 Apple gift card from Walmart in Encinitas, California, as a
gift for her son.  When her son attempted to load the gift card, he
received a message that the gift card had already been redeemed.

The Plaintiff contacted the Defendants and was informed that the
gift card was redeemed by another account on April 3, 2020, the
same day she bought the card, and the card no longer had any value.
The Defendants would not provide any additional information about
the owner account that redeemed the code, other than it was not
related to the Plaintiff or her son.  They informed her that there
was nothing they could do for her, that her case was closed, and
any further contact would go unanswered.  If the Plaintiff had
known about the truth about the defect of the Defendants' gift
card, she would not have purchased it.

The Plaintiff seeks to bring the class action on behalf of the
following:

   a. Nationwide Class: All consumers in the United States who
      purchased an Apple gift card wherein the funds on the Apple
      gift card was redeemed prior to use by the consumer; and

   b. California Subclass: All consumers in the State of
      California who purchased an Apple gift card wherein the
      funds on the Apple gift card was redeemed prior to use by
      the consumer.

The Plaintiff alleges causes of action for 1) violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); 2) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); 3) violations of
California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"); 4) negligence; 5)
negligent misrepresentation; and 6) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability.

The gist of the Plaintiff's claims is that Apple knows or should
know that its gift cards are vulnerable to thieves electronically
accessing Apple gift cards at the point of sale and redeeming the
funds prior to the consumer taking possession of the gift card, and
has failed to take reasonable steps to secure the cards and has
concealed material facts from customers regarding the
vulnerabilities of its cards.

The Defendants move to dismiss all causes of action in the FAC.  In
response, the Plaintiff agrees to dismiss the CCPA and negligence
claims without prejudice.  Accordingly, Judge Curiel granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the CCPA and negligence claims as
unopposed.

Apple argues globally that Plaintiff cannot state a plausible claim
against them on any of the causes of action because they are not
liable for the misconduct of third parties.  As a threshold issue,
the Plaintiff points out that the Defendants have failed to
reference the specific causes of action associated with their
third-party liability argument.

The Judge agrees that the Defendants have failed to address the
allegations and theories of liability relied upon by the Plaintiff.
He finds that the Defendants focus on the third-party conduct's
responsibility in the theft while the Plaintiff's allegations
center on Apple's affirmative acts and concealment involving its
sale of gift cards.  Taking the allegations in the FAC as true, he
holds that the Plaintiff has alleged direct conduct and alleged
participation in the alleged unfair business practices by Apple in
violation of the CLRA and UCL.  Thus, he denied the motion to
dismiss on this basis.

Apple next argues that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that
it failed to implement reasonable security measures concerning its
gift cards.  The Plaintiff replies that the cases Apple relies on
concern the California Consumer Records Act, a claim not alleged in
the FAC and are inapplicable.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff does not allege a violation of
the California Consumer Records Act ("CCRA") on its own or as the
basis for a UCL claim.  Neither the UCL or CLRA claims are premised
upon a failure to implement reasonable security measures.  As such,
the Section 1798.81.5(b) cases relied upon by Apple have no
application to these claims.  Apple has not shown that the
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the CLRA and UCL, and
thus, the Judge denied the motion to dismiss.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's allegation that
Apple failed to disclose the possibility that her Apple gift card
would be compromised by third-party thieves and that Apple would
not refund the money she allegedly spent on the card because a
manufacturer's duty to disclose is limited to its warranty
obligations unless there is an affirmative misrepresentation or a
safety issue.  In response, the Plaintiff argues that the
Defendants' cited cases in support are distinguishable because they
involve product defect cases where the claims of failing to inform
the consumers were for a product falling outside the warranty
period

As he discussed, the Judge holds that Apple has failed to meet its
burden on a motion to dismiss by failing to explain how the
Plaintiff's allegation concerning failure to disclose renders the
CLRA, UCL, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and
negligent misrepresentation claims without merit under Rule
12(b)(6).  Next, the cases Apple cites in support are
distinguishable as they involve product liability cases concerning
notebook computers and automobile defects and warranty periods.
Given the shortcomings and deficiencies identified, the Judge
denied the Defendants' motion on this argument.

Apple next claims that the disclaimer on the gift card packaging
for any liability for third-party theft of its gift cards bars the
Plaintiff's claims.  The Plaintiff responds that the disclaimer
language is up for interpretation because no reasonable person
would understand the disclaimer to apply to her situation where the
theft occurs at the point of sale and prior to the consumer's use.
In reply, the Defendants disagree that the disclaimer is subject to
different interpretations yet argue in support of their
interpretation on how the disclaimer bars the Plaintiff's claims.

Based on the parties' argument, because the Defendants seek
judicial notice of the existence of the documents and not to the
truth of the matters asserts, the Judge granted the Defendants'
request for judicial notice as unopposed.  Further, a court may
grant judicial notice of documents not incorporated by reference in
the complaint; therefore, Plaintiff's second argument is without
merit.  Accordingly, he denied dismissal of any of the Plaintiff's
causes of action based on the disclaimer.

The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff has failed to
allege that their security protocols are inadequate or that it was
legally obligated to disclose any of the information it allegedly
concealed from consumers, the negligent misrepresentation claim
also fails.  The Plaintiff responds that because her claims allege
misrepresentations regarding the gift cards, the economic loss rule
does not apply.  In reply, Apple does not dispute the Plaintiff's
response but argues that she has not identified a single
affirmative misrepresentation about Apple's gift cards.

Contrary to Apple's reply arguing that there is not a single
affirmative misrepresentation alleged, the Judge holds that the FAC
alleges that the Defendants misrepresented to the Plaintiff that
they were selling Apple gift cards that were original, usable,
secure, valuable, and free from fraud, tampering or compromise.
Because the FAC alleges an affirmative misrepresentation, the Judge
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the negligent
misrepresentation claim based on the economic loss rule.

The FAC alleges that Apple breached the implied warrant of
merchantability that the Apple gift cards were in merchantable
quality and condition under California Commercial Code section
2314.  The Defendants move to dismiss the breach of implied
warranty claim because Plaintiff has not alleged she was in privity
with Apple and she has not alleged that the product was
unmerchantable or unfit for its ordinary use at the time the
product left the Defendant's possession.  The Plaintiff responds
that vertical privity is not required because she is a third-party
beneficiary who purchased the gift card from a third party acting
as an agent for the Defendants.

While the Plaintiff argues that she was an intended third-party
beneficiary because she purchased the gift card from a third party
acting as an agent of the Defendants, these allegations are not
alleged in the FAC, the Judge finds.  Moreover, the FAC fails to
allege a contract between Apple and Walmart where Plaintiff is the
intended beneficiary to the contract.  Accordingly, he granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranty of
merchantability.

Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the restitution claim under
the UCL and CLRA because she has not alleged that she lacks an
adequate remedy at law citing to Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020).  The Plaintiff argues that
Sonner is distinguishable because the CLRA damages were voluntarily
dismissed on the eve of trial and under Rule 8, she may plead in
the alternative even though her theories are inconsistent.

The Judge finds that ven though the complaint was dismissed at the
eve of trial, Sonner holds that a complaint must allege that she
lacks an adequate legal remedy.  In the case, the FAC fails to
allege that she "lacks an adequate legal remedy."  The Plaintiff
may plead in the alternative but she must also allege she lacks an
adequate legal remedy.  Accordingly, the Judge granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the restitution claim.

The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend on any claims that the Court
dismisses.  Because she can cure the deficiencies in the FAC, the
Judge granted the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended
complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Curiel granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Specifically, he denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the CLRA, UCL and negligent
misrepresentation causes of action; and granted the motion to
dismiss the breach of implied warranty of merchantability and
restitution claims with leave to amend.  The Judge further granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the CCPA and negligence claims as
unopposed.  The Plaintiff will file a second amended complaint
within 20 days of the filed date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2tu5qfp from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Judge May Deny Sales Figure Request From Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Gallagher, writing for Apple Insider, reports that the US
Magistrate Judge considering a proposed class action lawsuit
surrounding the Apple App Store has told lawyers their request for
international sales data does not appear relevant.

As Apple faces mounting litigation over the App Store, include its
dispute with Epic Games, a further proposed class action suit is
being considered. US Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixon has heard
arguments by lawyers that Apple should be required to provide
global revenues and sales data in support of the filers' claims.

However, according to Law360, the judge appeared skeptical during
the Zoom meeting held on January 8. "I don't know if that has
anything to do with the antitrust issues pleaded," he said.

The brief hearing was to do with a proposed class of customers in a
case that would accuse Apple of monopolizing app distribution.
Representing the customers, Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, said that Apple should be required to
provide total global revenues and sales data by month for each app
or in-app purchase option.

Reportedly, Judge Hixon noted that the accusation of antitrust is
concerned with an alleged lack of competitive alternatives. He said
that global sales data therefore does not appear to be relevant.

Byrd's argument is that customers need the data to get a "complete
picture" of what Apple charges. She maintains that this information
is needed despite a separate developers' case not requesting it,
because the customer case has different experts and is concerned
with different markets.

Representing Apple, Jay Srinivasan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
said in the hearing that the sales data represents only a "small
sliver of information." He argued that it would not be useful for
these customers, and also that compiling it would take weeks.

Srinivasan says that the time it would take for Apple to produce
the requested data would take until well after a forthcoming
deadline for the class action suit.

Judge Hixon is currently considering the arguments.

Separately, the "Fortnite" App Store dispute is heading for trial
start in May 2021. Apple and Epic Games have been in hearings
concerning information requests, document custodians, and who will
testify in the case. [GN]


ASIAN IMPORT: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian Import Store,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Asian Import Store, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00317 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021).

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

Asian Imports -- https://www.asianimportstore.com/ -- offers a
wholesale selection of paper lanterns and lights for weddings,
parties, special events and home decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Evan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA EVANS; and CAROL NOWAK-GALKOWSKI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Associated
Banc-Corp 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiffs v.
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP; THE ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00060-WCG (E.D. Wis., Jan. 13, 2021) is an action on behalf
of the Associated Banc-Corp 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (the "Plan") and the Class, alleging the Defendants' violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' process
for selecting and monitoring the Plan's investment options was
disloyal and imprudent. The Defendants included in the Plan
proprietary investments overwhelmingly rejected by fiduciaries of
similarly sized plans, when a nonconflicted fiduciary would have
selected among the more popular and better performing
nonproprietary alternatives available. Although using proprietary
options is not a breach of the duty of prudence or loyalty in and
of itself, a plan fiduciary's process for selecting and monitoring
proprietary investments is subject to the same duties of loyalty
and prudence that apply to the selection and monitoring of other
investments, the suit says.

Based on the Defendants' retention of unpopular and poorly
performing proprietary funds in asset classes for which superior
nonproprietary alternatives were available and far more widely
utilized by non-conflicted fiduciaries, it is reasonable to infer
that the Defendants' process for selecting and monitoring
investments for the Plan was allegedly tainted by self-interest.

Associated Banc-Corp is a Midwest banking franchise headquartered
in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Bank offers a full range of financial
products and services through banking locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 256-3200
          Fax: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bpsecht@nka.com
                  jschutz@nka.com


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Swanson Hits Overpriced Crop Inputs
------------------------------------------------------
John C. Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA
INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION,
WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO
OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK
INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00046 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought
to redress the Defendants' coordinated unlawful actions that forced
American farmers to pay artificially high prices for "Crop Inputs"
which are seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides,
herbicides, and insecticides manufactured by the Defendant, and
purchased from either the Defendant or another retailer.

According to the complaint, the Defendants established an opaque
distribution process that prevented farmers from effectively
comparison shopping, by withholding and deliberately obfuscating
product information, and maintaining strict secrecy with respect to
wholesale prices. Around 2016, several electronic platforms
launched with the goal of offering relatively cheap and transparent
means for farmers to purchase Crop Inputs. The Defendants conspired
to boycott them and ultimately forced them to change their business
models. In so doing, the Defendants deprived farmers of the
opportunity to purchase Crop Inputs at transparent, competitive
prices. The Defendants' conduct is currently the subject of an
investigation by Canada's Commissioner of Competition, which the
United States Justice Department is monitoring to determine whether
to launch its own investigation.

To ensure their boycott was successful, Defendants enforced strict
discipline on retailers who failed to comply. For example, in 2018,
after learning that some retailers had sold product to Farmers
Business Network ("FBN") despite the boycott, the Defendant
Syngenta initiated an audit of its authorized retailers to identify
and punish the retailers who had made those sales. In furtherance
of the boycott, however, the Manufacturer and Wholesaler Defendants
repeatedly blocked FBN's access to Crop Inputs by agreeing among
themselves not to sell products to FBN, even though doing so would
have created a lucrative stream of new sales for any individual
wholesaler or manufacturer acting independently and in their
economic self-interest.

The Defendants' boycott has resulted in the maintenance of
supracompetitive Crop Input prices by denying farmers accurate
product information, including pricing information, that would
enable them to make well-informed purchasing decisions. As a direct
proximate result of the Defendants' ongoing unlawful conduct,
farmers in the United States continue to be locked into accepting
supracompetitive price increases for Crop Inputs that outpace any
increases in their yield, and otherwise inure to their detriment
and injury, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Mr. Swanson purchased sorghum sudangrass seed at
supracompetitive prices from Defendant.

Bayer AG is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and
agriculture company. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bayer AG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle, #3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-899-9090
          Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                 smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
          Louis Kessler, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (917) 438-9102
          Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
                 csanchez@nussbaumpc.com
                 lkessler@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Phone: (716) 854-3400
          Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com
                 cercone@ruppbaase.com


BERRY CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Berry Corp. (NASDAQ: BRY) investors
that acquired shares between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020.
Investors have until January 19, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary
disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Berry
made materially misleading and false statements regarding the
Berry's compliance, operational, and business policies.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Berry made misleading
and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Berry
had materially overstated its operational stability and efficiency;
(2) Berry's operational instability and inefficiency would
foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would
increase Berry's costs and disrupt Berry's productivity; (3) the
foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact Berry's revenues; and
(4) the Offering Documents and the Berry's public statements were
materially misleading and/or false and failed to state information
required to be stated therein, as a result.

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

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

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
19, 2020.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


BERRY CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors
of the upcoming deadline to move for lead plaintiff in a securities
class action against Berry Corp. ("Berry" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BRY) and certain of its officers and directors pending in
the Northern District of Texas. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), including in the
Company's July 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), and have
suffered losses, you are encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman
for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
in violation of federal securities laws, that: (1) Berry had
materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (2)
Berry's operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably
necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the
Company's productivity and increase costs; (3) the foregoing would
foreseeably, negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (4) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

Berry held its IPO on July 25, 2018 at a price of $14 per share.
The IPO offering documents stated, in relevant part, that the
Company's "predictable" and "low-declining production base," its
"predictable development and production cost structures," and its
"low-cost," "low-risk" reservoirs uniquely positioned the Company
for high corporate-level returns and free cash flow. Berry made
other similar statements throughout the Class Period. The lawsuit
alleges that these statements were materially misleading.

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

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or
5.28%, to close at $2.69 on November 4, 2020 – a decline of over
80% from the IPO price.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and
November 3, 2020, including pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's July 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), or if you have
questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312
or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is
January 19, 2020.

             About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

Contacts:

Jonathan Zimmerman
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(888) 398-9312
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN]


BLACKROCK INC: Must Face ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that BlackRock must face an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act class action accusing it of costing workers and
retirees millions in unreasonable 401(k) plan fees and bad
investment decisions, after a California federal judge on Jan. 12
shot down the company's bid to win the suit ahead of a scheduled
March 1 trial. [GN]



BREEN BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Mechanics, Nestor Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO CRUZ NESTOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BREEN BROS. TOWING, INC.; PATRICIA
BREEN; JOSEPH BREEN; MICHAEL BREEN; and PATRICK BREEN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00196 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 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.

Mr. Nestor was employed by the Defendant as mechanic.

BREEN BROS. TOWING, INC. provides towing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan S. Goddard Esq.
          Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq.
          GODDARD LAW PLLC
          39 Broadway, Suite 1540
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 504-8363
          E-mail: megan@goddardlawnyc.com
                  saranicole@goddardlawnyc.com


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces 2018 Customer Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Milligan, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that British
Airways Plc faces the largest privacy class-action lawsuit in U.K.
history over its 2018 customer data breach.

More than 16,000 victims have now joined a case seeking
compensation from the airline. They could claim 2,000 pounds
($2,724) each, according to PGMBM, the law firm representing the
claimants.

"We trust companies like British Airways with our personal
information and they have a duty to all of their customers and the
public at large to take every possible step to keep it safe," Tom
Goodhead, a partner at PGMBM, said in an email. "In this instance,
they presided over a monumental failure."

IAG SA-owned BA revealed in September 2018 that a violation of its
security systems compromised the personal and financial details of
more than 400,000 customers. The carrier was fined 20 million
pounds by the U.K. data protection watchdog last year, a fraction
of a much heftier fine initially planned by the regulator.

The suit was filed in 2018, with a March 2021 deadline for more
victims to join. The claimants' lawyers say that if every victim of
the cyberattack joined the claim, BA's overall potential liability
would be around 800 million pounds.

The U.K. Information Commissioners' Office said its investigation
into the cyberattack found that "the airline was processing a
significant amount of personal data without adequate security
measures in place," exposing people's data unnecessarily. The fine
is the ICO's biggest to date.

BA said in an emailed statement that it continues "to vigorously
defend the litigation in respect of the claims brought arising out
of the 2018 cyberattack." It said it doesn't "recognize the damages
figures put forward, and they have not appeared in the claims."

At a case management hearing in November, BA told the court it was
open to the possibility of entering into settlement discussions
with the claimants, according to Goodhead. However, they haven't
yet received any proposals, he said. The next hearing is in
February.

With assistance by Siddharth Vikram Philip [GN]


C PEPPER: Court Grants Flinn Leave to Amend Count II of Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC and LANTER
DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-02215-JAR-KGG
(D. Kan.), Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Class Action Complaint, and denied as moot Defendant
Lanter's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

Judge Robinson granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend as
to Count II, which asserts a claim that the Defendants made
improper and unlawful deductions.

Plaintiff Flinn brings the putative class action against the
Defendants as joint employers, alleging they misclassified their
truck driver employees as independent contractors.

Lanter provides overnight unattended delivery service of
time-sensitive parts for major auto, agriculture, and heavy-duty
truck original equipment manufacturers and industrial supply and
equipment distributors.  C Pepper is a U.S. Department of
Transportation-registered motor carrier that provides trucking and
transfer services.

Lanter created a business model in which it props up and controls
what it calls "dedicated carrier partners," including C Pepper.  It
exercised direction and control over almost every aspect of C
Pepper's business operations, including but not limited to, the
structure of its business model, its accounting and payroll
functions, and arranging and guaranteeing its truck leases.  As a
part of its direction and control over C Pepper, Lanter assigned a
financial analyst to direct and oversee C Pepper's business,
accounting, and financial processes.

James Pepper used to be a direct employee of Lanter.  However,
Lanter came up with a scheme to prop him up as a strawman, through
a limited liability company that he owned (C Pepper), but whose
business, payroll, accounting, and financial operations Lanter
effectively directed and controlled, to employ truck drivers for
Lanter's business.  Acting in the interest of C Pepper, in
association and conspiracy with Lanter, and under its direction and
control, James Pepper allowed and helped facilitate the unlawful
conduct alleged by the Plaintiff.

The Defendants share the same corporate headquarters at 1600 Wayne
Lanter Ave., in Madison, Illinois.  They hire individuals to drive
established delivery routes out of Lanter distribution centers in
numerous states, including at least the following: Kansas; Georgia;
Louisiana; North Dakota; and Tennessee.  Flinn and other delivery
drivers reported to work at and drove trucks out of Lanter
distribution centers.  They were issued Lanter fuel cards to pay
for fuel.  Fuel costs were later charged back to drivers as
itemized deductions on the paystubs issued to them.

Mr. Flinn alleges generally that Defendants Lanter, C Pepper, and
James Pepper fraudulently misclassified drivers as independent
contractors, willfully issued fraudulent paystubs to Flinn and
other delivery drivers, and willfully filed and issued fraudulent
tax documents showing that Flinn and other delivery drivers were
independent contractors, rather than employees.  He alleges two
counts for relief against all the Defendants: (1) fraudulent filing
of information returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434; and
(2) violation of state wage laws.

Before the Court are the Defendant Lanter's Motion to Dismiss, and
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave.

Lanter moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on the basis
that Flinn's tax claim fails to plead fraud with particularity
because it alleges that C Pepper, and not Lanter, issued the 1099
forms that allegedly overreported Flinn's compensation.  It further
argues that the wage claim fails because Flinn fails to
sufficiently allege an employment relationship with Lanter.  Flinn
seeks to amend to add James Pepper as a Defendant, to add facts to
support his assertion that Lanter is a joint employer with C Pepper
and James Pepper, and to clarify his wage claims.

Judge Robinson first considers Lanter's argument that leave to
amend should be denied on the basis of undue delay and prejudice.
Then, she considers whether the proposed Second Amended Complaint
is futile.

Lanter first opposes the motion for leave to amend based on undue
delay and prejudice because Flinn's counsel did not alert its
counsel to potential amendments before Lanter filed its motion to
dismiss, and instead waited until the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed before moving for leave to amend without adequate
explanation for the delay.

The Judge declines to deny leave to amend on the basis of undue
delay under the circumstances of the case.  There has been no
scheduling order in the case yet and, thus, no deadline set for
amendments.  And nothing in the federal rules prohibits a party
from moving for leave to amend after a dispositive motion is
briefed.  Flinn did not file the motion for leave out of time, and
given the liberal amendment standard in Rule 15, the Judge is not
inclined to deny leave to amend on based on delay under the
circumstances.

Lanter moves to dismiss Count I, arguing that the First Amended
Complaint fails as to Lanter because it alleges only that C Pepper
issued the 1099.  The statute requires that the Defendant at least
willfully cause a fraudulent information return to be filed, and
Rule 9 requires that fraud be pled with particularity.

Yet, the Judge finds that there are no factual allegations in
support of the Defendants' respective roles in issuing the 1099s.
In all of the cases that extend Section 7434 liability to corporate
officers, there were facts alleged that an agent took part in
preparing or submitting the filing information on behalf of the
principal.  There are no such facts alleged in the case, either in
the First Amended Complaint or the proposed Second Amended
Complaint.  Accordingly, Flinn's motion for leave to amend Count I
to generically attribute filing conduct to the Defendants as a
whole is denied as futile.

Proposed Count II asserts a claim that the Defendants made improper
and unlawful deductions from Flinn's and other Class Members'
wages, in violation of various state wage payment laws and common
law.  Lanter argues that both pleadings lump together all the
Defendants and fail to explain the conduct attributable to each
one.

Although the facts in the proposed Second Amended Complaint fail to
touch on some of the factors used under Kansas and Illinois law,
the Judge finds that Flinn alleges enough facts under either body
of law to plausibly support an employment relationship.  As to
Illinois law, she finds that Flinn alleges facts suggesting that
Lanter plays a role in setting drivers' wages, work hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and that Lanter plays a
role in the day-to-day supervision and control of delivery drivers
such as Flinn.  Given these allegations, Flinn has alleged
sufficient facts to support an employment relationship with Lanter
under the KWPA and IWPA.  Thus, the Plaintiff is granted leave to
amend as to Count II.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Robinson granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.  She granted the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend as to Count II, and denied it as to Count I.  The
Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with
the Court's ruling by Jan. 20, 2021.  Lanter's Motion to Dismiss
the First Amended Complaint is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3qmrmu2 from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Faces Inmates Suit Over Systemic Bias in Risk Assessments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cardoso, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
federal government is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit on
behalf of tens of thousands of inmates over systemic bias in its
security classifications, which affect inmates' living
arrangements, access to treatment programs and likelihood of
getting parole.

Filed on Jan. 11 in Federal Court, the proposed suit concerns the
Custody Rating Scale, a 12-question risk assessment tool developed
by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) in the 1980s and in widespread
use since the 1990s.

That test is administered to all inmates when they are first taken
into federal custody, and results in a minimum, medium or maximum
security score, though it can be overridden by parole officers.
Last year, a Globe and Mail investigation found the scores derived
from some of Correctional Service Canada's most important risk
tools, including the Custody Rating Scale, were systemically biased
against racialized and female inmates.

The statement of claim's allegations, which have not yet been
proven in court, argue the federal government violated both the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act and inmates' rights under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by using a risk tool it knew to
be flawed to classify inmates, leading to harsher security ratings
than they would have otherwise received.

"CSC's ongoing use of [the Custody Rating Scale] on Indigenous
inmates must be recognized as the product of deliberate and
conscious race-based discriminatory treatment of Indigenous inmates
that resulted in, and continues to result in, longer and harsher
prison sentences for Indigenous people, especially Indigenous
women," the statement of claim reads in part.

Security classifications have far-reaching consequences for an
inmate's experience in custody. Depending on their score, inmates
can expect decreased movement privileges, less access to treatment
programs and difficulty getting paroled.

In brief statements, CSC and Public Safety Canada spokespeople
Marie Pier Lécuyer and Mary-Liz Power said the agencies could not
comment on the lawsuit because it was before the courts. The
Department of Justice, meanwhile, deferred to CSC.

The Globe's investigation, which controlled for variables such as
age, inmates' criminal history and the severity of their offence,
found Black men were about 24 per cent more likely than white men
to receive the worst possible security scores at admission.
Indigenous men, meanwhile, were roughly 30 per cent more likely
than white men to receive the worst reintegration potential score
at any point during their sentence, a risk level that plays a large
role in parole determinations. The House of Commons public safety
committee has since announced a study into bias in prison risk
assessments.

The investigation also found Indigenous women were roughly 64 per
cent more likely than white women to end up with a maximum security
level at admission, and that they were also 42 per cent more likely
to end up with the poorest reintegration score.

CSC has stood by its risk tools in previous statements to The Globe
and said it regularly conducts research to ensure they're still
reliable.

For close to two decades, reports by federal agencies and academics
have raised concerns about racial and gender bias in CSC's risk
assessment tools.

In 2004, researchers at Public Safety Canada were commissioned by
the head of CSC to look at whether the Custody Rating Scale was
reliable for women. Their report -- made public by The Globe --
lambasted the tool, saying it seemed systemically biased against
Indigenous women, and women in general, and that it was not clear
the tool worked for men, either.

The proposed class-action lawsuit lists Martha Kahnapace, a
63-year-old Indigenous former inmate, as its representative
plaintiff. After being charged in 2005 with second-degree murder
after stabbing her then-partner Donald Wall, Ms. Kahnapace spent
years in and out of court because of a series of complex appeals
before being acquitted of second-degree murder, convicted of
manslaughter and sentenced to time served at her third trial in
2014. In between her appeals, Ms. Kahnapace spent extensive periods
in medium- or maximum-security facilities because of her
overclassification by the Custody Rating Scale, the suit argues.

Vancouver-based civil-rights lawyer Jason Gratl, who filed the
class action, will be representing Ms. Kahnapace, who is a member
of the Pasqua First Nation in Saskatchewan.

"The essence of the claim," Mr. Gratl said in an interview, "is
that the Custody Rating Scale fails to provide appropriate security
classifications for all inmates."

Mr. Gratl is no stranger to litigating risk assessments - he
previously represented Jeffrey Ewert, a federal inmate who
challenged the validity of psychological tests used by CSC at the
Supreme Court in 2018. During that case, Mr. Ewert successfully
argued that several psychological risk tools had not been shown to
be reliable with Indigenous inmates. At the time, the Supreme Court
ordered CSC to study the issue.

The suit proposes four classes of inmates, all of whom were
classified as medium or maximum security by the Custody Rating
Scale: female Indigenous inmates, female inmates generally,
Indigenous inmates generally and all inmates. Before the suit can
proceed, a judge will have to certify the proposed classes.

Given the volume of people assigned a medium or maximum security at
admission, the class action could ultimately represent tens of
thousands of inmates, Mr. Gratl said. According to CSC data
obtained by The Globe through a freedom of information request,
from 2013 to 2018, the prison agency admitted an average of 59
Indigenous women each year with medium or maximum security
classifications, 140 women, 704 Indigenous people and 2,552 people
overall.

Despite many warnings over the years from government agencies and
academics, the Custody Rating Scale has not changed in two decades,
a fact that points to a "problem of political inaction," Mr. Gratl
said.

A class-action lawsuit and trial could take years, but Mr. Gratl
said he is looking to have CSC stop the use of its Custody Rating
Scale immediately.

In a letter addressed to CSC commissioner Anne Kelly, Mr. Gratl
gave the federal government a deadline of Jan. 25 to stop using the
tool on incarcerated Indigenous women. "Should [CSC] refuse this
request," the letter reads, "I am instructed to bring application
for injunctive relief."

"We want to see the system change," Mr. Gratl told The Globe. "We
don't believe that the Correctional Service Canada will change its
behaviour unless it's compelled to do so by a court of law." [GN]


CANCUN AND CANCUN: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nimia Santos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CANCUN AND CANCUN CORP. dba DELICIAS MEXICANAS, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ,
ISAURO VALDEZ, and DONNA M. VALDEZ, individually, Case No.
1:21-cv-00192 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought, alleging that,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of
hours" premium for each day she worked in a span of greater than 10
hours, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

During the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendants, she
occasionally worked over 40 hours per week, notes the complaint.
The Plaintiff generally worked 5 shifts per week. The Plaintiff was
not paid minimum wages or overtime wages. The Plaintiff was pad a
flat rate of $35.00 per shift. She was not paid hourly, or for
every hour worked, and worked performed above 40 hours per week was
not paid at tine and one-half the statutory minimum rate of pay as
required by state federal law, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a server at
the Defendants' restaurant in September 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as "Delicias
Mexicanas" located in Corona, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

               - and -

          Estee Ward, Esq.
          MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
          92-10 Roosevelt Avenue
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Phone: (718) 656-8500
          Fax: (866) 420-9169
          Email: estee.ward@maketheroadny.org


CD PROJEKT: RM Law Files Video Game Consoles Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Game World Observer reports that Pennsylvania-based RM Law filed a
class action lawsuit on January 8 against CD Projekt. This is the
fifth firm to do so after Schall Law, Rosen Law, Bragar Eagel &
Squire, and, most recently, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

RM LAW is calling on CD Projekt shareholders to join the
litigation. The lawsuit claims that the Polish studio delivered "an
unplayable, bug-ridden product on the current generation video game
consoles," while misleading the investors who, as a result,
suffered damages. [GN]


CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Game World Observer reports that law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz has become the latest to file a class action lawsuit
against CD Projekt. The firm claims that CD Projekt made statements
about the condition of Cyberpunk 2077 that were false or
misleading.

Similar lawsuits were filed by Rosen Law, Schall Law and Bragar
Eagel & Squire.

At the same time, Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer
Protection is now looking into actions the video games company is
taking to amend the situation around the troubled launch. The
regulator has requested a report from the publisher explaining the
reasons that led to the problems with the game. It also intends to
find out how the company is working on patches and what it is doing
to reimburse the dissatisfied customers.

Dominik Jędrzejko, attorney-at-law and partner at Kaszubiak
Jędrzejko Adwokaci, believes that hotfixes and refunds might not
adequately remedy the alleged unfair practices. In that case, the
authority may impose a fine of up to 10 percent of the company's
revenue.

CD Projekt said it was prepared to take "vigorous action" to defend
itself in court. As for Cyberpunk 2077 itself, it has lost almost
80% of its active players since launch a month ago when it hit a
whopping 1 million concurrent players on Steam. This kind of
decline, though, is actually quite normal for single-player titles.
[GN]


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Davis Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00044-LPL (W.D. Penn., January 11, 2021) brings
this complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking
injunctive relief, damages and other relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent various prerecorded
voice calls on his cellular telephone number ending in 8118 between
the end of July 2020 and beginning of November 2020. The Defendant
did not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive
such calls. Although the Plaintiff asked the Defendant's employees
to stop calling his cellular telephone, the Defendant continued
placing unsolicited prerecorded calls.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded
calls caused him actual harm, which include invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.

Citizens Financial Group, Inc. operates a bank. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (786) 469-4496
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Must Face Christchurch Quake Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Olano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
earthquake advocate Bryan Staples - owner of Claims Resolution
Service Ltd - and lawyer Grant Shand will face a potential class
action claiming the defendants and their firms have engaged in
"unconscionable" deals worth millions of dollars.

The Court of Appeal has denied a motion by Staples and Shand to
reverse a decision by the High Court to allow a class action from a
group of almost 180 ex-clients, according to a report by Stuff.

Staples gained fame in the Christchurch region for aggressively
going after insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission
(EQC), and was hailed as a fighter for the people's welfare.

Claims Resolution Service and Grant Shand Barristers and Solicitors
are involved in legal disputes at the district Court level, seeking
to collect what they claim are debts from clients in the form of
commissions and fees.

However, the class action alleges that the contracts signed by
Claims Resolution's clients are unenforceable due to being
unconscionable. This is due to Staples and Shand allegedly being in
an undisclosed joint venture, therefore breaching obligations to
act in the interest of the clients.

The Court of Appeal sided with the ex-clients and the High Court
decision, agreeing that these people had modest means, making
access to justice more difficult, and that they had a "shared
vulnerability when contracting with Claims Resolution and dealing
with those service providers", the report said.

The case stemmed from Karlie Margaret Smith, a Christchurch
homeowner whose property was damaged in the 2011 quakes. EQC paid
her around $130,000, while her insurer Tower offered her $79,332,
with repairs estimated at around $208,342.

A company associated with Staples and Shand said that the repairs
would cost around $500,000. Smith then signed a contract with
Claims Resolution in 2014 to act on her behalf. As part of the
contract, Smith would pay all costs incurred by Claims Resolution,
as well as an 8% commission on the final settlement.

In 2018, Smith accepted Tower's settlement worth $380,000, which
was lower than the initial claim of $546,000. She was then billed
by Claims Resolution for $72,000, inclusive of its commission and
Shand's legal fees of $29,000.

Along with many other clients, Smith refused to pay this and
applied for a potential class action with the High Court. Smith
claimed that Staples and Shand were working in a joint venture that
was undisclosed to her and other clients. This, they claimed, had
several conflicts of interest and breached obligations, making the
contract unenforceable. [GN]


CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Staples, Grant Fail to Avert Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Van Beynen, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that lawyer
Grant Shand and earthquake advocate Bryan Staples have failed to
stop a potential class action that exposes them to claims of
"unconscionable" dealing involving millions of dollars.

Staples became well known in Christchurch for his fearless attitude
towards insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission. Many saw
him as a white knight who went into battle for the little people.

The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by Staples and Shand to
overturn a High Court decision clearing the way for a class action
on behalf of a group of ex-clients, said to be 178 strong.

Claims Resolution Service Ltd (Staples' company) and Grant Shand
Barristers and Solicitors are currently involved in District Court
action to collect debts said to be owed by clients for commissions
and fees.

The class action will allege contracts signed by the Claims
Resolution clients were unconscionable and therefore
unenforceable.

It will claim Staples and Shand were in an undisclosed joint
venture and breached obligations to act in the interests of
clients.

Clients who have already paid bills issued by Claims Resolution are
expected to join the action to get their money back.

The appeal court was swayed by argument that clients who came to
Claims Resolution had modest means, making access to justice more
difficult, and they had a "shared vulnerability when contracting
with Claims Resolution and dealing with those service providers".

Shand and Staples went to the Court of Appeal last year to appeal
the High Court decision allowing the class action.

The High Court rulings related to Christchurch homeowner Karlie
Margaret Smith, whose house was damaged in the earthquakes in
2011.

The Earthquake Commission paid about $130,000 to Smith, and insurer
Tower Insurance offered her $79,332, estimating repairs would cost
$208,342.

She then got a report from a company associated with Staples and
Shand which estimated the repairs would cost nearly $500,000.

In September 2014 she signed a contract which engaged Claims
Resolution to act on her behalf.

Smith was to pay all costs and payments Claims Resolution incurred,
including those for quantity surveyors, legal fees and eight per
cent commission on the final settlement.

Shand's firm filed High Court proceedings in September 2016,
claiming about $546,000 from Tower on the basis of repairs costing
$675,000 and other claims of $75,000.

In May 2018, Smith accepted Tower's offer of $380,000. Claims
Resolution billed her for $72,000, including its commission and
Shand's fee of $29,000.

Smith, as had many others, refused to pay and applied to the High
Court to defend the debt as part of a potential class action.

She claimed Staples and Shand had established a joint venture that
benefited them both but was not disclosed to her or the clients her
action represented.

That failure, the various conflicts of interests and breached
obligations had rendered the contracts unconscionable and therefore
unenforceable.

Claims Resolution denied the existence of a fiduciary relationship
and any breach of obligations. Shand accepted he had fiduciary
obligations but denied breaching them.

"Moreover, both say they did what they said they would: negotiate a
settlement of Smith's insurance claim on significantly better terms
than first offered by her insurer," the Court of Appeal said.

In the appeal Claims Resolution and Shand said the High Court had
erred in deciding a class action could identify claimants with
sufficient certainty, and that they had enough common issues.

They also said since many claims could only be assessed
individually, the class action had no purpose.

Smith said the commonality of interest was obvious and the cost
savings and efficiencies of a class action would benefit
homeowners.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Smith and upheld the High Court
decision, saying "the existence of a common interest in issues of
law and fact is "virtually self-evident".

"The findings in the first stage of Smith's claim, whether the
appellants owed and breached fiduciary duties, and as to what
relief, if appropriate, could be expected to resolve not only Ms
Smith's claim, but to assist the resolution of other claims which
are materially similar to hers.

"As to efficiencies . . . the benefits of a single process are
manifest."

The Court of Appeal rejected a request by Claims Resolution and
Shand for the money owed to them to be paid into a trust account as
security.

It also ordered an approved opt-in notice (notifying former clients
of the class action) to be published on Claims Resolution's
Facebook page. [GN]


CLEARVIEW AI: Burke CCPA and BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SEAN BURKE and JAMES POMERENE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN
TON-THAT; RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03104, 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 January 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00171 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California's Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, capturing,
purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing,
trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise
profiting from or using the Plaintiffs' and Class members'
photographs and biometric information and identifiers without
consent.

Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with
its principal place of business located in in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Amber L. Eck, Esq.
         Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
         Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
         Ian Pike, Esq.
         HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
         225 Broadway, Suite 2050
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 342-8000
         Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
         E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
                 alreenh@haelaw.com
                 aarono@haelaw.com
                 ianp@haelaw.com

CLEARVIEW AI: Calderon BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIO CALDERON and JENNIFER ROCIO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC.
and CDW GOVERNMENT LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01296, 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
January 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00168 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing
and using the Plaintiffs' and Class members' biometric information
and identifiers without informed written consent.

Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with
its principal place of business located in in New York, New York.

CDW Government LLC is a supplier of computer products to public
education institutions and other federal, state, and local
government agencies based in Vernon Hills, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
         Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                 jarisohn@bursor.com

                 - and –
         
         Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
         HEDIN HALL LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 766-3534
         Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
         E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

CLEARVIEW AI: John BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEAN JOHN, RYAN BALFANZ, BENJAMIN JAIS, ROSEMARY
ARIAS, and AIMEE ALBRECHT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03481,
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 January 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00173 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, the California
Business and Professions Code, the California Common Law Right of
Publicity, the California Constitutional Right to Privacy,
intentional interference with contractual relations, and unjust
enrichment by collecting, capturing, obtaining, selling, leasing,
trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise
profiting from or using the Plaintiffs' and Class members'
photographs and biometric information and identifiers without
consent.

Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with
its principal place of business located in in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Scott Martin, Esq.
         Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (646) 357-1100
         E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                 snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and –

         James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         1700 K St., NW, Ste 650
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 540-7200
         Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
         E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and –

         Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
         DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
         444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (646) 933-1000
         E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

         Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
         David M. Berger, Esq.
         GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
         505 14th Street, Suite 1110
         Oakland, CA 94611
         Telephone: (510) 350-9713
         E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                 dmb@classlawgroup.com

CLEARVIEW AI: McPherson BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN McPHERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT;
RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-03053, 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 January 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00170 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and for unjust
enrichment by collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through
trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing,
redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using
the Plaintiff's and Class members' photographs and biometric
information and identifiers without consent.

Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with
its principal place of business located in in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         Carey Alexander, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 calexander@scott-scott.com

                 - and –

         Erin Green Comite, Esq.
         Margaret B. Ferron, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         156 South Main Street
         P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Telephone: (860) 537-5537
         Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
         E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
                 mferron@scott-scott.com

                 - and –

         Amber L. Eck, Esq.
         Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
         Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
         Ian Pike, Esq.
         HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
         225 Broadway, Suite 2050
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 342-8000
         Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
         E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
                 alreenh@haelaw.com
                 aarono@haelaw.com
                 ianp@haelaw.com

CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHELBY ZELONIS ROBERSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03705, 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 January 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00174 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Virginia Code Section 8.01-40 and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act
by obtaining, trading or otherwise profiting from or using the
Plaintiff's and Class members' photographs and biometric
information and identifiers without consent.

Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with
its principal place of business located in in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Steven T. Webster, Esq.
         Aaron S. Book, Esq.
         WEBSTER BOOK LLP
         300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
         Alexandria, VA 22314
         Telephone: (888) 987-9991
         E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com
                 abook@websterbook.com

COCKE COUNTY, TN: Sheriff, Jailers Face Civil Rights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WBIR reports that the Cocke County sheriff and jailers are facing a
federal class-action civil rights lawsuit, according to court
records.

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
Tennessee on January 11, 2021 claims the Cocke County Jail has been
unable to "protect the safety and security of inmates" due to
severe overcrowding and under-staffing.

The lawsuit cited public statements Sheriff Armando Fontes made
about the jail. He went on record with 10News in February 2020 --
saying the jail was "grossly overcrowded and understaffed" and that
there was a "serious risk of safety, and a serious liability for
the county."

Officials said the lawsuit is for the "hundreds" of inmates injured
by assaults over the last 8 to 10 years. It is seeking $30 million
in compensatory and punitive damages: $15 million to recover
compensatory damages, and another $15 million for punitive
damages.

It said the jail is consistently the second-most crowded in
Tennessee, had exceeded its 120-person maximum capacity for more
than eight consecutive years, and that there had not been any
effort by jail officials to separate violent offenders from
non-violent ones.

The jail was decertified in 2017 for "lax employee training,
staffing shortages, inadequate medical care and safety violations,"
according to the lawsuit.

At the focus of the lawsuit is a beating it claims happened on Jan.
10, 2020. It said inmate Nathaniel Manning had been picked up by
officials for a probation violation and placed in a cell with up to
35 other inmates.

Another inmate started beating him while another held him down,
according to the lawsuit. Correction officers were in another
facility, too far away to stop the incident, according to the
lawsuit.

Manning was taken to a hospital 5 hours after the beating with
multiple facial fractures and severe cuts, according to records. He
needed surgery, according to the lawsuit.

Manning was later released on his own recognizance, without paying
a bond. The lawsuit claims that the county has adopted a policy of
releasing prisoners who are injured and taken to the hospital
because by releasing them the county is not responsible for their
medical bills.

His bills ended up costing more than $58,000, according to records.
[GN]


COLORADO WEST: Underpays Peer Specialists, Futch Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
IAN FUTCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLORADO WEST REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH, INC.
(dba MIND SPRINGS HEALTH, INC.) and COLORADO WEST, INC. (dba MIND
SPRINGS, INC.), Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-SKC (D. Colo.,
January 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a peer specialist
in Frisco, Colorado from approximately September 24, 2019 through
June 24, 2020.

Colorado West Regional Mental Health, Inc., doing business as Mind
Springs Health, Inc., is a drug rehabilitation facility, with a
principal business office located in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Colorado West, Inc., doing business as Mind Springs, Inc., is a
provider of counseling and therapy for mental wellness, with a
principal business office in Grand Junction, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Lotus Cannon, Esq.
         Jason T. Brown, Esq.
         Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
         BROWN, LLC
         111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
         Jersey City, NJ 07310
         Telephone: (877) 561-0000
         Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
         E-mail: lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
                 jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Martinez-Sanchez Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS W. MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANIA
DE AVIACION, S.A.P.I. DE C.V., and CONTROLADORA VUELA COMPANIA DE
AVIACION, S.A.B. DE C.V. (VOLARIS AVIATION HOLDING COMPANY),
foreign corporations collectively d/b/a VOLARIS, Case No.
1:20-cv-01966, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00173 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by
refusing to provide contractually guaranteed full cash refunds for
cancelled flights to passengers, including the Plaintiff, and
instead requiring them to accept rapidly expiring coupons or
vouchers in lieu of refunds for cancelled or substantially
delayed/interrupted flights.

Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. is a
low-cost airline carrier, with its principal place of business in
Santa Fe, Mexico City, Mexico.

Concesionaria Vuela Compania De Aviacion, S.A.P.I. de C.V. is a
low-cost airline carrier and wholly-owned subsidiary of Volaris
Holding Company, with its principal place of business in Santa Fe,
Mexico City, Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         David R. Dubin, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
         LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
         975 E. Jefferson Avenue
         Detroit, MI 48207
         Telephone: (313) 392-0015
         Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
         E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                 ncoulson@ldclassaction.com

CONSTRUCTION & TURNAROUND: Sica Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANK SICA and GARY ELLIS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. CONSTRUCTION & TURNAROUND
SERVICES, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG20079034, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on January 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00188 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, unpaid minimum
wages, final wages not timely paid, and unfair business practices.

Construction & Turnaround Services, LLC is a company that provides
engineering and construction services based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                            
         
         Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq.
         Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
         Rabindra M. David, Esq.
         MEDINA McKELVEY LLP
         925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300
         Roseville, CA 95678
         Telephone: (916) 960-2211
         Facsimile: (916) 742-5488
         E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com
                 tim@medinamckelvey.com
                 rabi@medinamckelvey.com

CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled NINO KOLLER and MICHELLE BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONSUMER REPORTS, INC., a New York nonprofit corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20-CV-660 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California issued an
order granting joint motion for stay of proceedings.

Presently before the Court is the Parties' Notice of Settlement and
Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings.

Having read and considered the Motion, the papers filed, and the
proceedings had therein, the Court orders as follows:

   1. The Motion is granted;

   2. The action is stayed pending the outcome of class action
      settlement approval proceedings, which the parties will
      pursue in the state court action, McKinney, et al. v.
      Consumer Reports, Inc.,
      Case No. 37-2020-00046677-CU-BT-CTL; and

   3. The parties will file a status report within three court
      days after a motion for preliminary approval is filed, and
      within three court days after the Superior Court enters an
      order on a motion for preliminary approval and a motion for
      final approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2378eu4 from Leagle.com.


CORAL CAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Duran Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CRUZ DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORAL CAST, LLC; and JOSEPH MARDEN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00174 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 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 Duran was employed by the Defendants as construction
laborer.

CORAL CAST, LLC manufactures precast concrete products and the
distributes concrete balusters. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


CORAL SPRINGS: Faces Snarski Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW A. SNARSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORAL SPRINGS KGB, INC. d/b/a
CORAL SPRINGS HONDA, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-000484 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., January 11, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and
Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system in an
attempt to promote its vehicle dealership business without
obtaining prior express written consent. The Defendant's
unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff and Class members
actual harm, including invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of their daily lives.

Coral Springs KGB, Inc., doing business as Coral Springs Honda, is
an automobile dealership business located in Coral Springs,
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

                  - and –

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

D&S CLEANERS: Holgado FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELVA LUZ HOLGADO a/k/a ELVA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D&S CLEANERS INC. d/b/a
AMERICAN DRY CLEANERS d/b/a/ AMERICAN GARMENT RESTORATION, and
DANIEL KUCHLIK, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00134 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid
spread-of-hours premiums, failure to provide wage notices, and
failure to provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about
September 2, 2001 through December 2020. Her duties include
cashier, marking clothes, assist customers, bagging clothes, and
delivery of clothes.

D&S Cleaners Inc., doing business as American Dry Cleaners and
American Garment Restoration, is a provider of cleaning services,
with principal places of business at 1928 A. Jericho Turnpike, East
Northport, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Nadia M. Pervez, Esq.
         Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
         PERVEZ & REHMAN, P.C.
         68 Southside Service Road, Suite 100
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 427-0700
         Facsimile: (631) 824-9020
         E-mail: npervez@pervezrehman.com

DARIOHEALTH CORP: Chavakula Sues Over Removal Provision in Bylaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANAND K. CHAVAKULA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DARIOHEALTH CORP.; YOAV SHAKED;
EREZ RAPHAEL; HILA KARAH; DENNIS MATHEIS; DENNIS M. McGRATH; ADAM
K. STERN; and RICHARD B. STONE, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0030
(Del. Ch., Jan. 12, 2021) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other stockholders of DarioHealth against Dario and the
members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the
Removal Provision in the Company's bylaws violates the Delaware
General Corporation Law.

According to the complaint, a certain provision of the Company's
bylaws, the "Removal Provision", adopted and maintained by the
Defendants, provides the Company's directors with the authority to
remove other directors, contrary to Delaware law. Stockholders of a
corporation organized and existing under Delaware law have the
exclusive authority to remove directors.

DarioHealth Corp. designs and develops healthcare software
solutions. The Company offers blood sugar monitoring, clinical
trials, diabetes care, and other medical solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Nemours Building
          1007 N. Orange St. #1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3889
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               -and-

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
          KRANENBURG
          80-83 Long Lane
          London EC1A 9ET
          United Kingdom
          Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365
          E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com


DARKTRACE INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Der-Hacopian Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued Final Judgment in the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS
DER-HACOPIAN, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).

The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiff's Agreed Motion
for Final Approval of the proposed class action settlement with the
Defendant and the Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
in Support of Service Award. The Court conducted a final fairness
hearing on Sept. 10, 2020.  The Order Granting Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement was entered on Dec. 10, 2020.

The Class Settlement has been approved such that each class member
will receive $300. If it has not already done so, the Defendant
will deposit all settlement monies comprising the Settlement
Payment, into an account through the Settlement Administrator. If
it has not already done so, the Defendant will tender $150,000 by
check payable to the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.

District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., rules that the Judgment
adjudicates all the claims, rights, and liabilities of the Parties,
and is final and will be immediately appealable.

The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and enabling any party thereto to
apply for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or
appropriate for the construction or carrying out of the Court's
Final Approval of the Class Settlement.

The Clerk is directed to enter the Final Judgment immediately
pursuant to Rule 54.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6z7zq4l from Leagle.com.


DIETZ & WATSON: Faces Smoke Flavoring Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Schachter, writing for Newsday, reports that a Great Neck
attorney who filed scores of lawsuits charging that food companies
improperly labeled vanilla-flavored products has a new target:
smoke flavoring.

Spencer Sheehan, who estimates he has filed more than 100 lawsuits
related to vanilla flavoring since February 2019 -- with more to
come -- filed four cases involving smoked cheese and almonds in the
past nine months.

"The issue with all these products is they're labeled as smoked
cheese or almonds, but they don't tell you on the [front] labels
that there's no actual smoke," he said. "There's just smoke
flavor."

Sheehan's lawsuits contend that disclosing smoke flavor on the back
label does not satisfy labeling regulations of the Food and Drug
Administration.

His food-related lawsuits generally are filed in federal district
courts and seek class-action status, in which a large number of
people with a common matter sue as a group.

In 2019, a record 177 food and beverage class action lawsuits were
filed nationwide, almost four times the 45 filed in 2010, according
to a report by Seattle-based Perkins Coie, a law firm that defends
major food manufacturers.

Meredith R. Miller, who teaches contract and commercial law at
Touro College's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, said there are two
views related to such lawsuits.

One depicts an attorney filing "frivolous" claims and "milking the
system," she said. In the other perspective, lawyers are ensuring
that regulations "on the books to protect consumers" are
respected.

In August, Sheehan filed a $5 million lawsuit in U.S. District
Court against Philadelphia cold cuts manufacturer Dietz & Watson
Inc. The case contends that the company's smoked Gouda cheese is
not smoked with wood chips, but by the addition of "natural smoke
flavoring."

Instead of being displayed on the front of the package as required
by regulations, the "natural smoke flavoring" is disclosed on the
ingredient list, Sheehan said.

An attorney for Dietz & Watson did not respond to a request for
comment.

Miller said that if attorneys convince the court to grant class
action status, "there's a huge incentive" for the food companies to
settle.

"Legal costs can be astronomical," she said.

In the settlements, each class member may get $1 or $2, but the
attorneys can get 25-30% of the total, Miller said. If a case is
settled for $5 million, for example, the attorney might receive
more than $1 million plus costs.

"There are a lot of instances where companies will seek a
resolution," Sheehan said. "It's normally a private individual
settlement and not typically disclosed to the court."

Sheehan, who declined to discuss specific settlements, said that in
about 10 of the vanilla cases, there was a "notice of voluntary
dismissal."

Observers generally surmise that a voluntary dismissal means that
an outside settlement was reached, he said.

Sheehan's lawsuits against makers of yogurt, cookies, oatmeal,
almond milk, soy milk, cream soda and ice cream allege that they
should be labeled as "vanilla flavored" because the predominant
flavoring ingredient is not costly botanically derived vanilla, but
synthetic vanillin and other flavor enhancers. [GN]


EAST PALACE: Court Dismisses Dong's Claims From Cui FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RUIXUAN CUI, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST PALACE ONE, INC. d/b/a East
Palace Chinese Restaurant, EAST PALACE 43 INC. d/b/a East Palace
Chinese Restaurant, EAST PALACE 819 INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, NEW EAST PALACE REST. INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, EAST PALACE 2ND AVE. INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS REST. INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 38 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 711 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 74 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS EAST INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS MIDTOWN INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 1413 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 73RD INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 39 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS UPTOWN INC., d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 88 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese
Restaurant, NEW SIX HAPPINESS CHINESE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a Six
Happiness Chinese Restaurant, XI LIN, RUI HUA CHEN, LAI YIN HO, XUE
DU CHEN, QI YENG LIN, XUE XIAN CHEN, MEI QIN WENG, XIAN LIN, JIAN
FENG LIN, LIN FUI, FEI LIN, and TAN HUI LIN, Case No. 17 Civ. 6713
(PGG) (S.D. N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed without prejudice Cunming Dong's
claims for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff Ruixuan Cui brings the putative collective and class
action against numerous individuals and corporate entities
associated with East Palace Chinese Restaurant and Six Happiness
Chinese Restaurant, for which Cui once worked as a deliveryman. On
a collective and class basis, Cui alleges numerous violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"). On an individual basis, Cui alleges violations of Section
349 of the New York General Business Law (the "GBL") and the
Internal Revenue Code.

On Dec. 4, 2017, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
Debra Freeman for general pretrial supervision.

On May 14, 2018, Dong opted in as an FLSA plaintiff. After opting
in, however, Dong did not maintain communication with the
Plaintiffs' counsel, and did not cooperate with discovery. On Oct.
22, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel moved to withdraw from
representing Dong -- citing his lack of cooperation -- and
requested that Dong's claims be dismissed without prejudice.

On Nov. 7, 2019, Judge Freeman ordered Dong to respond to the
counsel's motion. Judge Freeman warned Dong that while he could
proceed pro se, he would be expected to proceed with this action
diligently and to attend all court conferences and other
proceedings in person, and to comply, on his own, with all rules
and procedures of the Court. Judge Freeman also scheduled a
conference for December 11, 2019, and ordered Dong to personally
appear. He did not appear for the Dec. 11, 2019 conference. Judge
Freeman denied the Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw and
directed defense counsel to depose Dong by Jan. 10, 2020.

Dong did not respond to the Plaintiffs' counsel's attempts to reach
him to schedule his deposition. Accordingly, on Dec. 23, 2019, the
Plaintiffs' counsel renewed their motion to withdraw.

On Jan. 23, 2020, Judge Freeman issued an order directing Dong to
appear at a Feb. 21, 2020 conference. In her order, Judge Freeman
warned that a failure to appear as directed may result in the Court
recommending sanctions, including dismissal of Dong's claims for
failure to prosecute them. The order was served on Dong on Jan. 27,
2020. Dong did not appear at the Feb. 21, 2020 conference, nor did
he provide any explanation for his absence.

In a Feb. 26, 2020 order, Judge Freeman granted the Plaintiffs'
counsel's motion to withdraw, and directed Dong to show cause, in
writing, no later than March 5, 2020, why the Court should not
recommend that Judge Gardephe dismiss his claims in the action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dong never responded to
Judge Freeman's Feb. 26, 2020 order.

On July 21, 2020, Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation
("R & R") recommending that Dong's claims be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute. The R & R recites the
requirement that Dong must file objections within 14 days of
service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and warns that a failure to
do so will result in a waiver of judicial review. Dong did not file
any objections to the R & R.

In her Feb. 26, 2020 order, Judge Freeman analyzes the factors
courts consider before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to the
duration of Dong's non-compliance, she notes that Dong had been
uncooperative with the Plaintiffs' counsel for months, and did not
make himself available for a deposition the Defendants had
noticed.

Judge Freeman also noted prior orders in which she had put Dong on
notice that he could face sanctions for his lack of cooperation, up
to and including dismissal of his claims. Despite these warnings,
Dong did not appear before Judge Freeman for two scheduled
conferences. Moreover, Judge Freeman's Feb. 26, 2020 order was
served on Dong, with a translation in his first language. Dong
never responded. Finally, Judge Freeman found that the Defendants
had been prejudiced by Dong's failure to appear for deposition.

The Court finds no error in Judge Freeman's analysis. Accordingly,
Dong's claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

The R & R is adopted in its entirety and Dong's claims against the
Defendants are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)
for failure to prosecute. The Chambers will mail a copy of the
Order to Cunming Dong, at 949 55th St., in Brooklyn, New York.

The Clerk of Court is directed not to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y43mgr3p from Leagle.com.


ELENI'S NYC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eleni's NYC Inc. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Eleni's NYC Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00294 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021).

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

Eleni's New York -- https://elenis.com/ -- is a gourmet cookie
company specializing in highly decorative, "playfully unique"
cookies and delicious cupcakes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bid to Strike Defenses in Fodera Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denies the Plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses in the
lawsuit titled FRANK J. FODERA, JR., et al. v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS,
INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-05072-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

In the putative class action, Fodera and Michael M. Bonella, who
are fitness instructors and trainers, bring various claims against
their employer Equinox, which owns and operates luxury health clubs
in California, for alleged violations of the California Labor Code,
including laws related to paying minimum wage, overtime, providing
meal and rest breaks, and providing accurate wage statements. The
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in the case
on May 8, 2020.

Equinox subsequently moved to dismiss one cause of action in the
SAC and the Court denied the motion. Then, Equinox filed its Answer
to the SAC. The Plaintiffs responded by moving to strike all 20
affirmative defenses asserted in the original Answer. They withdrew
that motion, explaining that the parties had agreed that Equinox
could file an amended answer in lieu of the parties litigating the
motion to strike. They consented to Equinox filing an amended
answer on the condition that Equinox would not assert any new
affirmative defenses.

Equinox filed the Amended Answer ("AA") on November 2, 2020, which
asserts 13 affirmative defenses. The Plaintiffs' new motion to
strike asserts that all 13 defenses fail to meet the pleading
standard under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal because they are too
conclusory and do not allege sufficient facts. They further allege
that some defenses should be struck as duplicative or because they
are not proper affirmative defenses, and they argue that part of
Equinox's eleventh defense was not asserted in the original Answer
and should be struck because the Plaintiffs' consent to Equinox
filing the AA was conditioned on Equinox not adding any new
affirmative defenses.

The Defendant's affirmative defenses include its assertion of
several statutes of limitations as a complete or partial defense to
the Plaintiffs' claims, including California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 338(a) and Section 343, as well as California
Labor Code Sections 203 and 226; and that the Plaintiffs' claims
are barred, in whole or in part, by their failures to follow
Equinox's policies regarding wages, meal and rest breaks, and
timekeeping as set forth in its employee handbook and standard
operating procedures.

Citing Free Speech Sys., LLC v. Menzel, 390 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1176
(N.D. Cal. 2019), Judge William H. Orrick holds that motions to
strike affirmative defenses seldom simplify litigation, and the
instant one is no exception.  He finds that the Plaintiffs' motion
pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
strike all affirmative defenses that Defendant Equinox has asserted
in its AA is equally meritless.  

Judge Orrick holds that Equinox has alleged sufficient facts to
support its affirmative defenses. They are not from recitations of
standard defenses but contain specific facts and law to put the
Plaintiffs on notice as to the basic substance of the defenses
claimed. Rule 8 does not require extensive factual allegations to
sustain an affirmative defense, citing Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender
Inc., Case No. 17-CV-04790-HSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2018).

Further, while some of the affirmative defenses may prove to be
duplicative, or are arguably not actual affirmative defenses, their
assertion does not add complexity to this action and will not
require the Plaintiffs to incur additional time or expend
additional money to defend the action, Judge Orrick states. He adds
that the issues raised by these defenses will need to be litigated
or resolved in the action regardless and it makes sense to wait and
see how the evidence and facts in this case develop before
dismissing them.

For the reasons set forth in Order, Judge Orrick denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike.  He concludes that there was no
substantive benefit to be gained from the motion. In the event that
the Plaintiffs' counsel eventually seek attorney's fees in the
case, they should explicitly exclude from their lodestar (and
indicate that they did so in the fees motion) any time spent in
researching, filing or briefing the motion.

The hearing set for January 6, 2021 is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5l6fq8j from Leagle.com.


ERIE INSURANCE: Highland Park Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE. The case is styled as Highland Park Ford Lincoln, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00038-MRH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 13,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance - Breach of Contract.

Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- is a publicly
held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life
insurance through a network of independent insurance agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


EXODUS BUILDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXODUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00225 (C.D. Cal., January 11, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions that violated the
Plaintiff's civil rights under the TCPA.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on her cellular telephone number ending in -8950 beginning in or
around September 2019 in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to
purchase the Defendant's services. The Defendant purportedly used
an "automatic telephone dialing system" in placing its calls
without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive such calls.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons were harmed and suffered damages.
Thus, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such
conduct in the future, statutory and treble damages, and any other
relief that the Court deems just and proper, the suit says.

Exodus Building Solutions, Inc. is a mergers and acquisitions firm.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Lok FCRA Class Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SIMON LOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 036086/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, Rockland County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on January 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 7:21-cv-00154-NSR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a company that offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services based
in Costa Mesa, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                   
         
         Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         250 Vesey Street
         New York, NY 10281
         Telephone: (212) 326-8321
         Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
         E-mail: ktobitsch@jonesday.com

FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Class Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHARI ROSENMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 20-CIV-05582,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on January 13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00336 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment by
illegally maintaining its monopoly power through deploying a
buy-or-bury strategy that thwarts competition and harms both users
and advertisers.

Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                    
         
         Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
         WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
         2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
         Palo Alto, CA 94306
         Telephone: (650) 858-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
         E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com

FASTRAK: Court Rules on Class Action Over Unfair Toll Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney and Renee Koury, writing for abc7, report that with
the start of the new year: a new toll system is coming to Bay Area
bridges. Toll takers who were removed in the pandemic are gone for
good. All Bay Area bridge tolls are now all-electronic, and
penalties will apply for non-payment of invoices.

It's the same system used on the Golden Gate Bridge since 2013. It
means motorists without a Fastrak account of some sort will get an
invoice in the mail. But at its inception, thousands of motorists
claimed they were charged penalties before the got their invoices.

That led to a class-action lawsuit against FasTrak filed in 2014,
claiming thouse thousands of motorists were due a refund on
penalties they didn't deserve.

Now, after six long years and a bitter court fight, a surprising
ruling by the court.

The outcome belied the drama that took place during six years of
litigation. Laywers for FasTrak operators, and the Bay Area Toll
Authority accused class action attorneys of fraud. They tried to
keep the public from attending the trial and to keep a public
policy secret on how they enforced toll violations. So, after six
years of litigation, did the court award sweeping compensation for
blindsided motorists?

Actually, the court awarded one dollar to two people.

The lawsuit began after the Golden Gate Bridge switched to
all-electronic tolling in 2013.

Motorists without a FasTrak account were supposed to get a toll
invoice in the mail. But the suit claimed thousands never received
their invoices, mostly due to address mistakes. Rather than finding
a correct address, the suit says FasTrak kept piling on penalties.

"They just shredded the return mail (bridge-toll invoices) and
imposed penalties on these motorists for failing to pay the toll,"
class-action attorney Adam Gutride said..

"I never got a single notice," said plaintiff Michael Saliani,of
San Rafael. He said he racked up more than $9000 in penalties
before he saw a single invoice. Fastrak said he should have known
to look for them and inquire, since he'd crossed multiple times
without paying.

FasTrak said it changed its policies over the years of the lawsuit,
to prevent unwitting violators from incurring multiple penalties.
But it wanted to keep those policies a secret, saying motorists
could use the information to "game the systemn" and avoid paying
tolls.

The Bay Area Toll Authority, hoping to keep that policy under wraps
during the trial, tried to bar the public from the courtroom. The
effort failed after 7 On Your Side objected.

"It's troubling that the tolling agencies have this view of
California motorists," Gutride said. "They believe the public is
out to cheat. Out to get them.".

The lawsuit asked for refunds for motorists who never received
their bridge toll invoices before FasTrak piled on penalties.

But in an 81-page ruling, San Francisco Superior Court Judge
Anne-Christine Massullo found little evidence to show motorists
were denied due process rights.

The court did rule in favor of a Mill Valley couple named in the
suit.

In their case, the bridge toll invoice was mailed with no street
address. So they never got it, and they racked up $2,500 in
penalties.

The court ordered FasTrak to provide them a hearing.

MORE: FasTrak has the wrong stationery, sends 'toll violation'
notices instead of invoices

And she awarded them a nominal one dollar.

Now that all bridges use electronic tolling, FasTrak will have to
send invoices to millions more motorists.

Already it's caused a problem for Khara in Mountain View.

She writes that she never received an invoice for a one-dollar toll
road crossing, and FasTrak charged her a $25 penalty.

She spent hours arguing with FasTrak before it waived the fee.

Class action attorney Adam Gutride believes the trial did force
FasTrak to treat the public more fairly. "That's a good thing for
motorists in California," he said. "They can't pile on penalties if
the mail is returned and they will waive up to 75 penalties if you
call to complain."

And what about that policy that FasTrak tried to keep secret?
FasTrak has stopped tacking on penalties if the post office can't
deliver an invoice. If you get a FasTrak violation under the new
system, let 7 On Your Side know. [GN]

FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Dodge Demon Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dodge
Demon class action lawsuit alleges 2018 Challenger SRT Demons in
California are equipped with hood scoops that warp and lead to
repairs that make the cars lose their values.

But attorneys for Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) argue the class action is
really about nothing more than a hood scoop cosmetic issue.

The Dodge Demon lawsuit was filed by the owner of a 2018 Challenger
SRT Demon who says he paid more than $166,000 for a car advertised
as having 840 horsepower.

But the owner says to achieve that horsepower he had to pay $250 to
have components installed on the Dodge Demon.

According to the class action lawsuit, the Demon had 808 horsepower
when the plaintiff received a "Crate" from Fiat Chrysler with the
components that had to be installed to reach 840 horsepower. In
addition, the plaintiff says he was surprised to learn the only way
to achieve 840 horsepower was to use racing fuel.

Then within 20 miles of first driving the Demon, the hood scoop
allegedly warped, so the plaintiff says he contacted the dealership
to report the alleged defect and determine if there was a repair.

According to the Demon class action, about a year later the
plaintiff learned about technical service bulletin 23-033-19 issued
to Chrysler dealerships regarding the hood scoops.

The TSB says Dodge Demon owners may complain the "hood bezel is
warping and in some cases, chipping the paint on the sides and
corners of the hood bezel opening."

Chrysler dealers were told to replace the hood bezel, inspect the
hood for paint damage and if required, refinish the entire hood.

His Demon hood scoop was repaired, but the plaintiff alleges the
paint and finish were different and a different hood scoop insert
was installed. The owner also says it's clear that numerous holes
were drilled into the hood.

The class action lawsuit further alleges the hood scoop insert
began "bowing down" within a week and the plaintiff says he must
push the insert into place each time he drives the Dodge Demon.

The automaker allegedly concealed defects in the hood scoops which
cause warping, sagging and bulging. Then trying to repair the hood
allegedly causes even more damage and noticeable issues with the
paint and finish.

FCA's Motion to Dismiss the Dodge Demon Class Action Lawsuit
In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Chrysler argues the entire
class action is about a cosmetic issue and nothing more. FCA says
the plaintiff admits that at the time he filed the class action
lawsuit, Chrysler was offering to fix the hood scoop for free but
the owner refused because a first attempted repair allegedly did
not work.

Attorneys for FCA say the plaintiff makes allegations the
horsepower was misrepresented, but he also admits his Dodge Demon
can operate at 840 horsepower if he uses the extra components he
was provided and uses the type of fuel necessary. According to
Chrysler, this means the plaintiff has no plausible claim.

Chrysler further alleges there is not one allegation in the Demon
class action lawsuit that claims any alleged hood scoop problem
impacts the use of the car.

The automaker says the plaintiff may have contacted the dealer but
the owner provides no details about what was said. The plaintiff
also allegedly doesn't say who advised him of the fix about a year
later or how he learned about the service bulletin.

The motion to dismiss also argues the plaintiff doesn't allege that
FCA ever failed to offer him a free hood scoop repair and the owner
doesn't claim he paid anything for repairs.

Chrysler says the plaintiff mentioned information he saw from the
automaker about the Dodge Demon, yet he allegedly didn't know about
the need for racing fuel or how the car required extra components
to achieve 840 horsepower.

According to the motion to dismiss, both press releases
specifically say 100+ unleaded high-octane fuel and additional
"performance parts" are needed to "unleash[]" the Demons' full
performance attributes and specifically to "unleash the full
potential 840 horsepower."

The attorneys for FCA also told the judge: "Remarkably, after
filing this case and professing to represent a class, Plaintiff
offered a dismissal in exchange for a payment of $95,000."

The Dodge Demon class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California: Peralta, et al., v.
FCA US LLC, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Connor Olson,
and Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. [GN]


FUNIMATION GLOBAL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Funimation Global
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Funimation Global
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00299 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021).

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

Funimation Global Group, LLC -- https://www.funimation.com/ -- is
an American entertainment company that specializes in the dubbing
and distribution of East Asian media, most notably Japanese
anime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GIFT SERVICES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gift Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Gift Services, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00311 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021).

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

Gift Services, Inc. -- https://www.giftservices.com/ -- is a gift
basket supplier to the promotional products industry, delivering
gifts for a variety of corporate needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOEDECKER INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goedeker Inc. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Goedeker Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00315
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021).

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

Goedeker Inc. -- https://www.goedekers.com/ -- operates as an
online consumer goods retailer. The Company offers microwave ovens,
grills, fridge, dishwashers, dryers, space heaters, furniture,
rugs, garbage disposals, lamps, and home improvement products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GOODRX HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx Holdings, Inc.
("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) Class A common stock
between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). GoodRx investors have until February 16, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

In September 2020, GoodRx completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling over 39.8 million common shares for $33 per share.
GoodRx provides consumers with free information and tools to
compare prices for prescription drugs. The Company primarily earns
revenue from its prescription transaction fees.

On November 17, 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") announced two new
pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program,
that would directly compete with GoodRx's platform.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.51, or 23%, to
close at $36.21 per share on November 17, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Amazon had
been in the process of developing and would soon introduce its own
online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment
service; and (2) that Amazon's services would directly replicate
and compete with the GoodRx business model.

If you purchased GoodRx securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than February 16, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased GoodRx securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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


GOOGLE LLC: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cabrera Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court's order granting Google's motion to dismiss, and
remanded the lawsuit entitled RENE CABRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and RICK WOODS, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
19-16466 (9th Cir.)

In the putative class action, the Appellate Court considers the
district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of class representative
Cabrera's complaint for lack of standing.  It first considers
whether the district court erred by dismissing Cabrera's complaint
for lack of standing.

The district court concluded that Cabrera had suffered no injury
because Cabrera and his wife sold Training Options' (TO) tangible
and intangible assets, including any causes of action against
Google. But Cabrera's standing is premised in part on ownership of
the AdWords account, which was not transferred by the Asset
Purchase Agreement ("APA"). Cabrera was a party to the AdWords
contract. He registered his personal email address for a Google
account and signed up for the AdWords program. He accepted the
terms of the AdWords Agreement by clicking through the document.
Cabrera also continued to use the AdWords account from his personal
email address after the sale of TO, and he testified that he did
not transfer the AdWords account when he sold TO "because it was my
personal account.

The concurrence argues that mere ownership of the account does not
give rise to a cognizable injury because Cabrera did not incur
liabilities or obligations imposed by the AdWords agreement, and
because Cabrera made only occasional use of the account after he
sold TO. But in 2010, months after the sale of TO, Cabrera
personally created and paid for a test AdWords ad campaign linked
to his personal email address. And Cabrera's AdWords account was
not cancelled for lack of activity until 2018, nine years after
Cabrera sold TO.

The Appellate Court opines that Cabrera's personal control over the
AdWords account after the sale of TO and his receipt of the
benefits of the AdWords agreement suffices to support his claim for
ownership of the account and creates a cognizable injury for
standing purposes.

The district court also erred by concluding that the sale of TO
included the sale of TO's causes of action against Google,
according to the Appellate Court.  Per the relevant clause of the
APA, the assets sold included general intangibles pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the APA and any addendums or amendments.
The APA contained an addendum that defined six intangible
categories, but none of the categories contemplated the transfer of
TO's causes of action. And pursuant to Florida law, which governs
the APA, it is a general principle of contract interpretation that
a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will control
over a different provision dealing only generally with that same
subject.

Cabrera also produced an affidavit from the other party to the APA,
who stated that TO's causes of action were not part of the sale of
TO. Finding the affidavit was belatedly produced pursuant to
Cabrera's Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 obligations, the district court did
not consider the affidavit pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, a decision the Appellate Court reviews for
abuse of discretion, citing Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor
Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2001).

Rule 26 only obligates a party to disclose information that it "may
use to support its claims or defenses." Cabrera consistently
asserted that he relied on his status as a party to the AdWords
contract to establish standing. Rule 26 did not require Cabrera to
anticipate Google's defenses and produce evidence to defeat
defenses that Google had not yet asserted. The district court erred
by excluding the affidavit, and consequently erred by concluding
that even if Google breached the AdWords contract, Cabrera did not
suffer a cognizable injury, the Appellate Court holds.

Because it concludes that the district court erred by ruling that
Cabrera's claim to standing failed for lack of a cognizable injury,
the Appellate Court vacates the district court's dismissal on that
ground and do not reach whether the district court should have
granted Cabrera leave to supplement his pleadings.
Defendant-Appellee Google to bear costs.

Circuit Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima concurs in part and concurs
in the judgment.

Judge Tashima finds that mere ownership of the account cannot and
does not give rise to a cognizable injury under the circumstances
of the case, where the owner did not incur any of the liabilities
or obligations imposed by the agreement and was not the beneficiary
of any of its prospective benefits. Cabrera appears to be no more
than the classic straw purchaser.

For these reasons, Judge Tashima suggests that the majority errs in
relying on Cabrera's bare ownership of the Ad Words account to give
rise to a cognizable injury to Cabrera and, thus, to serve as a
basis that he has met the concrete injury requirement to give rise
to Article III standing, and does not join in that portion of the
disposition.

Judge Tashima concludes, however, that even without reliance on
Cabrera's ownership of the Ad Words account, there remains a
disputed issue of fact of whether Cabrera's sale of TO included the
sale of TO's causes of action, including those causes of action
which arose under the Ad Words account. Accordingly, Judge Tashima
concurs in the majority's judgment vacating the district court's
judgment and remanding for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyp6ezx4 from Leagle.com.


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. ("Greenlane" or "the Company") (GNLN), a
global house of brands and one of the largest sellers of premium
cannabis accessories, child-resistant packaging, and specialty
vaporization products, on Jan. 11 disclosed that a complaint filed
on March 6, 2020, with the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida ("the Court"), Case No. 9:19-cv-81259-RKA, has
been dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and the case closed.

The plaintiffs in this action had alleged that the Company's
registration statement related for its initial public offering
contained material omissions and false or misleading statements.
The Court's opinion held that Greenlane had "candidly" outlined in
clear terms the relevant risks and that the registration statement
did not contain false or misleading statements or material
omissions. In doing so, the Court deemed the Plaintiffs claims
"meritless."

Greenlane is a defendant in a related case in Florida state court
and has moved to dismiss that litigation on the same grounds.

                  About Greenlane Holdings, Inc.

Greenlane (GNLN) -- https://gnln.com/ -- is the leading global
platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis
accessories and lifestyle products. The company operates as a
powerful house of brands, third-party brand accelerator, and
omni-channel distribution platform. Greenlane serves the global
markets with an expansive customer base of more than 7,000 retail
locations, including licensed cannabis businesses, smoke shops, and
specialty retailers. As a pioneer in the cannabis space, Greenlane
is the partner of choice for many of the industry's leading brands,
including PAX Labs, Storz & Bickel (Canopy-owned), Cookies, Grenco
Science, and DaVinci. Greenlane also proudly owns and operates a
diverse brand portfolio including packaging innovator Pollen
Gear(TM), the K.Haring Glass Collection by Higher Standards, Marley
Natural(TM), and VIBES(TM) rolling papers. Higher Standards,
Greenlane's flagship brand, offers both a high-end product line and
immersive retail experience with groundbreaking stores in both New
York City's Chelsea Market and Malibu, California. Greenlane also
owns and operates both Vapor.com and VapoShop.com, two
industry-leading, direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms in North
America and Europe respectively. [GN]


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. ("Greenlane" or "the Company") (Nasdaq:
GNLN), a global house of brands and one of the largest sellers of
premium cannabis accessories, child-resistant packaging, and
specialty vaporization products, on Jan. 11 disclosed that a
complaint filed on March 6, 2020, with the United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida ("the Court"), Case No.
9:19-cv-81259-RKA, has been dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice and the case closed.

The plaintiffs in this action had alleged that the Company's
registration statement related for its initial public offering
contained material omissions and false or misleading statements.
The Court's opinion held that Greenlane had "candidly" outlined in
clear terms the relevant risks and that the registration statement
did not contain false or misleading statements or material
omissions. In doing so, the Court deemed the Plaintiffs claims
"meritless."

Greenlane is a defendant in a related case in Florida state court
and has moved to dismiss that litigation on the same grounds.

                 About Greenlane Holdings, Inc.

Greenlane (NASDAQ: GNLN) is the leading global platform for the
development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories and
lifestyle products. The company operates as a powerful house of
brands, third-party brand accelerator, and omni-channel
distribution platform. Greenlane serves the global markets with an
expansive customer base of more than 7,000 retail locations,
including licensed cannabis businesses, smoke shops, and specialty
retailers. As a pioneer in the cannabis space, Greenlane is the
partner of choice for many of the industry's leading brands,
including PAX Labs, Storz & Bickel (Canopy-owned), Cookies, Grenco
Science, and DaVinci. Greenlane also proudly owns and operates a
diverse brand portfolio including packaging innovator Pollen
Gear(TM), the K.Haring Glass Collection by Higher Standards, Marley
Natural(TM), and VIBES(TM) rolling papers. Higher Standards,
Greenlane's flagship brand, offers both a high-end product line and
immersive retail experience with groundbreaking stores in both New
York City's Chelsea Market and Malibu, California. Greenlane also
owns and operates both Vapor.com and VapoShop.com, two
industry-leading, direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms in North
America and Europe respectively. For additional information, please
visit: https://gnln.com/. [GN]


GRETNA, LA: $106.5K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Nelson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA G. NELSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. BELINDA C.
CONSTANT, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-14581 (E.D. La.),
Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge van Meerveld granted the
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses.  She
awarded the Plaintiffs $96,478.21 in attorneys' fees and $10,089 in
costs, to be paid by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on Dec. 5, 2017, to correct what
they describe as egregious Due Process and Equal Protection
violations occurring at the Mayor's Court of the City of Gretna.

The Original Complaint advanced three causes of action:

   Count 1: A Due Process challenge to the alleged financial
            conflict of interest in the Mayor's Court based on
            the theory that the Mayor, the police department, the
            city prosecutor, and the magistrate judges of the
            Mayor's Court are incentivized to maximize the fee
            and fine income generated through Mayor's Court
            prosecutions;

   Count 2: An Equal Protection and Due Process challenge to
            Gretna's Deferred Prosecution Program based on the
            theory that Mayor's Court defendants without the
            ability to pay the program fee are excluded from
            participation; and

   Count 3: A Due Process and Equal Protection challenge to the
            alleged summary suspension of driver's licenses
            without a hearing when those defendants are unable to
            pay fees and fines assessed in Mayor's Court
            proceedings.

In May 2018, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended
complaint that dropped Count 3.  They explained that they had
obtained information from the Office of Motor Vehicles in response
to their subpoena that resulted in the decision not to pursue Count
3.

The amended complaint was entered into the record on June 7, 2018.
After supplemental briefing was ordered by the Court, the
Plaintiffs' original motion to certify the class was denied without
prejudice in September 2018.  The parties began discussing
settlement in October 2018 and agreed that only Count 2 could be
settled.  Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs proceeded to conduct
discovery with regard to Count 2.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on both Counts 1 and 2 in
March 2019.  Thereafter, but before a ruling by the District Court,
the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate
Judge.  Trial was set to begin on March 23, 2020.  On Feb. 20,
2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment on Count 1, granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to Count 1, and denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to their immunities' arguments.

At a telephone conference with the Court on Feb. 28, 2020, the
parties discussed the status of settlement of Count 2.  The Court
continued the March 23, 2020, trial in light of the parties'
representations that only one issue remained and that they expected
to negotiate a resolution.  The parties came to an agreement and on
May 14, 2020, Plaintiff Timothea Richardson filed a Motion to
Certify a Settlement Class and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement.

The settlement agreement includes refunds and credits to a small
number of Deferred Prosecution Program participants.  The primary
relief is injunctive and comes in the form of changes to the
Deferred Action Program to provide alternatives for people who
cannot afford the program's fee.  Following a status conference
with the court, follow up discussions via email, and supplemental
filings by the Plaintiff, the Court issued an Order and Reasons
granting the motions on Sept. 3, 2020.

On Sept. 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion for
Attorneys' Fees seeking an award of $143,665 in attorneys' fees and
$10,089 in costs.  The Defendants oppose, arguing that the
requested billing rate for one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys is too
high given his experience.  They also argue that some of the
billing entries improperly include clerical work, block billing,
travel, work on unsuccessful issues and claims, duplicative work,
and vaguely described work, and that these entries should be
stricken or reduced.

The Plaintiffs have filed a reply memorandum in support of their
motion, arguing that the requested billing rates are appropriate.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 4, 2020, the court held a Fairness Hearing and
on Dec. 18, 2020, issued an Order and Reasons approving the
settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court now turns to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.

Magistrate Judge van Meerveld holds that there is no dispute that
the Plaintiffs are prevailing parties as to Count 2 as a result of
the concessions they garnered in the settlement agreement.  There
are no special circumstances justifying a total denial of fees.
Accordingly, she finds that an award of attorneys' fees is
appropriate under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

The Judge notes that the Plaintiffs appropriately excluded time
related to Count 1 and Count 3 from their fee request.  However,
upon review of the time entries and in light of the Court's
familiarity with the dispute, she agrees with the Defendants that
the Plaintiffs' estimate unfairly weighs Count 2 as accounting for
two-thirds of the time entries prior to the dismissal of Count 1.
Many of the time entries are for shared work.  But some entries
seem more clearly related to one count or the other.  The Judge
acknowledges that most exclusively Count 1 or Count 3 time entries
have already been stricken from the claimed time.  However, she
cannot find that Count 2 accounted for two-thirds of the claimed
time entries.  She finds that it more appropriate to reduce the
time entries prior to the dismissal of Count 1 by 50%.

Considering the reasonableness of the Count 2 time claimed, the
Judge finds a number of entries that appear to be excessive and
because they were block billed, it is difficult to determine
whether the time spent was appropriate.  Other time entries are not
block billed but appear to be excessive in light of the minimal
detail provided.  Additionally, the counsel's time keeping records
do not reflect any time entries written off as "excessive,
duplicative, or inadequately documented."

Because of the lack of billing judgment, the use, at times, of
block billing, and the fact that some entries appear excessive in
light of the minimal explanation provided, the Judge finds it
appropriate to reduce the requested fees for which recovery is due
by 15% as to Eric Foley, an attorney, who has been practicing law
for 11 years.  She will not reduce the time entries of M. Rose
Falvey, an investigative paralegal, because there has been no block
billing and time entries do not appear to be excessive.  She also
finds it appropriate to reduce the requested fees for which
recovery is due by 15% as to attorney Jim Craig.

The Plaintiffs seek an award of $10,089 in costs.  The Defendants
do not dispute the reasonableness of the costs claimed.  The Judge
finds it appropriate to award the full $10,089 in costs requested.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge van Meerveld granted the
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses.  She
awarded the Plaintiffs $96,478.21 in attorneys' fees and $10,089 in
costs, to be paid by the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4w95uyj from Leagle.com.


GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Insulin Pens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Scinto, writing for Patch, reports that a Superior Court judge
has certified class-action status for a lawsuit against Griffin
Hospital and Griffin Health Services regarding the use of
multi-dose insulin pens.

The lawsuit alleges that the pens that are meant for one patient
were used by medical personnel on multiple patients. The misuse of
pens at the hospital was caused by institutional failures,
including a lack of appropriate procedures and training, according
to the lawsuit.

Griffin Health Services held a news conference in 2014 about the
insulin pen misuse.

The pens are meant to be used on only a single-patient. Needles for
the devices are single-use, but backflow of blood or skin cells can
backflow into the pen and potentially infect another person,
according to Griffin's 2014 statement.

Around 3,100 hospital patients were ordered insulin pens between
Sept. 1, 2008 and May 7, 2014, according to a hospital news
release. The hospital notified patients via mail and offered
screening for HIV, and hepatitis B and C.

At the time hospital officials said that the risk of disease
transmission is believed to be minimal.

The lawsuit was originally filed by Anthony Diaz, Bruce Sypniewski
and Daiy Gmitter. They are being represented by attorneys Ernie
Teitell and Marco Allocca with Silver Golub & Teitell LLP.

Notice to potential class-action members will likely occur sometime
in the spring or summer of 2021 after court approval, according to
a statement from Silver Golub & Teitell.

Griffin Hospital declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

"Griffin has been open and transparent about the events relating to
the prior use of insulin pens from the time the hospital
voluntarily came forward in 2014," said Todd Liu, vice president of
accountable care and general counsel for Griffin in a statement.
"Griffin's first priority was ensuring that people potentially
exposed were notified, safe, and given the opportunity to be
tested, which Griffin initiated and did at its expense. Griffin
voluntarily disclosed what occurred in its letter to individuals
potentially affected."

Superior Court Judge Linda Lager defined potential members of the
class action lawsuit as:

All patients of Griffin Hospital, located in Derby, Connecticut,
for whom a multi-dose insulin pen was prescribed during their
hospitalization between September 1, 2008 and May 7, 2014 and to
whom insulin was administered from a multi-dose insulin pen, who
received a notification letter from Griffin Hospital dated May 16,
2014 and who subsequently underwent testing for Hepatitis B virus
(HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV). [GN]


GT EXPRESS INC: Rogers Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GT Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-07780, (N.D. Ill., December 29, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

GT Express is a licensed freight shipping and trucking company in a
freight hauling business based in Mokena, Illinois. Rogers
underwent a driver's orientation and training program at its
corporate training facility.

GT Express allegedly failed to compensate Rogers minimum wage rates
of pay for all hours while undergoing orientation and training
within weekly pay periods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Andrew Head, Esq.
      Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
      HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
      4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Tel: (404) 924-4151
      Fax: (404) 796-7338
      Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com
             bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             nbishop@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 13
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of GTT Communications, Inc. (NYSE:
GTT) between May 5, 2016 and November 9, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GTT
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the GTT class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1927.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) the Company's internal controls suffered from issues
related to the recording and reporting of Cost of
Telecommunications Services; (2) the Company's previously reported
Cost of Telecommunications was inaccurate or accounted for
unsupported adjustments; (3) inadequate internal controls would
result in delays in the Company's 10-Q quarterly reports; and (4)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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 15,
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-1927.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]


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Omar Santos, Amanda Clements, Ethan Dornhelm, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC d/b/a ARS Account Resolution
Services, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-23084-KMW, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 13,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-mc-80008 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group (HRRG) --
https://www.healthcarerevenuerecoverygroup.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency, specializing in the collection of medical
debt.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Jaeger, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 203-4000
          Fax: (310) 229-1285
          Email: michael.jaeger@faegredrinker.com


HIGGINS BENJAMIN: N.C. Court Refuses to Dismiss Golden FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned as
MARK GOLDEN and GENEVA GOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00627 (M.D.N.C.).

The case a putative class action by Plaintiffs Mark Golden and
Geneva Golden, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, against Defendant Higgins, alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, et seq.

Higgins is a law firm engaged in the collection of debts. On April
22, 2020, Higgins sent the Plaintiffs a collection letter, commonly
known as a dunning letter, to collect a total balance of $903.05 in
allegedly overdue homeowners' association fees.

On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the action against Higgins,
alleging one violation of the FDCPA. Higgins moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' cause of action for failure to state a claim. The
Plaintiffs responded in opposition, and Higgins replied.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the dunning letter, in
accordance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a),
notifies them that the debt will be assumed valid in the absence of
a timely dispute and that the debt referenced was the homeowners'
association fees. They allege, however, that the letter fails to
comply with 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) because it fails to
inform them that the Debt will be assumed to be valid by the
Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that this failure could lead the
least sophisticated consumer to be uncertain about what entity will
make the assumption and for what purpose.

The Plaintiffs assert, in the absence of language indicating the
identity of who will assume the debt to be valid, that the least
sophisticated consumer could be misled into believing that their
debt will be determined to be valid by a court, credit reporting
agency, or other authority. In response, Higgins argues that the
absence of identifying language in the relevant sentence is not
misleading because the letter clearly indicates that Higgins is a
debt collector. It refers to other portions of the same paragraph
which indicate the responsibilities of the firm in relation to the
debt and asserts that, taken together, the letter makes clear that
only the firm will assume the debt to be valid.

As Higgins correctly argues, there is no requirement in the FDCPA
that a debt collector quote the statute's language verbatim,
District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder opines, citing Kirkpatrick, 379
F. Supp. 3d at 542; Emanuel v. Am. Credit Exch., 870 F.2d 805, 808
(2d Cir. 1989).

Judge Schroeder states that the key sentence is worded passively,
fails to identify who is to assume that the debt is valid, and does
not indicate the purposes for which the assumption is to be made.
Further, nothing in the context or language of the surrounding
paragraph indicates that it is the debt collector who will assume
the validity of the debt and only for collection purposes.

Although Higgins is not required to use "magic words" in order to
comply with the FDCPA, it must include some language that makes
clear it is only the debt collector that may assume validity and
only for collection purposes; otherwise the debtor is left
uncertain about what entity will make the assumption and for what
purpose, Judge Schroeder explains. He concludes that the exclusion
in the key sentence of the statutory language regarding the
identity of who may assume the debt to be valid or the purposes of
that assumption is sufficient to state a violation of the FDCPA.

Higgins argues that any ambiguity regarding the assuming entity is
eliminated by the statement, "This law firm is a debt collector,"
and the use of identifying phrases, "we," "us," and "our firm" in
other sentences in the relevant paragraph. However, viewing
Higgins's debt collection letter as a whole, and from the
perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the presence of
identifying language elsewhere in the same paragraph, combined with
the conspicuous absence in the key sentence, does not eliminate the
ambiguity but may increase the tendency to be misleading, Judge
Schroeder opines.

The Plaintiffs are, therefore, correct that the phrases "we," "us,"
and "our firm" do not sufficiently inform a least sophisticated
consumer that the assumption of the debt is limited to Higgins and
not some other entity such as a credit reporting agency or court,
Judge Schroeder points out. In light of the absence of identifying
language as to the key sentence, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
stated a claim for violations of the FDCPA upon which relief may be
granted.

Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y46baj3f from
Leagle.com.


HOWMET AEROSPACE: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOWMET AEROSPACE INC., ARCONIC INC.,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV46141, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00164 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal
period or compensation in lieu of, failure to provide rest breaks
or compensation in lieu of, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and failure to pay vacation wages to employees.

Howmet Aerospace Inc. is an American aerospace company based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Arconic Inc. is a manufacturer of aluminum sheet, plate, extrusions
and architectural products based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                   
         
         Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
         Spencer Hamer, Esq.
         K&L GATES LLP
         1 Park Plaza
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 623-3553
         Facsimile: (949) 253-0902
         E-mail: todd.nunn@klgates.com
                 spencer.hamer@klgates.com

HP HOOD: Faces Binns Suit Over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BINNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HP HOOD LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-00319 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
falsely and misleadingly markets its "vanilla bean" ice cream known
as the "Vanilla Ice Cream With Ground Vanilla Beans" ("Product").

According to the complaint, Defendant's Vanilla Bean Ice Cream
likewise contains exhausted vanilla bean specks, which deceives
consumers because they are unaware that the seeds are added to the
Product after all flavor has been removed. Consumers are unable to
know that the "Ground Vanilla Beans" do not contain any vanilla
flavor and should be listed as "exhausted vanilla bean seeds," the
suit says.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
allegedly sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $4.79
per 1.5 QT, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way and higher than the price of
the Product if it was to be represented in a non-misleading way.

HP Hood LLC manufactures dairy foods. The Company offers milk,
cream, ice cream, cottage cheese, sour cream, half and half, and
eggnog. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


HSBC BANK: New York Eastern Dist. Tosses EFTA Claim in Cheng Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed the Plaintiff's EFTA claim in the lawsuit titled JI DONG
CHENG v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 20-cv-1551 (BMC)
(E.D.N.Y.).

The Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the
Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, a violation of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and a violation of New York
General Business Law Section 349. The motion is granted as to the
EFTA claim and otherwise denied.

The Plaintiff opened a savings account with the Defendant by online
application. According to the Defendant's Terms and Charges
Disclosures, interest begins to accrue on the Business Day you
deposit noncash items. Noncash items are instruments like checks
and wire transfers. That same document defines "Business Day" as
"every day except Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays."

The case concerns two deposits that the Plaintiff made. First, on
Friday, May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred $100,000 to his
account with the Defendant through an Automated Clearing House
("ACH") network. He alleges, however, that the Defendant did not
apply interest on the account until, at the earliest, Tuesday, June
4, 2019. Second, on Tuesday, November 26, 2019, the Plaintiff made
another $100,000 ACH transfer to the account, but the Defendant did
not apply interest on the deposit until, at the earliest, Friday,
November 29, 2019.

Upon the Plaintiff notifying the Defendant of the alleged delay in
crediting interest to his deposits, the Defendant responded that
its policy is to not credit interest on deposits until 3 to 5
business days after they are made. The Plaintiff contends that
thepolicy is contrary to the representations contained in the
Defendant's Disclosures. He filed the putative class action for
breach of contract and violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act and New York General Business Law Section 349.

The Defendant argues that all of the Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed because interest properly began to accrue upon receipt of
each deposit. It points to the Electronic Balance Transfer Service
("EBTS") agreement, which provides more information about
electronic banking for the services an account owner is using. The
EBTS states that an "Electronic Bank Transfer may take up to four
business days before it is credited to your HSBC account."

According to the Defendant, this explanation -- read together with
the Disclosures' statement that "interest begins to accrue on the
Business Day you deposit noncash items" -- unambiguously
establishes that the relevant date for interest accrual to begin is
not the date that the account owner initiates an ACH transaction to
transfer funds, but instead is the date that the electronic
transferred funds are credited to the account and the transaction
is completed.

The Defendant's contention that common sense suggests that interest
cannot accrue on funds that have been only provisionally-credited
to an interest-bearing account pending verification and valuation
does not persuade Judge Cogan opines. The argument ignores the fact
that there is a competitive market for banking products and
services. Although courts must reject interpretations of provisions
that are commercially unreasonable or illogical, it is perfectly
conceivable that an institution might offer a few days of
pre-receipt interest to attract deposits.

The Plaintiff's proposed interpretation is not any less ambiguous,
Judge Cogan notes. The Plaintiff's cited cases focus on check
deposits and ATM transfers, not ACH transfers, and so are not
persuasive. He adds that there can be a reasonable difference in
opinion as to whether the date "you deposit" funds refers to the
date an account holder requests a transfer of funds or the date the
bank receives the funds, and thus the provision is ambiguous.

Judge Cogan says he cannot resolve the ambiguity on the present
motion because extrinsic evidence that is not before him may shed
light on the parties' actual intent.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claim under the EFTA must
fail because the uncredited interest is not a "fee" or "charge"
requiring disclosure. The Defendant defines a charge or fee as an
amount that constitutes an affirmative debit from the account.
Whether uncredited interest can constitute a "charge" requiring
disclosure under the EFTA is a matter of first impression in this
Circuit.

Supporting the Plaintiff's position is Berenson v. Nat'l Fin.
Servs., LLC, 403 F.Supp.2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005), in which the court
held that the loss of an opportunity to earn interest constitutes a
fee requiring disclosure under the EFTA. Notwithstanding Berenson,
Judge Cogan agrees with the Defendant that the loss of an
opportunity to earn interest is not a fee or charge requiring
disclosure under the EFTA. He points out that there is no basis in
the statute to expand the meaning of "fee" or "charge" to include
the loss of the opportunity to earn interest during the pendency of
an ACH transfer request.

In addition, Judge Cogan holds, the loss of the opportunity to earn
interest is not a term or condition of an electronic fund transfer
that must be disclosed in "clear and readily understandable"
language. Rather, it is an "obvious opportunity cost inherent in
the concept of a deposit," quoting Turner v. Gen. Motors Acceptance
Corp., 980 F.Supp. 737, 742 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd, 180 F.3d 451
(2d Cir. 1999). The lost opportunity stems from the fund transfer
but is neither a term nor condition of it.

The EFTA claim is, therefore, dismissed.

The Plaintiff states a Section 349 claim because he alleges the
Defendant used deceptive or misleading language in its Disclosures
regarding the date interest accrual would begin, causing a loss to
the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff's claim was simply that the
Defendant failed to apply interest on the same Business Day that
deposits were made, it would not be sufficiently separate and apart
from his breach of contract claim, Judge Cogan notes. Such a claim
would merely allege that the Defendant deceptively failed to comply
with its contractual obligations.

However, the Judge interprets the Plaintiff's claim as alleging
that the Defendant's consumer-oriented Disclosures contain
misleading material terms regarding interest accrual in light of
its policy to not apply interest until 3 to 5 days after an
electronic transfer is requested or upon the bank's receipt of the
funds.  Construed that way, the Plaintiff states a claim under
Section 349 claim that is separate from his claim for breach of
contract.  

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
is granted to the extent of dismissing the EFTA claim and otherwise
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxznsklm from
Leagle.com.


HY-VEE INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brennan, writing for Little Village, reports that Hy-Vee has
reached a preliminary settlement agreement in the class action
lawsuit filed by customers who had their credit and debit card
information stolen during a massive data breach at some of the
company's stores in 2018 and 2019.

According to papers filed in an Illinois federal court on Jan. 12,
the company began negotiating the proposed settlement deal with the
plaintiffs' attorneys after a judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit
in April 2020. The next step in the lawsuit would have been the
discovery phase, during which company officials would have been
compelled to testify about the data breach under oath and produce
documents related to it.

On Aug. 14, 2019, Hy-Vee issued a press release announcing it had
discovered a data breach that affected customers who used debit and
credit cards at its fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee shops and
restaurants (Market Grilles, Market Grille Expresses and its
Wahlburgers locations). No purchases at "our grocery stores,
drugstores and inside our convenience stores" were at risk, the
company explained, because those sales are processed using a
different, more secure system.

Locations in all eight Midwestern states where the chain has its
more than 240 stores were affected by the breach, which lasted
between seven to eight months, starting in December 2018 at some
locations. Information from more than 5.3 million debit and credit
cards was stolen during the data breach.

The stolen debit and credit card information was later reported to
be on sale at Joker's Stash, a site that traffics in stolen card
data.

In October, two Hy-Vee customers who had their data stolen -- one a
resident of Illinois, the other a resident of Missouri -- filed a
class action lawsuit against Hy-Vee over the data breach. The
following month, two Iowans were added as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.

According to a database of sites involved in the data breach,
posted by the company, Hy-Vee locations in 41 Iowa cities were
infected with the data-stealing malware, including locations in
Iowa City, Coralville, Cedar Rapids and Marion.

If the court approves the settlement deal, people "residing in the
United States who used a payment card to make a purchase at an
affected Hy-Vee point-of-sale device during the Security Incident"
will be eligible for a reimbursement of up to $225 "for the
following categories of potential expenses incurred as a result of
the Data Breach."

-- reimbursement of up to three (3) hours of documented lost time
(at $20 per hour) spent dealing with replacement card issues or in
reversing fraudulent charges (only if at least one full hour was
spent and if it can be documented with reasonable specificity);

-- an additional $20 payment for each credit or debit card on which
documented fraudulent charges were incurred that were later
reimbursed;

-- unreimbursed bank fees, card reissuance fees, overdraft fees,
late fees, charges related to unavailability of funds, and
over-limit fees;

-- long distance telephone charges, postage, cell minutes (if
charged by the minute), text messages (if charged by the message),
and Internet usage charges (if charged by the minute or by the
amount of data usage);

-- unreimbursed charges from banks or credit card companies;

-- interest on payday loans due to card cancelation or due to
over-limit situation;

-- costs of credit report(s); and

-- costs of credit monitoring and identity theft protection

Some people "who experienced extraordinary expenses will be
eligible for reimbursement in the amount up to $5,000 per claim."
The 11 people listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit will also receive
"incentive awards" of $2,000 each.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking $727,000 in fees, "a number
that the parties agreed upon with the assistance of the mediator
through a mediator's proposal," according to the legal memorandum
on the settlement filed on Jan. 12. Hy-Vee is also expected to pay
$12,000 to cover the attorneys' expenses.

In addition to agreeing to these payments, Hy-Vee agrees as part of
the settlement to take "certain measures to increase its data
security and consumer information protection procedures for a
period of two years."

These measures include: appointment of a Group Vice President, IT
Security; maintenance of a written information security program;
employee training on data security policies and detecting/handling
suspicious emails; maintenance of a policy for responding to
information security events; compliance with [current payment card
industry data security] standards; and requiring third-party
vendors to use multi-factor authentication to access Hy-Vee's
payment card environment.

If the proposed settlement is approved by the federal judge
overseeing the case, anyone affected by the data breach will have
120 days following public notice of that approval to file a claim
through a website the plaintiffs' attorneys will create. [GN]


iANTHUS EMPIRE: Dorsey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against iAnthus Empire
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Terri Dorsey, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iAnthus Empire
Holdings, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No.
1:21-cv-00300 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC -- https://www.ianthus.com/ -- focuses
on building vertically integrated cannabis operations in
high-growth markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


IQVIA: Supreme Court Won't Overturn Junk Fax Case Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court said on Jan. 11 it will
not consider overturning the Seventh Circuit's decision allowing
consumers from other states into an Illinois proposed class action
over unwanted faxes. Justices declined to hear a bid from health
information tech company IQVIA to undo a lower court ruling on the
putative class in a federal junk-fax suit spearheaded by a doctor.
[GN]

JATOLA HOMES: Kallai RESPA Class Suit Removed to D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA KALLAI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. JATOLA HOMES LLC d/b/a THE AMY WENGERD GROUP,
et al., Case No. 2020 CV 01648, was removed from the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Ohio on January 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Ohio assigned Case No.
5:21-cv-00056 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Practice Act and the Ohio Revised Code for
allegedly giving fees, kickbacks, and/or things of value to certain
other Defendants.

Jatola Homes LLC, doing business as The Amy Wengerd Group, is a
residential construction company based in Ohio. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Patrick T. Lewis, Esq.
         Mary Pat Brogan, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         127 Public Square, Suite 2000
         Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
         Telephone: (216) 621-0200
         Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
         E-mail: plewis@bakerlaw.com
                 mbrogan@bakerlaw.com

JEANNIE'S DELI: Faces Arriaga Suit Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYUNG HEE CHU, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A
JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET); PARK FRESH DELI
EXPRESS CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP
F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET); DELICIOUS FOOD MARKET, INC. (D/B/A
PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD
MARKET); SUK N PARK; and MIKE DOE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00247
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 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.

Mr. Chu was employed by the Defendants as cashier.

JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. owns and operates a deli, located at 194 8th
Avenue, New York, New York 10011 under the name "Jeannie's Deli
Corp." [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


JOYY INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) investors that
acquired shares between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020.
Investors have until January 21, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues
relating to live streaming sources; (2) at any given time, the
majority of users were bots; (2) these bots were utilized by JOYY
to effect a roundtripping scheme that manufactured the false
appearance of revenues; (3) JOYY overstated its cash reserves; (4)
JOYY's acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived in order to
benefit corporate insiders; and (5) defendants' public statements
were materially misleading and/or false at all relevant times, as a
result. The lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages, when
the true details entered the market.

Muddy Waters Research, an equity research firm, published a report
about JOYY on November 18, 2020 titled: "YY: You Can't Make This
Stuff Up. Well . .  Actually You Can." A series of problems with
JOYY were detailed in the Muddy Waters Research Report.
Specifically, the report stated that the JOYY is a
multibillion-dollar fraud" whose component business are a "fraction
of the size it reports." It was also noted in the Muddy waters
report that JOYY's "reported user metrics, revenues and cash
balances are predominantly fraudulent."

JOYY American depositary shares ("ADSs") price fell $26.53 per ADS,
or 26% on this news, to close at $73.66 per ADS on November 18,
2020.

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
21, 2021.

Please visit our https://portnoylaw.com/joyy to review more
information and submit your transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


KAEL FOODS: Salazar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KAEL FOODS, et al.
The case is styled as Luis Salazar, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KAEL FOODS, DOES 1 TO 10
INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC21588813 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Jan. 13, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS".

Kael Foods -- https://kaelfoods.com/ -- is a local dairy wholesale
distributor serving the San Francisco Bay Area since 1930.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          535 Mission St 14th Floor,
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-508-7786
          Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
KNDI) from March 15, 2019 through November 27, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report entitled: "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed
Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S.
Investors." Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's
factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a
dozen former employees and business partners, and review of
numerous litigation documents and international public records,"
the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales
over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. The report
also alleged that "[Kandi] has consistently booked revenue it
cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue[.]"

Following publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price
fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on
November 30, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 9, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Kandi securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/kanditechnologiesgroupinc-kndi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-337/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information:

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


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on Jan. 11 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Kandi Technologies
Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI). Investors who purchased KNDI stock or
other securities between March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020 may
contact the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a copy of the complaint or
to discuss the lead plaintiff process. Interested investors are
encouraged to visit: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi. Investors may
email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Interested Kandi
investors have until February 9, 2021 to apply to be a lead
plaintiff.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi

The case alleges that Kandi and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and 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; and (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 Kandi's reputation and valuation. It is alleged that when
the public was made aware of the truth, Kandi's stock price fell,
thereby damaging investors.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing the class action and can select a law
firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested Kandi investors have
until February 9, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class
has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors
are not represented by an attorney.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi [GN]


KEURIG GREEN: June 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit called In
re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2542, Master Docket No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC, Civil Action
No. 1:13-03790-VSB-SLC, pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig") monopolized or attempted to
monopolize and restricted, restrained, foreclosed, and excluded
competition in order to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the
prices of Keurig K-Cup Portion Packs (single-serve beverage portion
packs manufactured or licensed by Keurig that are compatible with
Keurig brewers and generally displays the Keurig brand name or logo
on the package) at artificially high levels in violation of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2,
Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and various state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, unjust
enrichment, and other laws. Keurig denies the allegations. The
Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims.

Who Is A Class Member? All individuals and entities that purchased
Keurig K-Cup Portion Packs in the United States and its
territories, from persons other than Keurig and not for the purpose
of resale, during the period September 7, 2010, to August 14, 2020
(except for claims under Mississippi -- which are for purchases
during the period from March 24, 2011, to August 14, 2020, and for
purchases in Rhode Island -- which are for purchases from July 15,
2013, to August 14, 2020) (collectively, the "Settlement Class
Members").

What Are The Terms of the Settlement? Keurig has agreed to pay $31
million into a "Settlement Fund" as described in the Stipulation of
Settlement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement
Fund will be used to pay Settlement Class Members who submit a
timely and valid claim, after attorneys' fees and costs and other
expenses have been deducted. Settlement Class Members will give up
certain rights to sue Keurig. Any uncashed checks or amounts
remaining in the Settlement Fund after payments are made to
Settlement Class Members will be distributed cy pres to Consumer
Reports.

How Do You Get a Payment? Go to
www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com to file or download the
notice and a claim form. Claims must be submitted online or
postmarked and mailed no later than July 15, 2021.

What Are My Other Options? If you do not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement, you may send a request for exclusion no later
than May 14, 2021. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive
any money, but you will keep your right to sue Keurig for the
claims in the Actions as specified in the Settlement Agreement. If
you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement by
writing to the Court explaining why you do not like the Settlement
or the attorneys fees no later than May 17, 2021. You will still be
bound by the Settlement if your objection is rejected. If you do
nothing, you will not receive any Settlement benefits; you will be
bound by the Settlement; and you will give up certain rights to sue
Keurig. For details on how to opt out or object, please read the
long form notice available at
www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com.

Final Approval Hearing. The Court will hold a hearing on June 4,
2021, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern,, at the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse,
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, or by telephonic or electronic
means, to consider whether to approve the Settlement, attorneys'
fees, expenses, and Class Representative service awards as detailed
in the Notice. You or your attorney may ask to appear and speak at
the hearing at your own expense, but you don't have to. The Final
Approval Hearing date may change, so check the Settlement website
regularly.

For More Information. Visit
www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com, write Keurig Indirect
Purchasers Antitrust Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O.
Box 91382, Seattle, WA 98111. or call toll-free 1-833-794-0948.
Class Counsel can also be contacted at www.kaplanfox.com,
www.whafh.com, www.pswlaw.com, access the court docket through the
Court's PACER System at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov, or visit the
office of the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE.
http://www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com[GN]


LANDRY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ontiveros et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROLAND ONTIVEROS and MARTHA ALVAREZ, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LANDRY'S,
INC., LANDRY'S SEAFOOD INN & OYSTER BAR-SAN ANTONIO, INC., and
SALTGRASS, INC. D/B/A SALTGRASS STEAKHOUSE, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex., January 11, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to compensate them
and other similarly situated tipped employees, such as waiters and
bartenders, at the federally mandated minimum wage as a result of
its unlawful policy and practice of utilizing the tip credit to
meet their minimum wage obligation to their waiters and bartenders.


Moreover, although they were required by the Defendants to perform
non-tipped duties, the Defendants did not pay them at the full
minimum wage rate, the suit says. The Defendants allegedly failed
to track or record the amount of time their tipped employees spent
performing non-tipped work.

The Plaintiffs also added that the Defendants did not reimburse
them for the costs of their uniform, which was required to perform
work for the Defendants and was primarily for the benefit and
convenience of the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants under the
name "Saltgrass" throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: DFoty@hftrialfirm.com

                - and –

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


LAROSA'S PIZZERIA: Franchisees Settle Delivery Drivers' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Grasha, writing for Cincinnati Enquirer, reports that nearly
a dozen LaRosa's franchises have agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit that said delivery drivers were not being paid enough and
were not fully reimbursed for their expenses.

The case involves an estimated 500 current or former delivery
drivers for 11 LaRosa's franchises in places including Mason,
Loveland, West Chester as well as Northern Kentucky.

A federal judge in Cincinnati has granted preliminary approval of a
$900,000 settlement reached between attorneys for the drivers and
entities that own the franchises, court documents show. U.S.
District Judge Matthew McFarland scheduled a hearing for June 21 to
finalize the settlement.

"I think it's a great result for a number of drivers in Southwest
Ohio and Northern Kentucky," said Phil Krzeski, an attorney
representing the drivers. "We hope this money makes a big
difference for a lot of people."

A LaRosa's spokesman, Pete Buscani, said the case involved a
franchise owner, and he didn't know the details. Buscani said "many
times cases will settle for many reasons, including the costs and
hassle of litigation."

The lawsuit said the franchises didn't pay delivery drivers enough
for the expenses they incurred using their own vehicles.

Instead of reimbursing drivers for their actual vehicle expenses,
the lawsuit said, drivers were reimbursed based on a percentage of
the price of each order, between 6.5 and 7.5 percent. Settlement
documents said drivers were being paid .38 cents a mile,
substantially less than the IRS standard business mileage rate,
which last year was 57.5 cents per mile.

The documents say it is undisputed that food delivery companies
must pay minimum wage workers for expenses incurred when they use
their own vehicles.

The lawsuit also said drivers, who actually are paid an hourly wage
below minimum wage because they receive tips, were performing work,
like folding pizza boxes and cleaning, that required them to be
paid a higher wage during those times.

About 40 nearly identical lawsuits have also been filed against
other LaRosa's franchises as well as Domino's, Papa John's and
Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches, including in other states.

One of those lawsuits involved LaRosa's Inc., which owns a dozen
stores. It was dismissed in December, court records show. Buscani
said the case "had no merit." [GN]


MAJOR ENERGY: Customer Must Arbitrate Rate-Change Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Porter Wells, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Major
Energy Electric Services LLC customer must arbitrate her proposed
solicitation and rate-change class claims against the services
provider at the Maryland Public Service Commission on an individual
basis, a federal judge in Maryland has ruled.

Patricia Brito is bound by the individual arbitration clause in
Major's service contract and therefore may not pursue a class
action in Maryland federal court, Judge Ellen L. Hollander said
Jan. 8 for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
[GN]



MAJOR ENERGY: Maryland District Court Dismisses Amended Brito Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA BRITO, Plaintiff v. MAJOR ENERGY ELECTRIC
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. ELH-20-0230 (D. Md.), Judge
Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland:

     (i) granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended
         Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);

    (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss the
         Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal
         Arbitration Act; and

   (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file
         surreplies.

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Brito has sued Defendant
Major, an electricity provider.  The suit concerns Major's methods
of soliciting and acquiring new residential customers, as well as
the rates it charges for electricity.  In sum, Ms. Brito avers that
Major's misrepresentations and omissions caused injury to her and
the members of the Class because they were either unlawfully
slammed and/or unjustifiably induced to believe that they would
receive energy costs savings on their monthly bills when, in
actuality, they were charged substantially more for their energy
needs after Major switched to its services.

The Amended Complaint defines the putative "National Class" as
follows: All persons who are or have been Major Energy customers in
New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio and Washington DC and any other
locations where Major Energy markets its services who used Major
Energy as their electricity supplier.

The Amended Complaint defines the putative "Maryland subclass" as:
"All persons who are or have been Major Energy customers in
Maryland who used Major Energy as their electricity supplier."

In the "Amended Class Action Complaint," Ms. Brito asserts four
counts, each founded on Maryland law and lodged on behalf of a
putative class and a putative subclass.  Count I alleges violation
of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code (2013 Repl.
Vol.), Section 13-101 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article.  In
Count II, the Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment.  Count III
lodges a claim for Common Law Fraud, Including Fraudulent
Inducement, and Fraudulent Concealment.  In Count IV, the Plaintiff
asserts negligent misrepresentation.

The Amended Complaint asserts subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The Plaintiff seeks
class certification, as well as declaratory relief, disgorgement,
compensatory and actual damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Major has moved to dismiss, supported by a memorandum of law.  It
asserts that dismissal is warranted for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for
improper venue, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3).  According to Major, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Brito has not
exhausted her administrative remedies with the Maryland Public
Service Commission ("PSC").  And, Major contends that venue is
improper because Brito is bound by the arbitration clause in her
contract with Major.  In addition, Major opposes class
certification and argues that all of the Plaintiff's claims fail
under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Defendant has also filed its FAA Motion.  The motion is
supported by a memorandum of law.  The exhibits supporting the FAA
Motion are identical to those appended to the Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss and the FAA Motion.
The Defendant has replied to both submissions.

Ms. Brito has also moved for leave to file two surreplies: The
proposed surreply supporting her opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss, and the proposed surreply supporting the Plaintiff's
opposition to the FAA Motion.  The two proposed surreplies are
virtually identical, and each is accompanied by the Plaintiff's
Declaration.

At the outset, Judge Hollander addresses Ms. Brito's motion for
leave to file two surreplies.  Ms. Brito asserts that Major raised
"several new arguments" for the first time in its replies.  But,
the only purportedly new argument that she actually identifies is
Major's contention that she failed to present any evidence in her
Opposition regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Judge opines that the Plaintiff is attempting to recast the
Defendant's characterization of her Opposition as a new argument.
The Judge is not persuaded.  Major presented all of its substantive
arguments regarding arbitration, along with the evidence supporting
those arguments, in its Motion to Dismiss and in the FAA Motion.
Its observation in its replies that the Plaintiff did not include
any evidence in her Opposition does not rise to the level of
argument that warrants the filing of a surreply.  Accordingly, the
Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreplies.

Next, under the circumstances of the case, the Judge turns first to
Major's FAA Motion and its motion under Rule 12(b)(3), which
concern the enforceability of the Agreement's arbitration clause.
If Ms. Brito is bound by the arbitration clause, as Major contends,
then she may only bring her claims in the PSC or in
arbitration--not in the Court.  In other words, the Court would be
unable to adjudicate Ms. Brito's suit, regardless of whether she
exhausted her administrated remedies.

The parties disagree on whether there exists an enforceable written
agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to
cover the dispute.  Major contends that the Agreement is an
enforceable contract and that its arbitration clause precludes Ms.
Brito from litigating her claims in the Court. Conversely, Ms.
Brito is firmly of the view that she is not bound by the
arbitration clause, or by the Agreement at all, because no contract
was formed between her and Major.  In this regard, she asserts that
she never consented to Major Energy as her service provider, and
therefore no agreement exists.

The Judge opines that the determination that a contract was formed
is supported by application of principles Maryland contract law.
Therefore, it follows that the Plaintiff is bound by the
arbitration clause.

Ultimately, the Judge holds that each count of the Amended
Complaint falls within the scope of the Agreement's arbitration
clause, which states that "any claim by customer," except for one
challenging the validity or enforceability of the arbitration
clause, "must be resolved by the PSC or arbitration."

Accordingly, she dismissed the Plaintiff's suit.  And, the Judge
need not address the parties' arguments regarding exhaustion of
administrative remedies or the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's
claims. An Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2q7r37s from Leagle.com.


MASS PRECISION: Failed to Pay All Wages Owed, Zamora Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Zamora, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. MASS PRECISION, INC., a
California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 21CV375211 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 13,
2021), is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382, for the Defendants' failure to pay all wages
owed to them upon discharge or resignation, including overtime and
minimum wages and meal and rest period premiums.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours
in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
the Defendants. The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of
wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within
the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter
alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages
earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from June 2017 to April 2018.

MASS PRECISION, INC. manufactures sheet metalwork products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 265-1020
          Fax: (818) 265-1021

MEDNAX SERVICES: Data Breach Exposes Customers' Info, Davis Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KASHARI DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MEDNAX SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-000625 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., January 11,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of confidence, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its obligations
to the Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly maintain
and safeguard the sensitive personal information of its customers,
including personally identifiable information (PII) and protected
health information (PHI). The personal information of the Plaintiff
and Class members were compromised and unlawfully accessed by
unknown third party due to the Defendant's failure to maintain the
information on computer network in a manner that are not vulnerable
to cyberattacks. Moreover, the Defendant also failed to provide
timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and Class members that
their information had been subjected to unauthorized access and
precisely what specific type of information was accessed.

As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft.

MEDNAX Services, Inc. is a national healthcare services provider
based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
        
         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGA COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
         E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 rmaxey@forthepeople.com

                  - and –

         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         David K. Lietz, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dlietz@masonllp.com

                  - and –

         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Gross Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cheskel Gross, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00072-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Jan.
13, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Stekel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Toby Stekel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00068-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal., Jan.
13, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Ziegler Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER ZIEGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00264
(S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant Midland Credit Management
sent the Plaintiff a deceptive and misleading collection letter on
behalf of Defendant Midland Funding regarding the alleged debt owed
to Citibank, N.A. The collection letter did not provide adequate
explanation about the third payment option whether it is a
settlement or a full pay option.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection company
located at 80 State Street, Albany, New York.

Midland Funding LLC is a debt collection company located at 80
State Street, Albany, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com

MOHAWK CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings of Mohawk Industries, Inc.
(MHK) and Mohawk Capital Finance S.A., including MHK's Long-Term
Issuer Default Rating (IDR), at 'BBB+', and removed the Rating
Watch Negative from all ratings. The Rating Outlook is Stable.
Fitch has removed the Rating Watch Negative and affirmed the
ratings due to better clarity surrounding the fraud allegations and
the ongoing securities class action lawsuit filed against the
company, combined with Mohawk's significantly stronger liquidity
position than Fitch had anticipated at the time of the previous
review.

The company's audit committee, with the assistance of outside legal
counsel, completed its internal investigation into the allegations
and concluded that the allegations of wrongdoing are without merit.
The result of the internal investigation, combined with Fitch's
current expectation that financial statements will not require
restatement, alleviates some of Fitch's concerns around
management's credibility and its oversight over internal controls.
Additionally, stronger than anticipated performance and cash
generation provide the company with substantial liquidity to handle
potential settlements in the securities class action case in the
intermediate term without raising long-term debt.

The Stable Outlook also reflects Fitch's expectation that total
debt to operating EBITDA will be about 2.0x at YE 2020 and about
1.8x at YE 2021, below Fitch's negative rating sensitivity of
sustained above 2.0x. The company's robust liquidity position and
Fitch's stable building products end-market outlook is also
reflected in the Stable Outlook. However, Fitch notes that negative
rating action may occur in the intermediate- to long-term if
findings in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
Georgia (USAO) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
suggest a material failure in corporate governance has occurred
absent proper remediation.

KEY RATING DRIVERS
Ongoing Investigation and Class Action Case: The conclusion of the
internal investigation by Mohawk's Audit Committee that allegations
of fraud are without merit, combined with Fitch's current
expectation that historical financial results will not be restated,
alleviate some of Fitch's concerns regarding material weakness in
Mohawk's internal controls and reliability of historical financial
statements. Both the securities class action case and USAO and DOJ
investigations into the matters are still ongoing. Fitch will
continue to monitor the progress in both the class action case and
the government investigations into the allegations in assessing
future rating actions, but it is Fitch's current view that the risk
that there are ongoing severe corporate governance or financial
reporting failures has lessened.

Strong Financial Flexibility: MHK has limited short-term debt
outstanding and abundant liquidity as of end-3Q20, following
financing transactions earlier in 2020 which improved the company's
maturity schedule and liquidity. The company had about $1.8 billion
of availability under its revolving credit facility, $781 million
of cash and $407 million of short-term investments at the end of
the third quarter. Fitch believes that the company's higher than
typical levels of cash and short-term investments combined with
anticipated FCF generation in 2021 and 2022 provides the company
with strong liquidity to address potential legal settlements in
connection with the class action lawsuit, replenish inventories,
and execute on its share repurchase program in the intermediate
term without increasing total debt on a long-term basis.

Stronger Earnings Outlook than Anticipated: A strong pickup in
demand in global residential repair and remodel and new housing
activity in 2H20 has led to a stronger revenue and operating margin
outlook for 2020 and 2021 than Fitch forecasted in the early stages
of the pandemic. Fitch's prior forecast had assumed that a global
contraction in these end-markets would persist through 1Q21 before
recovering through 2022. Fitch now expects revenues to decline
mid-single-digits in 2020 and increase low-to mid-single-digits in
2021 with a more modest contraction in EBITDA margins in 2020 than
previously forecast. Fitch forecasts total debt to operating EBITDA
to remain at or below 2.0x in the intermediate term, compared to
our prior assumption of total debt to operating EBITDA exceeding
3.0x at YE 2020.

Conservative Capital Allocation: Mohawk maintained stronger credit
metrics than most of its 'BBB' category investment-grade peers
during the upcycle. The company typically maintains total
debt/operating EBITDA at or below 2x and only exits that range for
18-24 months for acquisition opportunities. Mohawk's credit metrics
have been relatively consistent, despite some earnings volatility
beginning in 2018, due to its efforts to reduce debt outstanding.
Fitch expects the company's total debt to operating EBITDA to be
about 2.0x at YE 2020 and to decline to about 1.8x by YE 2021.

From fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2019, the company generated about $5.1
billion in cumulative CFFO. Mohawk allocated about $2.9 billion
towards capex, $0.9 billion towards net acquisitions, $0.8 billion
towards debt reduction and $0.4 billion towards share repurchases
during those years. Fitch is comfortable with this strategy because
of the flexibility it provides management in deploying its FCF.
Additionally, the company has a strong record of integrating
acquisitions and deleveraging following large acquisition.

Leading Market Position: Mohawk has leading market positions in
most flooring categories that it competes in and is the largest
flooring manufacturer globally. Fitch believes the company's
leadership position provides competitive advantages, such as access
to a wide range of distribution channels and a platform to execute
organic and inorganic growth initiatives. Additionally, companies
such as MHK with leading brands across product categories typically
generate strong profitability.

The company's Global Ceramic segment maintains a strong leading
position in North America and leading positions in Brazil, Europe
and Russia. Mohawk estimates that it has a 23% market share in its
Flooring North America segment, with Shaw being its closest
competitor followed by competitors with less than 10% market share.
In Flooring Rest of World (ROW), the company believes it has
leading market positions in mid- to high end product offerings.

Diverse Revenue Sources: The company's end-market exposure is
predominantly focused on residential markets within the U.S.
combined with some exposure to commercial end-markets, providing
the company with exposure to sectors with typically differing
cycling timing. The company has modest exposure to the more highly
cyclical new construction market, which is a risk to the stability
of profitability through economic cycles. Fitch believes the
stronger diversity of end-markets relative to 'BBB' category
building products peers helps partially insulate the company from
cyclical downturns in an individual end-market, providing some
stability to credit metrics through the cycle.

DERIVATION SUMMARY
The rating reflects the company's leading market position in most
flooring categories and regions and its position as the largest
flooring manufacturer globally. The ratings consider the company's
conservative capital allocation strategy, as evidenced by total
debt to operating EBITDA maintaining below 2x, only exiting this
range for short periods for acquisition opportunities during the
upcycle. The company's strong geographic and end-market diversity
support the 'BBB+' rating.

Mohawk's credit metrics are better positioned relative to
'BBB'-category U.S. building products peers, including Fortune
Brands Home & Security, Inc. (FBHS; BBB/Negative) and Whirlpool
Corp. (WHR; BBB/Negative). The company employed a more conservative
capital allocation strategy than these peers historically. Mohawk's
end-market and geographic diversity is stronger than Masco
Corporation (BBB-/Positive) and FBHS, but weaker than 'A' category
peers such as Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (A-/Negative) and PPG
Industries, Inc. (A-/Negative).

KEY ASSUMPTIONS
   --Revenues decline about 5% in 2020 and improve low-single
digits in 2021. Revenue growth in 2021 limited by potential supply
constraints related to COVID safety measures, lagging commercial
construction activity and macroeconomic uncertainty.

  --Fitch-adjusted EBITDA margins of near 14.0% in 2020 and
improving to 14.7% in 2021.

   --Mohawk maintains robust liquidity position, aided by near full
availability on its revolving credit facility and higher than
typical cash flow generation in 2020.

   --We assume any settlement or fine related to the ongoing fraud
investigation will not result in higher leverage or compromised
liquidity.

   --Total debt to operating EBITDA around 2.0x at YE 2020 and 1.8x
at YE 2021.

RATING SENSITIVITIES
Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

Fitch does not anticipate positive rating actions in the
intermediate term. However, one may be considered if MHK commits to
maintaining a lower leverage target and the company's total debt to
operating EBITDA is consistently at or below 1x, FFO net leverage
is sustained below 1x and the company maintains a solid liquidity
position.

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

   --Fitch's expectation that total debt to operating EBITDA or FFO
net leverage will consistently be above 2.0x due to factors such as
poor operational performance or the company adopting a more
aggressive capital allocation policy;

  --A material judgment or other developments related to the fraud
lawsuit and ongoing government investigations that undermine
Fitch's view of management credibility, corporate governance
strength, and the quality of financial disclosures.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO
International scale credit ratings of Non-Financial Corporate
issuers have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the
99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of four notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAA' to 'D'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings are
based on historical performance. For more information about the
methodology used to determine sector-specific best- and worst-case
scenario credit ratings, visit
https://www.fitchratings.com/site/re/10111579.

LIQUIDITY AND DEBT STRUCTURE
Strong Liquidity Position: Mohawk has strong liquidity, with cash
of $781 million at the end of 3Q20 and nearly full availability
under its $1.8 billion revolving credit facility and no CP
outstanding. The company also had $408 million of short-term
investments at the end of 3Q20. The company's nearest maturity is
in September 2021, when a EUR300 million note comes due. Fitch
expects the company to maintain a strong liquidity position during
the rating horizon, supported by its cash on hand, revolver
availability, and forecast FCF generation over the intermediate
term.

REFERENCES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL SOURCE CITED AS KEY DRIVER OF
RATING
The principal sources of information used in the analysis are
described in the Applicable Criteria.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS
Mohawk Industries, Inc. has an ESG Relevance Score of '4' for
Financial Transparency due to fraud allegations, which could worsen
Fitch's view of corporate governance strength should ongoing
government investigations deem that material misrepresentation or
misstatement of financial disclosures has occurred, which has a
negative impact on the credit profile and is relevant to the
ratings in conjunction with other factors. Fitch had previously
assigned an ESG Relevance Score of '5' for Financial Transparency
prior to the conclusion of the company's internal investigation
into the matters.

Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of
ESG credit relevance is a score of '3'. This means ESG issues are
credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity,
either due to their nature or the way in which they are being
managed by the entity. For more information on Fitch's ESG
Relevance Scores, visit www.fitchratings.com/esg [GN]


NEVADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID Vaccine Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ferrara, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that a
Las Vegas attorney filed a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 11 urging
Gov. Steve Sisolak to prioritize COVID-19 vaccinations for those 65
and older.

Las Vegans Daniel Itzhaki, 74, and Natalie Hetly, 70, were named in
the federal complaint as those among an "especially vulnerable and
protected class, more susceptible to comorbidities and serious
bodily harm or death from COVID-19."

At the time that attorney Sigal Chattah filed the lawsuit, which
also names Nevada's chief medical officer, Dr. Ihsan Azzam, and
Attorney General Aaron Ford as defendants, the state had a tiered
system of vaccine distribution, which gave priority to those 75 and
older.

The lawsuit called Nevada's tiered immunization plan "arbitrary,"
accusing state officials of violating constitutional rights,
including the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, of
vulnerable people precluded from the initial round of
vaccinations.

But at a news conference on Jan. 11, Sisolak moved those 70 and
older to the highest priority.

Chattah said that was not enough, arguing that Sisolak could have
pushed to vaccinate more people quickly.

"The infrastructure is there," the attorney said. "They're just not
utilizing it because they're incompetent."

Chattah said Itzhaki and Hetly were both heart patients who had not
received the vaccine.

"It is indisputable that Defendants have no viable empirical data
to preclude such a vulnerable and protected class from obtaining
priority vaccinations," Chattah wrote in the complaint,
"specifically when Defendants have earmarked special COVID-19
access to grocery stores to Nevada's elderly population at the
inception of the pandemic measures, knowing this classes
vulnerability."

By Jan. 11, 3,500 people in Nevada had died of the coronavirus,
while COVID-19 infections surpassed 250,000.

As of Jan. 10, 61,644 doses of vaccine have been administered and
reported to the state, including 8,700 second doses for Nevadans
first immunized in December, said Shannon Bennett, state
immunization program manager. Nevada has received a total of
170,400 doses to date with more coming, she said.

Chattah claimed in the lawsuit that the state had received 205,200
as of Jan. 11, pointing to figures from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

The lawsuit accused the defendants of acting with "reckless
disregard to the elderly population by hoarding the vaccines
distributed to the State and failing to efficiently and
productively vaccinate this population group."

Through a spokeswoman, the governor declined to comment on the
lawsuit, but in the news conference on Jan. 11, Sisolak said he had
"recognized the importance of prioritizing our senior population .
. .  We all share the same goal of getting the vaccine to Nevadans
faster." [GN]


NEVADA: Gorsline Alleges Injuries Over Unsafe Prison Environment
----------------------------------------------------------------
AJA GORSLINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NEVADA, a governmental entity;
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a state agency; CHARLES DANIELS
in his official capacity as Director of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (NDC) and JOHN OR JANE DOE DANIELS; BRIAN WILLIAMS,
Deputy Director of Operations and JOHN OR JANE DOE WILLIAMS; TIM R.
GARRETT, Acting Warden and Associate Warden of the Lovelock
Correctional Center (LCC) and JOHN OR JANE DOE GARRETT; KARA
LEGRAND, Associate Warden and ROBERT LEGRAND; KIRK R. WIDMAR,
Acting Associate Warden and Correctional Lieutenant of the LCC and
THERESA D. WIDMAR; BOBBY K. PRESTON, Correctional Lieutenant of the
LCC and CORIANNE P. PRESTON; JASON C. CHACON, Shift Commander of
the LCC and MARSELA CHACON; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE CAPTAIN; JOHN
AND/OR JANE DOE LIEUTENANT; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE SARGEANT; JOHN
AND/OR JANE DOES CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–40,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00019 (D. Nev., January 11, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of civil
rights.

The case arises from the permanent injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated correctional officers
as a result of the Defendants' noncompliance with Administrative
Regulation (AR) 105 and certain institutional operational
procedures that aim to provide a safe and secure working
environment for staff and inmates. The Defendants' failure to
comply with AR 105, including staffing shortage, insufficient
working radios assigned to workers, and lack of weapons, caused the
Plaintiff to sustained substantial bodily harm after an inmate
attacked her at her office. The Defendants should have known the
heightened risk of harm by their choice of non-compliance but they
failed to take any steps to ameliorate the danger.

Nevada Department of Corrections is a governmental agency in the
U.S. state of Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Nicole M. Harvey, Esq.
         BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
         5470 Kietzke Lane, Ste. 200
         Reno, NV 89511
         Telephone: (775) 384-0022
         E-mail: nharvey@bkflaw.com

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hospitals' Claims for Nominal Damages in Doe Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Case No.
18-cv-1039-JD (D.N.H.), the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire granted the motion to dismiss as to the hospitals'
claims for nominal damages and is otherwise denied.

Four individual Plaintiffs brought suit, challenging practices used
by the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services and four New Hampshire hospitals to involuntarily
detain individuals, who experience mental health crises and seek
treatment in hospital emergency rooms. The Plaintiffs' action was
filed as a putative class action against the Commissioner, and a
plaintiff class has now been certified for purposes of the
Plaintiffs' federal claim against the Commissioner, Count I.

The New Hampshire Hospital Association and 20 hospitals were
granted leave to intervene in the action to bring claims against
the Commissioner. The Commissioner moves to dismiss the hospitals'
remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting
sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and a lack of
standing. The hospitals object.

The hospital plaintiffs include the New Hampshire Hospital
Association, Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital, Androscoggin Valley
Hospital and the Catholic Medical Center.

The hospitals allege that the Commissioner requires the hospitals
to examine, evaluate, and board psychiatric patients, who are
subject to involuntary emergency admission ("IEA") certification,
until such time as they are transported to a designated receiving
facility. They bring three federal claims against the Commissioner,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the
Commissioner's practice of boarding IEA-certified persons in their
emergency departments is violating their constitutional rights.

In Count I, the hospitals allege that the Commissioner's boarding
practice constitutes an unlawful taking of their property for
public use in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In
Count II, they allege that the practice interferes with their
possessory rights in their emergency departments which constitutes
an unreasonable seizure of their property in violation of the
Fourth Amendment.

In Count III, they allege that the practice violates their rights
to procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment by seizing and taking their property and denying them
their fundamental right to use their emergency departments. The
hospital plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Commissioner's
practice violates their federal constitutional rights and a
permanent injunction against the practice. They also are requesting
nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Commissioner moves to dismiss the hospitals' claims on the
grounds that the claims are barred by sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment and that the hospitals lack standing to bring
the claims. The hospitals object, arguing that the exception to
sovereign immunity provided under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
(1908), applies to their claims. They also argue that they have
standing to bring their claims. The hospitals allege that the
Commissioner, in her official capacity, is violating their Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights through her policies and
practices with respect to persons, who are experiencing mental
health crises and are certified for involuntary emergency admission
to the mental health services system.

According to District Judge Joseph A. Diclerico, Jr., the
Commissioner is responsible for supervising and administering the
state's mental health services system and the participation of
others in the process does not relieve her of that responsibility.

Judge Diclerico notes that the Commissioner's other arguments in
support of her position that the state is the real party defendant
were addressed in the prior order and were decided against her. Her
argument that the circuit court is responsible for providing
hearings does not implicate the state as the real party in
interest. Any purported disruption in the Commissioner's boarding
practice in order to conform her policies and practices to
constitutional requirements does not convert the hospitals' claims
into claims against the state. Further, funding that is ancillary
to an injunction to stop violations of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights does not make the claims fall outside the
exception to sovereign immunity provided by Ex Parte Young.

Therefore, the Commissioner in her official capacity is the
Defendant in the case, Judge Diclerico holds.

Although the request at the end of the amended complaint is limited
to an injunction to stop violations of state law, in Count III, the
hospitals have requested an injunction to stop the Commissioner's
continuing violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights and ask for a declaratory judgment that the Commissioner is
violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Therefore, Judge
Diclerico states, the Commissioner is mistaken that the hospitals
failed to request relief based on federal law. As previously
stated, although a federal court cannot enjoin violations of state
law, under Ex Parte Young, a federal court can enjoin a state
official sued in her official capacity from continuing to violate
the federal constitution.

In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, the hospitals
seek an award of nominal damages in their federal claims (Counts I,
II, and III). The Commissioner moves to dismiss the claims for
nominal damages as barred by sovereign immunity. The hospitals did
not object or even address that part of the motion to dismiss.

Judge Diclerico opines that the Commissioner, when sued in her
official capacity, is entitled to sovereign immunity from suit
brought in federal court by citizens of New Hampshire, citing
Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100. That immunity includes a bar against
nominal damages. The hospitals cite no exception to sovereign
immunity that would permit that relief here.

Therefore, the hospitals' claims for nominal damages are dismissed.
The Court also holds that the hospitals have standing to maintain
their claims in Counts I, II, and III.

For these reasons, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss is granted
as to the hospitals' claims for nominal damages and is otherwise
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ecr69u from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: United Probation Alleges Job Discriminatory Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf
of its members, JEAN BROWN, TANGA JOHNSON, TARA SMITH, EMMA
STOVALL, and CATHY WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW
YORK and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00218 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly discharge
their obligation to ensure that the employment practices in the
Department of Probation have been non-discriminatory. The
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are engaged in discriminatory
employment practices including but not limited to disparate
employment opportunities such as lack of promotions, suppression of
wages in a segregated workforce, and discriminatory hiring and
compensation practices which have adversely impacted women and
people of color.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, current and former
probation officers have been subjected to a pattern and/or practice
of discrimination in the terms, conditions, benefits, and
privileges of their employment by Defendants based upon the sex,
gender, and/or race of the individual members.

United Probation Officers Association is an association of
probation officers, with offices at 2510 Westchester Avenue, Suite
207, Bronx, New York.

City of New York is a municipality duly incorporated under the laws
of the State of New York and maintains its principal place of
business at 260 Broadway, New York, New York.

New York City Department of Probation is an agency of the City of
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
        
         Yetta G. Kurland, Esq.
         THE KURLAND GROUP
         85 Broad Street, 28th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 253-6911
         Facsimile: (212) 614-2532
         E-mail: kurland@kurlandgroup.com

OMNILIFE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MAGDALENA CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNILIFE USA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV375194 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 12, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Carrillo was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Omnilife USA, Inc. was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Haber, Esq.
          Rachel J. Vinson, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire B1vd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: iustin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  beniamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  rvinson@wilshirelawfirm.com


ON CAMPUS MARKETING: Richwine Suit Alleges Retaliatory Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RICHWINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ON CAMPUS MARKETING, and JOHN DOES #1-5,
JOHN DOES #6-10, AND ABC CORPS #1-10, Defendants, Case No.
MER-L-000073-21 (N.J. Super., Mercer Cty., January 12, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully terminated
the Plaintiff's employment in retaliation of his disclosures of the
inaccuracies in On Campus Marketing's financial statements and his
implication of upper-level management's role in fraudulently
misrepresenting the company's financial position to its lenders and
investors.

The Plaintiff was hired by On Campus Marketing as an assistant
controller in or about June 2019 until his employment was
terminated in June 2020.

On Campus Monitoring, LLC, is a company with a corporate address at
58 Graphics Dr., Trenton, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq.
         LENOX, SOCEY, FORMIDONI, GIORDANO, LANG, CARRIGG & CASEY,
LLC
         136 Franklin Corner Road, Unit B2
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
         Telephone: (609) 896-2000

PAREA GROUP: Filing of Bid for Final Nod of Argudo Deal Due Jan. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY ARGUDO, et al., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAREA GROUP LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-678 (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 directing the Plaintiffs to move for
final approval of the proposed class action settlement no later
than Jan. 21, 2021.

As discussed, and for the reasons stated, on the record during the
telephone conference conducted on Jan. 7, 2021, the Judge directed
the Plaintiffs to make any motion for contempt sanctions by formal
motion no later than Jan. 12, 2021.  The Defendants will file any
opposition no later than Jan. 22, 2021.  Any reply will be filed no
later than Jan. 26, 2021.

The Judge further directed that no later than Jan. 13, 2021, the
counsel for the Defendants will either file a notice of
substitution of counsel; move to withdraw; or indicate that a
change of counsel is not necessary.  Any motion to withdraw should
indicate whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendants intend to oppose
the motion and, if so, propose an expedited schedule for resolving
the motion.

The Plaintiffs will move for final approval of the proposed class
action settlement no later than Jan. 21, 2021.  Any opposition will
be filed no later than Jan. 26, 2021.  No reply may be filed absent
leave of Court.

Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the fairness hearing
will proceed as scheduled on Jan. 28, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. and will
be conducted remotely by teleconference.  At least 24 hours before
the conference, the counsel will send a joint email to the Court
with the names and telephone numbers of those who will have
speaking roles at the conference, and the Court will provide
call-in information to those counsel.  All others -- counsel who
will not have speaking roles, class members, and members of the
public--may listen to the conference by calling the Court's
dedicated conference call line at (888) 363-4749 and using access
code 542-1540 followed by the pound (#) key.

The Judge reminded the parties to follow the procedures for
teleconferences described in the Court's Emergency Individual Rules
and Practices in Light of COVID-19, which are available at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5eovv8j from Leagle.com.


PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: High Court Refuses to Hear Coverage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.'s challenge to a recent
Montana high court ruling that a hotel group's dispute with the
insurer over coverage for a proposed employment class action can be
litigated in Montana. [GN]

POINT 2 POINT: Cotzomi FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PABLO COTZOMI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. POINT 2 POINT GLOBAL SECURITY, INC.;
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE,
LLC; ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES; ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG20080769, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on January 13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00322 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide a proper disclosure and
failing to give a proper summary of rights.

Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. is a woman-owned business
enterprise specializing in physical security services,
headquartered in Forney, Texas.

Universal Protection Service, LP is a private security company in
the United States, headquartered in Santa Ana, California.

Universal Protection Service, LLC is a provider of security guard
services based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Allied Universal Security Services is an American facility services
company, headquartered in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Allied Universal Security Services, LLC is a provider of security
products and services based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                    
         
         Matthew Bobb, Esq.
         HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
         550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
         Telephone: (213) 532-2000
         Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
         E-mail: mbobb@HuntonAK.com

                - and –

         Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq.
         HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
         2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20037-1701
         Telephone: (202) 955-1500
         Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
         E-mail: rquackenboss@HuntonAK.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rottenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rivka Rottenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John
Does l-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00193 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to seek
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 3, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred to U.S.
Bank National Association. The alleged obligation is a "debt." The
Defendant PRA collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.

According to the complaint, on November 3, 2020, the Defendant PRA
sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice (the "Letter")
regarding the alleged debt owed to U.S. Bank National Association.
The Letter states a balance of $1,896.18. The Letter offers two
options regarding the balance: Pay the full amount in either one,
six or twelve payments or choose a "savings plan" that allows the
consumer to pay the balance for a discounted amount in one, twelve
or eighteen consecutive months. The Defendant's letter does not
make any mention of any benefit or incentive to pay the full
balance rather than the discounted amount. Therefore, the consumer
is left confused and misled on which option to choose; on the one
hand the discounted amount saves her money, but on the other hand,
the full payment option must have some benefit or else it would not
even be a consideration.

Yet, Defendant's letter mentions no benefit whatsoever of paying
the full balance, making the letter illogical and leaving the
consumer wondering if there is a "catch" or if this is a real
offer, says the complaint. The Defendant's letter is open to more
than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is
inaccurate, it says. The Plaintiff incurred an informational injury
because the Defendants deceptively makes an offer without properly
qualifying and explaining the offer. As a result of Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices,
Plaintiff has been damaged, adds the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York.

The Defendant PRA is a "debt collector".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 201.


POSH TOT: Fuino Sues Over Member's Unauthorized Use of Firm's Money
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE R. FUINO, derivatively as co-member-manager, on behalf of
nominal Defendant THE POSH TOT, LLC, Plaintiff v. BREANNA E. FUINO,
as putative co-member-manager of THE POSH TOT, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 21-000170-CI (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., January 12,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
fiduciary duty of loyalty and care, conversion, unjust enrichment,
and expulsion.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged withdrawal of money
from Posh Tot's accounts, including, but not limited to, checking,
savings, and PayPal, for her own personal use and benefit without
approval or authorization from the company or other member-manager.
The Defendant also removed cash money from Posh Tot's cashier
drawers and began to remove product from the company's inventory
without approval or authorization.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to enjoin the Defendant's
wrongdoing and expel her as a co-member-manager of the company.

The Posh Tot, LLC is a children's clothing manufacturing company
located in Pinellas County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Jon B. Coats, Jr., Esq.
         J. Patrick Walsh, Esq.
         COATS SCHMIDT, P.A.
         4055 Central Avenue
         St. Petersburg, FL 33713
         Telephone: (727) 456-4462
         Facsimile: (727) 456-4463
         E-mail: Jon@Coats-Schmidt.com
                 Patt@Coats-Schmidt.com

QIWI PLC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Remind of February 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Jan. 11
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Qiwi PLC
("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QIWI) and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased Qiwi American Depository Shares ("ADS," also referred to
as "stock") or other securities between March 28, 2019 and December
9, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are
encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at
(844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Qiwi operates electronic online payment systems primarily in
Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Belarus, Romania, and the United Arab
Emirates.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping
were ineffective, and that, consequently, the Central Bank of
Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose
restrictions upon its ability to make payments to foreign merchants
and transfer money to pre-paid cards.

On December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi filed a Form 6-K
with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of Russia had
imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for deficient
record-keeping and reporting, and had suspended the Company from
conducting most types of payments to foreign merchants and money
transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts.

On this news, the price of Qiwi ADS fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%,
to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Qiwi securities between March 28, 2019 and
December 9, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is February 9, 2021.

              About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

Contacts:
Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Jan. 11
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against QuantumScape Corporation (NYSE: QS)
("QuantumScape") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired QuantumScape publicly traded securities between November
27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased or acquired QuantumScape publicly traded
securities during the Class Period may, no later than March 8,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP (James Maro, Esq. (484-270-1413) or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484-270-1435)); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/quantumscape-corporation-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=qunatumscape#overview

According to the complaint, QuantumScape develops and
commercializes solid-state lithium-metal batteries for electric
vehicles ("EVs"). In 2012, QuantumScape began working with
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("Volkswagen") and Volkswagen
Group of America Investments, LLC ("VGA") to develop an EV battery.
In 2018, Volkswagen, VGA and QuantumScape announced the
establishment of a joint production project to prepare solid-state
batteries for mass production. On September 3, 2020, QuantumScape
announced a merger with Kensington. Upon completion of the
transaction, QuantumScape would receive $1 billion in financing,
including funding from VGA and the Qatar Investment Authority. That
transaction was completed on November 27, 2020, and QuantumScape
Class A common stock and warrants began trading on the NYSE.

On January 4, 2021, prior to the open of trading, Seeking Alpha
published a research report entitled "QuantumScape's Solid State
Batteries Have Significant Technical Hurdles To Overcome." The
introduction of the Seeking Alpha report emphasized that
"QuantumScape's science is very good," "[b]ut their batteries are
small and unproven – not yet as big as an iWatch battery, and
never tested outside a lab," adding that "[t]here are significant
risks associated with solid state batteries that have not been
overcome," and emphasizing that "[t]hey will likely never achieve
the performance they claim."

Following this news, the market prices of QuantumScape publicly
traded securities fell precipitously, with the price of
QuantumScape's Class A common stock declining more than 63% from
its Class Period high of more than $131 per share on December 22,
2020 to close down at $49.96 per share on January 4, 2021,
including a one-day decline of more than $34 per share, or 41%, on
January 4, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (a) QuantumScape's battery technology was not sufficient for
EV performance as it would not be able to withstand the aggressive
automotive environment; (b) QuantumScape's battery technology
likely provided no meaningful improvement over existing battery
technology; (c) the successful commercialization of QuantumScape's
battery technology was subject to much more significant risks and
uncertainties than the defendants had disclosed; and (d) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants materially overstated the
value and prospects of QuantumScape's battery technology.

QuantumScape investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud
class action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to
contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq.
or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.

QuantumScape investors may, no later than March 8, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


RAPI INC: Resto Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Zapoteco, Jorge Rivas, Auner Guardado Hernandez, Carlos
Sebastian Sandobal, Yani Macareno and Fredy Rojas Perez, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Rapi, Inc., Pietro DiMaggio, Raffaele DiMaggio and Lisa DiMaggio,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06335 (E.D. Cal., December 29, 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 an upscale Italian restaurant in Staten Island, New
York under the name "Brioso Ristorante" where Plaintiffs are
restaurant staff. They claim to have generally worked in excess of
40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours
per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays
exceeding 10 hours. Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours
worked despite requiring Plaintiffs to work non-tipped duties for
hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek, says
the complaint. Plaintiffs also claim to have never received wage
statements, it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica E. Harris, Esq.
      Kent Y. Hirozawa
      GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP
      39 Broadway, Suite 2430
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 228-7727
      Email: jharris@grmny.com
             khirozawa@grmny.com

             - and -

       Elizabeth Joynes Jordan, Esq.
       Frank Kearl
       MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
       92-10 Roosevelt Avenue
       Jackson, Heights, NY 11372
       Tel: (718) 565-8500 x4425
       Email: elizabeth.joynesjordan@maketheroadny.org
              frank.kearl@maketheroadny.org


READING, PA: Declaratory Judgment in Ziegler Class Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Alan Ziegler, Nicolas Bene, Lissette Chevalier, Jose
Munoz, and Efrain Caban, Individually and on Behalf of all
Similarly Situated Persons v. The City of Reading and Reading Area
Water Authority, Appeal of: City of Reading, Case No. 1777 C.D.
2019 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge Michael H. Wojcik of the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania affirmed the Court of Common Pleas of Berks
County's Nov. 6, 2019 order reentering declaratory judgment in
favor of the Appellees.

The case returns to the Court for the third time following its
remand to trial court for additional calculations of the cost of
the City's recycling program to include leaf and yard waste
collection costs, prior years' deficits, or anticipated program
costs.

In the appeal, the City challenges the trial court's Nov. 6, 2019
order reentering declaratory judgment in favor of the Appellees
(Residents) upon determining that the City's residential curbside
recycling fee is inconsistent with the Municipal Waste Planning,
Recycling and Waste Reduction Act.  It argues that the trial court
abused its discretion by not complying with the Court's remand
directive and by considering the City's accounting practices as
evidence that its recycling fees violated Act 101.

The City is a third-class city located in Berks County, operating
under a home rule charter.  The Reading Area Water Authority
("RAWA") is a municipal authority created under the Municipality
Authorities Act.  The City delegated the responsibility for solid
waste planning and plan implementation under Section 303(d) of Act
101 to RAWA.  The Residents either reside in or maintain a place of
business in the City and have paid recycling fees to the City or
RAWA.

Under Act 101, cities of the third class operating under a home
rule charter with populations over 10,000 are required to implement
a recycling program.  Pursuant thereto, the City enacted ordinances
establishing its recycling program.  In March 2014, the City
revised its recycling program by enacting Ordinances 20-2014 and
21-2014, which are the subject of the litigation.

Ordinance 20-2014 amended Chapter 496, Part 2 of the City's Code of
Ordinances, which pertains to the storage and collection of solid
waste.  Specifically, Ordinance 20-2014 eliminated a separate
recycling fee and instituted a "Curbside Waste Collection Fee" to
cover the combined costs of collecting municipal waste, recyclable
materials, and organic waste.  Ordinance 21-2014 amended Chapter
212 of the City's Code governing fees by setting the Curbside Fee
at $303.10 per property per year.

Imbedded in the Curbside Fee is a $91.83 user fee for recyclables.
The Recycling Fee applies to owners of residential properties with
four or fewer units.  Although owners are permitted to opt out of
the City's curbside municipal waste service by securing the
services of a private hauler, they are not permitted to opt out of
the City's curbside recycling service.

In June 2014, the Residents filed a three-count class action
Complaint against the City and RAWA, challenging the assessment and
collection of a service fee for curbside recycling.  In Count I,
they sought a declaratory judgment that the Recycling Fee currently
assessed and collected by the City is in violation of the laws of
the Commonwealth, namely, Act 101 and the Solid Waste Management
Act ("SWMA).  By joint request and agreement of the parties, the
trial court considered only Count I and deferred disposition of the
other two counts.

On Dec. 5, 2014, the trial court ruled that the Recycling Fee was
permissible and entered an order granting judgment in favor of the
City.  The trial court later amended its order to facilitate
interlocutory appeal to the Court.

On appeal, an en banc panel of the Court vacated the order and
remanded the matter to the trial court for further analysis
consistent with the Court's then-recent decision in Waste
Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Department of Environmental
Protection, 107 A.3d 273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), in which it held that
recycling fees are not per se prohibited, but the program costs are
subject to scrutiny to ensure that they are fiscally sound and in
compliance with Act 101.

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the trial court
ultimately concluded that the Recycling Fees the City imposed
enabled it to operate its recycling program without properly
pursuing Act 101's purposes of efficiency and self-sufficiency.
Thus, it entered declaratory judgment in favor of Residents on
Count I of their Complaint.

From the decision, the City appealed to the Court, arguing, inter
alia, that the trial court disregarded credible evidence proving
the City's compliance with Act 101.  The Court agreed with the City
on that particular point.  It vacated and remanded for further
calculations to permit the inclusion of such costs in the
calculations, but otherwise affirmed in all other respects.

On remand, the trial court conducted evidentiary hearings.
Ultimately, it concluded that the City failed to present evidence
to prove the efficiency of its recycling program through credible,
reliable testimony or evidence sufficient to satisfy Act 101 under
the Waste Management criteria.  Thus, it reaffirmed the declaratory
judgment previously entered in favor of the Residents that the
City's Recycling Fee was contrary to Act 101.

The appeal follows.  Upon review, Judge Wojcik affirmed.

The City argues that the trial court failed to make the required
calculations in violation of the Court's remand decision and Pa.
R.A.P. 2591.

The Judge opines that the trial court, as fact-finder, properly
exercised its discretion over evidentiary weight and credibility
determinations.  The Court is bound by the trial court's
credibility determinations.  There is no support for the City's
position that the trial court was required to accept any evidence
proffered by the City, without considering its veracity or
reliability, and apply it to the calculation.  The City had alleged
that these costs, if proven, would justify its Recycling Fees.

The trial court followed the Court's remand order by providing the
City an opportunity to present evidence and by fully considering
the same before reaching its determination.  Ultimately, the trial
court determined that, despite numerous opportunities, the City
failed to offer credible evidence regarding these other costs to
justify its Recycling Fees and defend the efficiency of its
recycling program.  The Judge discerns no abuse of discretion in
that regard.

Next, the City contends that the trial court abused its discretion
by considering the City's accounting practice of including certain
costs, which were unquestionably recycling costs, in the General
Fund, rather than the recycling enterprise fund when calculating
the efficiency and self-sufficiency of the City's recycling
program.

The Judge holds that Act 101 does not require the City to account
for its costs in a particular way.  However, once the Residents
presented evidence tending to show that the ordinances had a
negative effect on the efficiency and self-sufficiency of the
recycling program, it was up to the City to rebut this evidence.
Despite multiple opportunities, the City simply failed to offer
credible evidence that costs related to recycling and accounted for
elsewhere in the budget were legitimately covered by its Recycling
Fee or were otherwise factored into the program's efficiencies.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2gnr6j7 from Leagle.com.


REALPAGE INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Lamoureux, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that as a litigator,
there's nothing more important than pleading your case - and a
recent case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reminds us
that in litigation, more often than not, there are no chances for
do-overs.

In Kelly v. Realpage, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01706-JDW, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 842 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2021), plaintiffs brought a putative
class action alleging that Realpage had violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) in collecting and disclosing information about
eviction proceedings. The court, however, denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
court found that plaintiffs' proposed classes were not
ascertainable, as there was no easy way to tell which potential
class members' file contained a public record and could fall within
the class, and that individual inquiries predominated over current
issues. Two weeks after the court issued the opinion, Plaintiffs
moved for reconsideration based on three purportedly "new" pieces
of evidence: excerpts of two depositions, taken in February 2020
and November 2020, and a declaration from December 2020.

With respect to the February and November depositions, the court
found that the evidence was not new. The February deposition took
place months before the parties briefed Plaintiffs' class
certification motion, and Plaintiffs had even included another
excerpt of the declaration in their class certification motion --
so it was not "new". The November deposition was also taken before
the court ruled on the motion, and the court explained that
Plaintiffs had ample opportunities to put that evidence before the
court, including by filing a supplemental brief. Because Plaintiffs
had both the February and November depositions available before the
court ruled, the court found that they could not be considered
"new" for the purposes of a reconsideration motion. Plaintiffs had
previously had the opportunity to put both pieces of evidence
before the court, but had made the choice not to.

The court also considered the December declaration, which
Plaintiffs had obtained after the court had already ruled on class
certification - but Plaintiffs did not explain why they had waited
until after the ruling to obtain the declaration. The court noted
that the issue that was the topic of the declaration - whether a
manual search would be needed to determine class members - had been
disputed in the briefing on the class certification motion, and
Plaintiffs could have obtained the declaration then. Instead, as
the court put it: "they got [the] declaration so that they could
respond to the Court's ruling. But that's not how litigation
works."

Because the Kelly court found that the evidence was not "new", it
also denied Plaintiffs leave to file a new class certification
motion, finding that there was not "good cause" to amend the
parties' scheduling order. The court noted that scheduling orders
are intended to keep cases moving forward, which could not happen
"if parties could file renewed motions any time they thought of a
way to address a court's decision."

Kelly also demonstrates the critical importance of following the
local rules, which can make or break a case. Plaintiff had argued
that class members could be identified administratively with the
aid of computers -- but did so in a footnote. The court found that
Plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden in arguing the point and
noted that the judge's policies and procedures explained that the
court would not consider substantive arguments raised in footnotes
-- so even if the argument had been properly supported, the court
would not have considered it.

As Kelly demonstrates, the applicable rules of civil procedure can
have just as much of an impact on the outcome of a case as the
merits. Your time before the court is valuable - and limited. [GN]


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Austin Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIE AUSTIN, JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-587314, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on January 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00191 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay lawful wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest periods,
failure to pay wages upon separation of employment and within the
required time, failure to pay overtime, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. is a provider of automotive glass
fulfillment services, with a principal place of business in
Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         M. Leah Cameron, Esq.
         CDF LABOR LAW LLP
         600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 981-3233
         E-mail: lcameron@cdflaborlaw.com

SINAI I INC: Faces Jenkins Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FREDDRICK, JR JENKINS and CORDELL JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs
v. SINAI I INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00135 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Executive
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law including
discrimination, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
failure to provide wage notices, and unpaid minimum wage.

Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Johnson were employed by the Defendant as
ambulette drivers from July 2018 until December 2018 and from July
2017 until March 2019, respectively.

Sinai I Inc. is a transportation company with its principal place
of business located at 259 Burnside Avenue Lawrence, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Ismail S. Sekendiz, Esq.
         SEKENDIZ LAW GROUP P.C.
         45 Broadway Suite: 1420
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 380-8087
         E-mail: isinan@hotmail.com

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Estrada Sues Over Misleading SEC Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO ESTRADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEWART
BUTTERFIELD, ANDREW BRACCIA, EDITH COOPER, SARAH FRIAR SHEILA
JORDAN, MIKE McNAMARA, JOHN O'FARRELL, GRAHAM SMITH,
SALESFORCE.COM, INC., SKYLINE STRATEGIES I INC., and SKYLINE
STRATEGIES II LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00180 (N.D. Cal.,
January 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially
deficient Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2020 in support
of the proposed acquisition of Slack Technologies, Inc. by
Salesforce.com, Inc. The Registration Statement omits and/or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of
interest for management; (b) the financial projections for Slack
and Salesforce, provided by Slack and Salesforce to Slack's
financial advisors Qatalyst Partners L.P. and Goldman Sachs & Co.,
LLC; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses, if any, that purport to support the fairness opinions
created by Qatalyst and Goldman and provide to Slack and the Board.
The Registration Statement deprives Slack's stockholders of the
information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational
decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the proposed
transaction, and is thus in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary
duties. Moreover, the Individual Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure
by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Slack without first taking
steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class members would obtain
adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances;
and (ii) engineering the proposed transaction to benefit themselves
and/or Salesforce without regard for Slack public stockholders.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek to enjoin the proposed
transaction and compel the Individual Defendants to properly
exercise their fiduciary duties to Slack stockholders.

Slack Technologies, Inc. is a business technology software company,
with its principal place of business at 500 Howard Street, San
Francisco, California.

Salesforce.com, Inc. is a developer of enterprise cloud computing
solutions, with its primary place of business at Salesforce Tower,
415 Mission Street, 3rd Fl., San Francisco, California.

Skyline Strategies I Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Salesforce.com, Inc.

Skyline Strategies II LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Salesforce.com, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
         BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
         9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (877) 534-2590
         Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
         E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com

SOBE USA: Penalba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMARAY PENALBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOBE USA, LLC d/b/a OCEANS 10, Defendant,
Case No. 119390524 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., January
11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender and server at
Oceans 10 restaurant in Florida from on or about May 2014 through
on or about January 2020.

Sobe USA, LLC, doing business as Oceans 10, is a restaurant owner
and operator location in Miami Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Henry Hernandez, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF HENRY HERNANDEZ, P.A.
         2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 771-3374
         E-mail: Henry@hhlawflorida.com

                  - and –

         Monica Espino, Esq.
         ESPINO LAW
         2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 704-3172
         E-mail: me@espino-law.com

SOLARWINDS CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Jan. 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of investors that purchased SolarWinds
Corporation (NYSE: SWI) securities between February 24, 2020 and
December 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March
5, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

On December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating that,
last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the company
that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the
password 'solarwinds123.'" The article also disclosed that,
according to Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based
cybersecurity company Huntress, "days after SolarWinds realized
their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were
still available for download."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to
close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020.

The complaint, filed on January 4, 2021, alleges that 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.

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

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contacts:

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


SOLARWINDS CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI)
investors that acquired shares between February 24, 2020 and
December 15, 2020. Investors have until March 12, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

On December 13, 2020, it was reported in Reuters that the IT
systems of federal government agencies were penetrated by
state-sponsored hackers, who manipulated software updates released
by SolarWinds. On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed that its
Orion monitoring product was targeted by hackers, which interfered
with updates between March and June 2020. On December 14, 2020,
shares of SolarWinds dropped by 17% based on this news.

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 12,
2021.

Please visit our website, https://portnoylaw.com/solarwinds, to
review more information and submit your transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


SPLUNK INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts Splunk investors that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Splunk
stock or other securities (NASDAQ:SPLK) between August 26, 2020 and
December 2, 2020. SPLK investors may visit
www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/ to learn about the case and the
lead plaintiff process. Investors may also email
investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/

Splunk investors have until February 2, 2021 to apply to be a lead
plaintiff. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to
be eligible to recover as class members. The case alleges that
Splunk and its senior executives made misleading statements to
investors and failed to disclose that: (a) Splunk was facing
pushback from clients across its largest and most important
accounts as it attempted to implement a new pricing model and
secure customer renewals; (b) Splunk had failed to close several
deals with its largest customers; and (c) Splunk had fallen far
behind previously announced financial targets.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing the class action and can select a law
firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested Splunk investors have
until February 2, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class
has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors
are not represented by an attorney.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys represent individual and
institutional investors in lawsuits to recover damages caused by
violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established
track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/ [GN]


ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Magistrate Recommends Mock Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELANIE MOCK, On Behalf of Herself and Others
Similarly Situated v. ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
LLP, Case No. A-19-CV-611-RP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew
W. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division, recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion to
Dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice.

The case is a putative class action suit in which Plaintiff Mock
asserts Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act and
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act claims against Defendant St.
David's.  Mock asserts that St. David's improperly charged her and
other patients hidden emergency department fees for "overhead
expenses" in the form of a surcharge.

The Plaintiff seeks to proceed on behalf of all patients who
received treatment at St. David's Emergency Room and who were
charged certain emergency department fees.  Mock filed the suit in
state court and St. David's removed the suit to the Court pursuant
to the authority granted in the Class Action Fairness Act.

After removal, St. David's asked the Court to dismiss the case with
prejudice on several grounds.  With minor exceptions, the motion
was denied, based on the report and recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Austin.  Mock, thereafter, requested that the Court permits
her to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  She notes that the case was
removed under CAFA.  Although neither the Plaintiff nor the
Defendants have previously raised the application of the exception
in the case, the Plaintiff now believes that at least two-thirds of
emergency room patients at the Defendant's hospitals must
necessarily be citizens of the State of Texas and that only a very
small minority of patients are likely to be citizens of other
states who experienced a need for emergency room medical treatment
during their stay in Texas.

After noting that two federal district courts had recently
dismissed nearly identical suits sua sponte based on the two-thirds
exception, Mock states that she believes the propriety of the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction is likely to be put into
question sooner or later in the cause, either by the Defendants or
by the Court, and thus she believes the case is proper to dismiss
at the present time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) before the Court
must take up any additional dispositive matters in the cause.

St. David's opposed the motion.  Its primary contention is that
Mock's objections to jurisdiction are untimely, and should have
been raised sooner.  It also argued that Mock has failed to carry
her burden that CAFA's "local controversy" and "home state"
exceptions apply, and also argues that the case implicates certain
federal policies.  It also contends that dismissal of the case at
this juncture would prejudice St. David's because it would require
it to duplicate work and incur significant additional costs.

In her reply, Mock states that she too would prefer to keep the
case in federal court, but has concerns that the exception to
jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4) is mandatory, and
might be raised at a later time, by St. David's or sua sponte by
the Court.  She concedes that facially, the Court has jurisdiction
under CAFA and that if the Court agrees with the Defendant that the
lapse of time or other reasons makes it too late to raise any
jurisdiction exceptions, and if the Court is content to hear the
case regardless of any potential exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction,
then the Plaintiff has no problem with the case continuing to be
litigated in federal court.

However, if the Court determines that an exception to its
jurisdiction applies and prevents the action from being heard in
federal court, then the suit should be dismissed without prejudice
and without penalty to the Plaintiff.  After all, it was the
Defendant that removed the case to federal court, but she is
content to have the case remain in the Court.

Magistrate Judge Austin explains that in spite of the fact that the
case has been pending in the Court for 19 months, it is
(regrettably) still in its very initial stages.  Indeed, all that
has happened is the resolution of an initial motion to dismiss
filed by St. David's that was largely rejected, and during its
pendency the case was stayed.  It was St. David's that removed the
case, surely knowing full well that the case fell within the scope
of the mandatory abstention provisions of Section 1332(d)(4)(A) and
(B).  And it was St. David's that almost immediately after removal
filed a motion to dismiss, which it renewed upon an amendment by
Mock, and it sought a stay of the case while it was pending.

Given that straight out of the box Mock was defending a motion to
dismiss her claims--that was not ruled upon by the Court until
September of 2020--seeking the voluntary dismissal of the case
eight days later based on a concern that the home state and local
controversy exceptions may cause the dismissal anyway, was
"reasonable."  It is additionally true in light of the COVID-19
pandemic which has slowed the work of many courts, this one
included.

The Magistrate Judge adds that the timing of Mock's motion is
reasonable--from the outset Mock was defending a motion to dismiss,
the case is still in its preliminary stages, and the parties have
not engaged in discovery.  Although more time than the Court would
prefer has passed since removal, very little has actually occurred
to move the case forward.  Mock is not attempting to avoid an
adverse ruling as she largely prevailed on St. David's motion to
dismiss.  Additionally, no limitations defense is adversely
affected by her motion.  If anything, the Plaintiffs may suffer
some statute of limitations damage through dismissal.  All of this
supports allowing Mock to voluntarily dismiss the case.

In its final request, St. David's asks that if the Court permits
the dismissal of the case, the dismissal be conditioned on Mock
paying St. David's attorneys' fees and costs incurred while the
case was pending.  The Magistrate Judge rules that imposing a
condition that Mock pays St. David's attorneys' fees is not
warranted.

First, in large part, the fees St. David's incurred in the case
were due to its own action in removing a case to federal court it
knew fell within that the exceptions to jurisdiction.  St.
David's--not Mock--was in possession of the relevant facts on that
issue.  Second, the case has not progressed very far, despite the
length of time it has been pending.  St. David's has not invested
substantial time and effort in this case to date, and there is
little reason to believe that the work it has done on the case in
the Court will not have value when the case is refiled in state
court.

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, Magistrate Judge
Austin recommended that the District Court grants the Plaintiff's
Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses the case without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).  He directed the Clerk to remove the
case from his docket and return it to the docket of Judge Robert
Pitman.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6kmdhuo from
Leagle.com.


STATE FARM: Vogt's Bid to Shift Notice & Distribution Costs Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL VOGT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:16-cv-04170-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
an order shifting to State Farm the costs of notice and
distribution of net damages.

The Supreme Court has held that courts must not stray too far from
the principle that the representative plaintiff should bear all
costs relating to the sending of notice because it is he who seeks
to maintain the suit as a class action, citing Oppenheimer Fund,
Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 359 (1978). Ordinarily there is no
warrant for shifting the cost of the representative plaintiff's
performance of those tasks necessary to send the class notice to
the defendant.

Some courts have shifted the cost of notice to defendants after
liability has been established. However, those cases largely
involved scenarios not presented in the instant case, District
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey notes, citing Macarz v. Transworld Sys.,
Inc., 201 F.R.D. 54, 59 (D. Conn. 2001), et al.

Judge Laughrey finds that the Plaintiffs have pointed to no special
circumstances warranting the shifting of costs associated with
providing notice.  Moreover, the costs associated with the class
notice ($32,795.61), which represent less than .08% of the damages
award with prejudgment interest, are not substantial relative to
the common fund.

The Plaintiffs' request to shift the costs of distributing the
common fund to the class also is denied for similar reasons, Judge
Laughrey rules. The only authority that they cite in support of
their position that the costs of distribution should be shifted is
distinguishable.  Finding no basis to shift the costs of
distribution -- which are estimated to be $61,947, or just .16% of
the common fund without post-judgment interest, the Court must
decline the motion to shift those costs.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion to shift to State Farm
the costs associated with notice and the costs of distribution is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xh4xlk from Leagle.com.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bare Consumers Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SUZANNE BARE and MICHAEL NICKEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01743, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00478 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law by manufacturing and selling the 2015-2019
Subaru Legacy, 2012-2018 Subaru Forester, and 2015-2019 Subaru
Outback vehicles with a defective brake override system.

Subaru of America, Inc. is the United States-based distributor of
Subaru's brand vehicles, headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
         CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
         110 Laurel Street
         San Diego, CA 92101-1486
         Telephone: (619) 238-1811
         Facsimile: (619) 544-9232

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 275-5272
         Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
         E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                 jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

                - and –

         John G. Emerson, Esq.
         EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
         2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
         Houston, TX 77042
         Telephone: (800) 551-8649
         Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
         E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

THAI UNION: Settles Canned Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mutter, writing for IntraFish, reports that Thai Union has
reached a final agreement to settle the class-action lawsuit by
customers.

Thai Union subsidiary Tri-Union Seafoods was one of the United
States's canned tuna producers to be caught up in accusations of
price-fixing. [GN]


TORRI OHIO: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Quinlan Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA QUINLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TORRID OHIO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00119-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 11, 2021) brings this
complaint seeking damages against the Defendant pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
warehouse worker, asserts that the Defendant did not compensate him
and other similarly situated warehouse workers for the time they
spent performing pre-shift duties as well as for the 30-minutes
meal breaks which they are required to clock-out. As a result,
although they regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek,
the Defendant failed to pay them all of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit
says.

Torrid Ohio, LLC operates a Distribution Center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Tel: (614) 610-4134
          Fax: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com


TRANSUNION LLC: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Argentine, Esq., Emily Kesler, Esq., and Esther McDonald,
Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
the United States Supreme Court has again granted a petition to
examine standing in the context of class actions, specifically
whether Article III of the Constitution permits members of a
certified class to recover money damages when members of the
certified class suffered no actual injury. This issue was presented
to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion and
order in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020),
finding absent class members in a class action brought under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") had Article III standing where
it was undisputed that, in the case of the majority of the
certified class members, allegedly inaccurate credit information
was not disclosed to any third party. The Supreme Court's
consideration of the issues presented in Ramirez will allow the
Court to provide more defined boundaries on what type of
"intangible" harm suffered by absent class members can constitute a
"concrete" injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, an
issue largely left open after the Supreme Court's prior landmark
decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. 2016).

I. Case Background.

The Ramirez case arose when the named plaintiff, Sergio Ramirez,
brought a putative class action against a consumer reporting agency
("CRA") alleging violations under the FCRA. The credit files of
Ramirez and other class members included an alert indicating that
they potentially matched the name of a person on the United States
government's list of Specially Designated Nationals ("SDN"), which
if true, would prohibit companies from doing business with those
individuals. Ramirez alleged that he suffered difficulty in
obtaining credit and embarrassment in front of family members when
an automobile dealer received a credit report allegedly indicating
that it could not do business with Ramirez. Ramirez testified that
he was embarrassed, shocked, and scared when he learned of this
alert and his potential inclusion on the SDN List. Ramirez
requested a copy of his credit report, which once received did not
indicate that he was on the SDN List. However, the next day,
Ramirez received a separate letter from the CRA (the "OFAC Letter")
making him aware that he was considered a potential match on the
SDN List. The OFAC Letter was not accompanied by a summary of
rights form.

As a result, Ramirez ultimately initiated a class action alleging
three violations of the FCRA, seeking to represent a class that
included "all natural persons in the United States and its
Territories to whom [the CRA] sent a letter similar in form to the
[OFAC Letter] [that the CRA] sent to [Ramirez] . . . from January
1, 2011-July 26, 2011." In other words, everyone in the class: (1)
was labeled by the CRA as a potential SDN List match; (2) requested
a copy of his or her credit file from the CRA; and (3) in response,
received a mailing with the SDN List alert redacted and a separate
OFAC Letter mailing with no summary of rights form.

The district court rejected the CRA's arguments that the injury
suffered by Ramirez was atypical to that of the class, and
certified a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Notably, the parties stipulated that this class
included 8,185 consumers, and that, out of those 8,185 consumers,
only 1,853 consumers actually had their credit reports requested by
a potential credit grantor during the relevant class period,
meaning that the CRA did not furnish credit reports to third
parties during the class period for the remaining 6,332 class
members. The case went to trial, and the jury heard primarily about
the experiences and injury suffered by Ramirez, and awarded every
member of the 8,185-member class near the maximum in statutory
damages and thousands more in punitive damages, for a total award
of over $60 million. Ramirez did not provide evidence that any
other class member actually read the OFAC Letter from the CRA or
was even aware that such a letter had been sent, and did not prove
that any other class member ever suffered injury (or even
embarrassment) on account of the claimed deficiencies in how the
CRA provided the "potential match" information.

II. Ninth Circuit Analysis.

The CRA appealed the jury verdict to the Ninth Circuit, arguing (1)
the verdict could not stand because none of the class members other
than Ramirez had standing under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution; (2) the class should not have been certified because
Ramirez's claims were not typical of the class's claims; and (3)
additional arguments regarding the statutory and punitive damage
awards.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's
rulings regarding Article III and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, and also reduced the punitive damages award. The Ninth Circuit
first considered the challenge to the absent class members' Article
III standing. The Ninth Circuit first held that when a class is
certified for money damages, each individual class member must
establish standing at the final (damages) phase of the litigation.
However, the Ninth Circuit went on to conclude that each absent
class member had suffered an injury sufficient to satisfy Article
III where the CRA had allegedly incorrectly placed SDN List alerts
on the front page of consumers' credit files and later sent the
consumers "confusing and incomplete disclosures" in the form of the
OFAC Letters about the alerts and how to remove them. The Ninth
Circuit determined that the CRA's alleged violation of the
consumers' notification rights under the FCRA, by itself,
constituted a concrete injury even if a class members credit file
had not been disclosed to a third party.

In doing so, the Ninth Circuit interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's
2016 ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. 2016)
("Spokeo II") and applied a "risk-of-harm" theory in analyzing
whether absent class members suffered concrete harm sufficient to
confer Article III standing even if their credit reports were not
furnished to third parties. The Ninth Circuit relied upon language
in Spokeo II that states that concrete harm sufficient to confer
Article III standing can be intangible, and there is sufficient
injury in fact when a defendant's statutory violation creates a
"risk of real harm" to a plaintiff's concrete interest. The Ninth
Circuit reasoned that the fact that the CRA would have provided a
class member's report to numerous potential creditors and employers
if they had requested it was sufficient to show a material risk of
harm to the concrete interests of all class members.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the CRA's challenge under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that, even if the absent class members
had Article III standing, they could not be properly represented by
an atypical named plaintiff who suffered far greater and different
injuries. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that all class members' claims
arose from the same event or practice and were based upon the same
legal theory.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown penned a dissent concluding that only the
1,853 consumers whose credit reports were requested by a potential
credit grantor had Article III standing to assert a claim. Judge
McKeown argued that the majority's conclusion that every class
member suffered Article III injury-in-fact simply because the CRA's
credit files contained allegedly inaccurate information about them
could not be reconciled with prior Supreme Court precedent such as
Spokeo II. She also pointed to several decisions from other U.S.
Courts of Appeals that found no Article III standing where there
was a mere existence of inaccurate information in a credit file
without dissemination to any third party. Judge McKeown observed
that Congress's main concern in enacting the FCRA was the
"dissemination of inaccurate information, not its mere existence in
the . . . database." See, e.g., Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Ass'n, Inc., et al., v. United States Department of Transportation
et al., 879 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

III. U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition, Possible Repercussions.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the CRA's petition for certiorari in
order to review whether either Article III of the Constitution or
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits class members to recover
money damages when members of the certified class suffered no
actual injury, let alone an injury similar to what the class
representative suffered.

The Supreme Court has long held that Article III standing requires
a plaintiff to establish that she suffered an "injury in fact" that
is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent." See,
e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Spokeo
II explains that mere statutory violations on their own are
insufficient to confer Article III standing absent sufficient
concrete injury. Spokeo II, 136 S. Ct. at 1547–49. Importantly,
the Court in Spokeo II explicitly recognized that a violation of
one of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm,
while also instructing that an alleged procedural violation can by
itself manifest concrete injury where Congress conferred the
procedural right to protect a plaintiff's concrete interests and
where the procedural violation presents a risk of real harm to that
concrete interest. Id. at 1550.

The Supreme Court's decision will resolve an apparent Circuit split
created by the decision in Ramirez, and recognized by the dissent.
The D.C. Circuit and other circuits have held that individuals who
never had their information disseminated to third parties cannot
claim Article III injury in an FCRA claim based on the bare fact
that inaccurate information sat inchoate in a database. See, e.g.,
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
879 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Nor do other circuits allow
individuals to claim injury in-fact merely because they were sent a
purportedly incomplete disclosure that they may not have read, let
alone found confusing. See, e.g., Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc., 946
F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2020).

The Supreme Court's ruling is sure to affect future class action
litigation and issues of standing, especially for claims under the
FCRA. Will we have another Spokeo II on our hands, raising the bar
further on Article III standing for absent class members? Will the
reasoning of the Ninth Circuit majority's position or Judge
McKeown's dissent win the day? We'll be sure to let you know. [GN]


TRICEDA INC: Portnoy Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Triceda, Inc. ("Triceda" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA) investors that acquired securities between
September 4, 2019 through October 28, 2020.  

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Triceda made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Tricida's NDA in regard to veverimer was
materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely
that the NDA for veverimer would not be accepted by the FDA; and
(iii) as a result, the Triceda's public statements were materially
misleading and false at all relevant times.

Tricida issued a press release on July 15, 2020 announcing that, on
July 14, 2020, the it had received a notification from the FDA
which stated that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the
Company's NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies
that preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing
requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he
notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the
FDA." Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share on this news, or
40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.

Then, on October 29, 2020, an update was announced by Triceda on
its End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA in regard to the
veverimer NDA, which advised investors that the Company "now
believes the FDA will also require evidence of veverimer's effect
on CKD progression from a near-term interim analysis of the
VALOR-CKD trial for approval under the Accelerated Approval Program
and that the FDA is unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate
data for determination of efficacy." Tricida disclosed concurrently
that it "is significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59
people and will discuss its commitments with vendors and contract
service providers to potentially provide additional financial
flexibility." Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share on this
news, or 47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


TRICIDA INC: Scott+Scott Attorney Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Jan. 13
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Tricida,
Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA) and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased Tricida stock or other securities between September 4,
2019 and October 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered
losses, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Tricida is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development
and commercialization of its drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), a
non-absorbed, orally-administered polymer designed as a potential
treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic kidney
disease.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient, and,
therefore, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept the NDA
for veverimer.

On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing "that
on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stating that, as part of its
ongoing review of the Company's New Drug Application (NDA)" for
Tricida's drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), "the FDA has
identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and
postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time."

On this news, Tricida's stock price fell sharply $10.56 per share,
or 40.31%, to close at $15.64 July 16, 2020.

Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility."

On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or
47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Tricida securities between September 4, 2019 and
October 28, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is March 8, 2021.

             About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN]


TRITERRAS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Jan. 13 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

BRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1
TRIT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1
TCDA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY)

Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates
inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Berry had materially
overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's
operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably
necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the
Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing
would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TRIT)

TRIT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 20, 2020
- December 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on
Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos
platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities
that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3)
that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the
Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA)

TCDA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 4,
2019 - October 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, 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.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


TRITERRAS INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Jan. 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: TRIT,
TRITW) from August 20, 2020 through December 16, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Triterras, Inc. investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: the extent to which the
Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with
Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") to refer users to the
Kratos platform; that Rhodium faced significant financial
liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going
concern; that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users
to the Company's Kratos platform; and that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Triterras'
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:

Vik Pawar, Esq.  
Pawar Law Group  
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410  
New York, NY 10007  
Tel: (917) 261-2277  
Fax: (212) 571-0938  
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


TSC DIGITAL: Blecha Suit Alleges Misclassification, Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BLECHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TSC DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-WJE (W.D. Mo., January 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and  the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to
timely pay wages, and unjust enrichment under Arkansas Common Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a satellite
installation and repair technician but was treated as an
independent contractor from in or around October 2019 until he was
terminated for taking on a job request from another company in
September 10, 2020.

TSC Digital Entertainment, Inc. is a satellite entertainment
service company, headquartered in Fort Smith, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         John F. Edgar, Esq.
         Ryan J. Loehr, Esq.
         EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
         2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 531-0033
         Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
         E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                 rjl@edgarlawfirm.com

                 - and –

         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (860) 526-1100
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

                 - and –

         Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 235-2416
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: csekino@sfmslaw.com

                 - and –

         Monique Olivier, Esq.
         OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
         201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
         San Francisco, CA 94133
         Telephone: (415) 484-0980
         E-mail: monique@osclegal.com

TURQUOISE HILL: Faces Securities Class Action in Montreal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. ("Turquoise Hill" or the "Company")
on Jan. 11 disclosed that Oyu Tolgoi LLC (Oyu Tolgoi) has evaluated
the Tax Act ("2016-2018 Tax Assessment") claim for approximately
US$228 million from the Mongolian Tax Authority (MTA), as announced
on December 23, 2020, including the seeking of a reduction of Oyu
Tolgoi's carried-forward tax losses by approximately US$1.5
billion.

On February 20, 2020, the Company announced Oyu Tolgoi had been
unable to reach resolution of its previously-announced dispute with
the MTA with respect to the 2013-2015 Tax Assessment and would be
proceeding with the initiation of a formal international
arbitration proceeding (Arbitration) in accordance with the dispute
resolution provisions within Chapter 14 of the Oyu Tolgoi
Investment Agreement (IA) entered into with the Government of
Mongolia in 2009 and Chapter 8 of the Oyu Tolgoi Underground Mine
Development and Financing Plan (UDP) entered into with the
Government of Mongolia in 2015. The dispute resolution provisions
call for an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London before a panel of
three arbitrators.

Oyu Tolgoi has given notice of its intention to apply to the
Tribunal in the Arbitration for leave to amend its Statement of
Claim to include the issues raised in the 2016-2018 Tax
Assessment.

As many of the matters raised in the 2016-2018 Tax Assessment are
of a similar nature to the matters raised in the 2013-2015 Tax
Assessment, Oyu Tolgoi believes amending its Statement of Claim is
an efficient and effective means of reaching resolution on both tax
assessments. Turquoise Hill remains of the view that Oyu Tolgoi LLC
has paid all taxes and charges required under the IA, the Amended
and Restated Shareholder Agreement, the UDP and Mongolian law.

In addition, the Government of Mongolia has advised Rio Tinto that
it is dissatisfied with the results of the Definitive Estimate,
which was completed and delivered by Rio Tinto and publicly
announced by the Company on December 18, 2020, and is concerned
that the significant increase in the development costs of the Oyu
Tolgoi project has eroded the economic benefits it anticipated to
receive therefrom. The Government of Mongolia has indicated that if
the Oyu Tolgoi project is not economically beneficial to the
country, it would be necessary to review and evaluate whether it
can proceed. The Government of Mongolia has stressed the importance
of achieving a comprehensive solution that addresses both financial
issues between the shareholders of Oyu Tolgoi as well as economic
and social issues of importance to Mongolia, such as water usage,
tax payments, and social issues related to employees, in order to
implement the Oyu Tolgoi project successfully. In particular, the
Government of Mongolia has expressed its intention to initiate
discussions with respect to the termination and replacement of the
UDP.

While acknowledging Oyu Tolgoi's significant contributions to
Mongolia, Turquoise Hill is nevertheless committed to engaging
immediately with the Government of Mongolia and Rio Tinto to
address the UDP and revisit the sharing of economic benefits
arising from the Oyu Tolgoi project in the context of agreeing on a
comprehensive financing plan as well as addressing the other issues
raised.

Proposed Class Action

A legal proceeding in the Superior Court in the District of
Montreal has been served initiating a proposed class action against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The
claim alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
material omissions with respect to, among other things, the
schedule, cost and progress to completion of the development of Oyu
Tolgoi in violation of, among other things, sections 225.8, 225.9
and 225.11 of the Quebec Securities Act. The Company believes that
the complaint against it is without merit. [GN]


TYSON FOODS: Settles Price Collusion Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kim Souza, writing for TBP, reports that Tyson Foods followed
Pilgrim's Pride in agreeing to settle a class-action price
collusion lawsuit in the courts for the past four years. Tyson
Foods said it reached an "agreement in principle" to settle the
civil suit, but the company provided no details about how much that
will cost.

"Tyson believes the resolution is in the best interests of the
company and its shareholders, and the settlement does not
constitute an admission of liability," company spokesman Gary
Mickelson told Talk Business & Politics on Tuesday (Jan. 12).

The Tyson settlement is subject to court approval and a joint
notice of settlement was filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs
on Jan. 11 as a first step in the court approval process, Mickelson
said. The settlement comes a day after Pilgrim's Pride announced a
$75 million settlement in the class-action litigated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Tyson Foods is in the 60-day quiet period ahead of its fiscal 2021
first-quarter earnings report in mid-February. At that time, Tyson
may provide details of the settlement cost and the impact on
earnings.

Timothy Mulreinin, a former Tyson Foods director of sales, was one
of 10 poultry executives indicted on federal antitrust charges in
October. Tyson received leniency accommodations from the Department
of Justice who said the company proactively self-reported details
pertinent to the investigation. [GN]


UBER EATS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Exorbitant Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julien Arsenault, writing for Canadian Press, reports that a Quebec
restaurant is launching a class-action lawsuit against food
delivery companies for the alleged exorbitant and abusive
commissions they are charging during the pandemic.

Montreal restaurant Deli Boyz is the lead plaintiff in the case
that is targeting food delivery companies that operate smartphone
applications, including Uber Eats, DoorDash and SkipTheDishes.

The restaurant says the commissions these companies demand are in
excess of 15 per cent, which the applicant says are abusive during
a pandemic because restaurants are limited to takeout as indoor
dining is banned.

The Quebec Superior Court filing -- which needs to be authorized by
a judge -- seeks damages equal to the money paid to these companies
in commissions charged above 15 per cent of customers' orders,
since Jan. 8. It is also requesting a judge bar the defendants from
charging a commission above 15 per cent of the total customer
order.

"There can be no doubt that by maintaining these same high
commissions during the pandemic and curfew period -- when food
delivery orders skyrocketed -- that Uber Eats' commissions are
abusive and that it acted contrary to the requirements of good
faith," the filing reads.

Deli Boyz says between Dec. 27, 2020 and Jan. 4, 2021, it paid Uber
Eats $737 in commissions for 67 orders totalling about $2,550.

According to the filing, if the cap had been set at 15 per cent,
the commissions would have totalled $368. "Consequently, an
excessive disproportion exists when the defendants charge
restaurants commissions in excess of 15 per cent," the filing
reads.

Lawyer Joey Zukran, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Deli Boyz on
Jan. 11, said it could take up to one year for a judge to authorize
the class action and even longer for the case to be heard on its
merits.

Zukran said restaurants have little choice but to work with food
delivery companies that use smartphone applications. "In order to
stay competitive and relevant, they have no choice."

Places such as New York, California, British Columbia and Ontario,
however, have capped delivery commissions at 15 per cent of
customers' orders. "So restaurants in Montreal have been saying,
'Why do I have to pay double what a similar restaurant in Toronto
has to pay?'" Zukran said.

In a emailed statement, Uber spokesman Jonathan Hamel did not
directly comment on the class action. "Uber Eats supports
restaurants by driving demand with marketing campaigns, eliminating
activation fees, instituting daily payments, and providing flexible
options," he said.

On Jan. 9, Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante called on the Quebec
government to temporarily cap delivery commissions to ensure
profitability for restaurant owners.

Premier Francois Legault told reporters on Jan. 11 he was open to
looking at the issue of commissions, but appeared hesitant when
asked about imposing a cap.

Deli Boyz's class action is in addition to two other lawsuits filed
last month by a different law firm against Uber Eats and DoorDash
over undisclosed service charges.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 12,
2021. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Sexual Abuse Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has preliminarily approved a $73 million class action settlement
involving sexual abuse claims against a former gynecologist at the
University of California, Los Angeles.

On Jan. 11, a federal judge preliminarily approved the settlement,
which resolves claims for a potential 6,600 class members that Dr.
James Heaps either made inappropriate comments or violated them
with sexually invasive exams from 1983 to 2018. At least one firm
plans to opt out of the deal on behalf of 140 women. [GN]



US FOODS: Osorio Employment Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FELIPE OSORIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. US FOODS, INC., which will do business
in California as U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV46858, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on January 8,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00179 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to compensate all hours worked, failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and
failure to provide proper wage statements.

US Foods, Inc., doing business as U.S. Foodservice, Inc., is an
American foodservice distributor based in Rosemont, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                   
         
         Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         1000 Marsh Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
         Telephone: (650) 614-7400
         Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
         E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com

                 - and –

         Katie E. Briscoe, Esq.
         Alexandra Guerra, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
         Telephone: (916) 447-9200
         Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
         E-mail: kbriscoe@orrick.com
                 aguerra@orrick.com

UZZAL EXPRESS: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Required Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UZZAL EXPRESS PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a
99 CENT EXPRESS PIZZA, and MOHAMMED UZZAL, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00177 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pizzeria employees
applicable minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to maintain accurate
records of total worked hours, failure to pay the required
spread-of-hours pay, and failure to provide wage statements.

Mr. Hernandez was employed as a pizza server at 99 Cent Express
Pizza in New York.

Uzzal Express Pizzeria Inc. is a company that owns and operates two
pizzerias located at 301 W 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036
and at 82-18 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York under the
name 99 Cent Express Pizza. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
         PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES
         Attorneys at Law, PLLC
         45 Broadway, Suite 430
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 248-7431
         Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
         E-mail: sclark@tpglaws.com

WELLPET LLC: Bush Sues Over Mislabeled Grain-Free Pet Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARLA BUSH; KIMBERLY DEHAVEN; NANCY MUNIE; and MONIQUE SALERNO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WELLPET, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-10059 (D. Mass., Jan. 12, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit regarding the Defendants' false and misleading labeling and
marketing of its cat and dog food products, the "Complete Health"
line, and "Core" line (collectively the "Mislabeled Pet Foods").

According to the complaint, the labeling and packaging of the
Mislabeled Pet Foods contain numerous false and misleading
grain-free claims ("Grain-Free Claims"). The Defendants label their
pet foods as "grain free" and claims that their Mislabeled Pet
Foods contain "no wheat, corn or soy." This misleads consumers into
believing that the Mislabeled Pet Foods contain no grain even
though the Mislabeled Pet Foods in fact do contain gluten (i.e.
grain). By doing so, the Defendants are able to charge a
substantial price premium for its Mislabeled Pet Foods on account
of these false Grain-Free Claims, the suit says.

Wellpet LLC produces and supplies pet food products. The Company
offers grain-free protein-focused formulas, biscuits, and
nutritional products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW
          MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com

               -and-

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com

               -and-

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

               -and-

          Scott Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
          Telephone: (303) 222-9008
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               -and-

          Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1501 San Elijo Hills Road South, Suite 104-212
          San Marcos, CA 92078
          Telephone: (310) 400-1053
          E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com


WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barron Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELANDER BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV01318 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 12, 2021) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Baron was employed by the Defendants as staff.

WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC owns and operates as a
pistachio and almond grower and processor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio , Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com


YUM! BRANDS: Coons Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY COONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YUM! BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00045-GCS (S.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2021) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, and storage of the  Plaintiff's and putative Class
members' sensitive biometric identifiers and biometric information,
to have Defendant return or destroy the biometric information,
including fingerprints, that it has retained for over three years
and for which the initial use is no longer pertinent, and to issue
a written retention policy, among other things.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant failed to inform its employees of the complete
purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric data or to
whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to obtain their
knowing consent to use their biometric data.

Yum! Brands, Inc, owns and franchises quick-service restaurants
worldwide. The Company develops, operates, franchises, and licenses
a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package, and sell
a menu of food items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: nlange@carlsonlynch.com

               -and-

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com

               -and-

          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
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  memert@kgglaw.com


ZILLOW INC: Nears $1.1-Mil. Labor Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Zillow employees moved closer to a deal to get
$1.1 million from the online real estate marketplace company to
resolve claims they were shorted on commissions, after a California
federal court preliminarily approved of a settlement. [GN]

[*] AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Covid-19 Restrictions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Alexander, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that midway through her tirade against unnecessary masks, abusive
vaccination programs, corrupt judiciary and lying public servants
at an anti-lockdown rally in Melbourne last month, Melbourne lawyer
Serene Teffaha seemed almost to run out of breath. "I've given
birth to this class action," she said.

One academic described the coronavirus protest movement as a whale
shark, with every anti-5G, anti-vaxxer, medical sceptic, snake oil
salesman and far-right libertarian feeding off it like pilot fish.
Ms Teffaha, who rose from obscurity to reinvent herself as a "human
rights lawyer" last year, has emerged as their champion.

It is perhaps not a surprise that she's risen to prominence during
a pandemic, a time when baseless conspiracy theories about the
dangers of 5G and the origins and spread of coronavirus have
swirled feverishly.

Serene Teffaha has been drumming up clients for a catch-all class
action that includes people affected by any form of detention,
mandatory vaccination, business closures, residential aged care
isolation, cross border rules, contact tracing, compulsory testing
and masks and various other measures put in place to control the
spread of coronavirus. She has raised at least $500,000 since May,
but is yet to file any class actions. The federal government has
made clear it will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory.

She is also representing Jenny D'Ubios, who escaped hotel
quarantine in Perth on Boxing Day after claiming her detention was
a violation of her human rights and based on a virus that did not
exist. Ms D'Ubios was put into a maximum-security prison after
police found out Ms Teffaha had mistakenly given the wrong address
in her bail application.

Ms Teffaha appeared at a rally in Broadmeadows on December 6 to
prosecute her argument against coronavirus restrictions, with a
speech that described bureaucrats as "liars", judges as "corrupt"
and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) as
"the most terrorist organisation". She also said there was no need
to wear masks at a time they were mandatory in numerous settings in
Victoria.

"This is gaslighting," she said.

"This is abusive behaviour. This is not on and we will call them
out and if these judges are going to be corrupt we will call the
judges on it.

"We will keep calling them all out until there's a revolution on
the streets and if we need to shed blood for peace, then so be
it."

Ms Teffaha was previously a senior lawyer with the Australian
Taxation Office but left after lodging a whistleblower complaint
and subsequently sued the ATO.

She said she has more than 2000 clients, each of whom must give a
minimum upfront payment of $250. The money was being held in a
trust, she said, and she had not yet paid herself for her work.

However, she said she was not required to hold in trust monies
donated by people who had not signed a costs agreement.

Ms Teffaha has drawn the attention of anti-scamming activists
including "Lucky Lance" Simon, a convicted criminal-cum-comedian
married to Melbourne gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson, whose
early scepticism about some coronavirus claims has been replaced by
a crusade against those who seek to profit from it.

Mr Simon started by skewering anti-coronavirus groups. He has also
targeted libertarian Facebook group Reignite Democracy Australia
and right-wing activist Avi Yemeni, who has raised $100,000 through
crowdfunding for a constitutional challenge against the lockdown.

He encouraged his followers to report Mr Yemeni to the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission for deceptive and misleading
conduct. No action has been taken against Mr Yemeni regarding his
fundraising.

Mr Simon said he had been contacted by many people who had donated
to Ms Teffaha's class action and were concerned that nothing had
happened yet. The rally footage has been sent to the Victorian
Legal Services Board.

"Nothing she says makes sense, but she's a champion of the people
because she's a lawyer," he said. "If someone like Serene Teffaha
calls lawyers corrupt, people believe her and there's a huge
attitude in society that the judges are all against us and I don't
think that's helpful."

The Legal Services Board is prevented under the legislation from
confirming whether a complaint has been received.

Ms Teffaha said she planned to file the "detention towers" class
action followed by the national class action and a COVID-19 vaccine
challenge once it had been approved by the Therapeutic Goods
Administration.

She said her use of the term "blood on the streets" was not meant
to be taken literally, but referred to the expression coined by
Baron Rothschild and intended as a plea for people to go against
the crowd.

"My speech was a protest speech and was impassioned, which is not
my usual demeanour," she said.

"I was not referring to all judges as corrupt but specifically the
Family Court of Australia has many corruption issues with people
taking children and forcing them to go with the perpetrator parent
-- I am doing an action on that." [GN]


[*] Brownstein Hyatt Discusses COBRA-Related Litigation Trend
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Becchi, Esq. -- rbecchi@bhfs.com -- Christopher Humes,
Esq. -- chumes@bhfs.com -- William Nobriga, Esq. --
wnobriga@bhfs.com -- Adam Segal, Esq., and Nancy Strelau, Esq., of
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, in an article for JDSupra, report
that over the past two years, there has been a steady uptick of
class action litigation alledging deficiencies in the notices that
employers are required to provide under the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended ("COBRA"), to inform
individuals of their right to elect health care continuation
coverage following the occurrence of certain events resulting in
the loss of coverage under their employer's group health plan.
Employees have brought these class action lawsuits against
employers, plan administrators and third-party administrators.

These lawsuits all center on allegations that the COBRA election
notices do not meet the applicable legal requirements and deviate
from the model COBRA form provided by the U.S. Department of Labor.
In some instances, plaintiffs argue that such deficiencies and
deviations confused and misled them to such an extent that they
failed to elect to continue their health coverage. Additionally,
plaintiffs have brought these lawsuits as class actions, seeking
the maximum statutory fine of $110 per participant per day that the
deficient notice went uncorrected. This leads to plaintiffs
requesting substantial sums from the above-referenced defendants.

COBRA Election Notice Requirements
These lawsuits have centered on the required COBRA election
notices. COBRA election notices must contain, under federal
regulations, numerous pieces of information, including, but not
limited to:

   * identification of a qualifying event that triggers the ability
to continue coverage;
   * identification of beneficiaries who are eligible to continue
coverage;
   * an explanation of the plan procedures to continue coverage;
   * an explanation of the consequences of failing to continue
coverage;
   * a description of the cost of the payment required to continue
coverage; and
   * a description of the due date of the payment to continue
coverage, etc.

DOL Model COBRA Notice. The U.S. Department of Labor created, and
has periodically updated, a model COBRA notice, which is intended
to help plans comply with the COBRA notice requirements under the
applicable regulations.

The model COBRA election notice is not perfect for every plan and
most group health plans add additional information to the model
notice in order to reflect the idiosyncracies of the specific plan.
Deviation from the model notice, however, may create liability to
plans and lead to lawsuits based upon allegedly deficient COBRA
notices. Thus, choosing to deviate from the COBRA model or choosing
to strictly use the model is a double-edged sword -- sticking too
closely to the model could lead to plan-specific information being
omitted from participants, and deviating too far from the model
could lead to omitting standardized language that includes
necessary information required by the regulations. Plaintiffs'
lawyers have picked up on these difficulties and have brought suits
over allegedly deficient COBRA notices.

How We Are Uniquely Positioned to Help Clients Mitigate the
Possibility of Lawsuits or Defend Against Such Lawsuits
Given the apparent increasing number of class action lawsuits
involving COBRA notices, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP's
legal team can assist in mitigating the possibility of these
lawsuits and, if needed, defend against such lawsuits. Our legal
team can help in the following ways:

1. Review of COBRA Notices: Our team can review plan
administrators' COBRA notices to ensure that they comply with the
statutes and regulations governing the notice requirements. Our
team can assist in perfecting these notices, which will reduce the
chances that the plan and its administrators will be liable for any
COBRA violations, which could, in turn, lessen the likelihood of a
lawsuit being brought.

2. Review of Third-Party Administrator Contracts: Many third-party
administrator contracts, including COBRA administrator contracts,
include indemnification clauses for the plan. Our team has
determined that, in many instances, plaintiffs attempt to sue the
plan, even though the plan uses a third-party administrator to send
out COBRA notices. Our team can review your third-party
administration contracts to ensure that the contract properly
indemnifies the plan and plan sponsor for the actions of the
third-party administrator.

3. Litigation Defense: While we believe the best defense is
addressing compliance issues before any lawsuit is ever filed, it
sometimes fails to prevent a lawsuit—especially where the goal is
to achieve a settlement amount. Our team of litigators can assist
in negotiating settlements and, when necessary, defending your plan
against allegations of deficient COBRA notices. We have
successfully litigated a variety of cases involving the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and
related regulations.

4. Mitigation: Our team includes public policy experts who can
provide strategic advice on seeking input from policymakers,
including the U.S. Department of Labor, and other experts on what
is adequate notice under COBRA. This guidance will help to mitigate
plaintiffs' claims and may include an amicus brief, sub-regulatory
or informal guidance.

5. Addressing Ongoing Administration Issues: Our team members are
trusted advisors and regularly counsel clients on the complexities
of COBRA administration, including when the third-party
administrator seeks guidance from the employer. We expect COBRA
administration to become more complex over the next few years as
group health plans navigate the future termination of the temporary
extension of certain time frames and deadlines for participant
actions during the COVID‑19 national emergency. (For more
information about the COVID-19-related extensions, see our May 6,
2020 Client Alert.) [GN]


[*] Central District Court Dismisses Several ASL Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Sharon and Keren Marco, in an article for International Law
Office, report that in August 2020 the Central District Court
dismissed several requests for the certification of various class
actions which had been filed against different airlines on the
basis that statutory damages under the Israeli Aviation Services
Law (ASL) (Compensation and Assistance for Flight Cancellation or
Change of Conditions) 2012(1) cannot be claimed in class actions.

In all of the class action requests, similar responses were raised
by the airlines. The main argument was that according to the Class
Action Law 2016, the court cannot award compensation where proof of
damage is not required.

Preliminary motions

In some of the cases, the airlines filed a preliminary motion to
dismiss the certification motion prior to filing a response to the
merits. In some cases, this preliminary argument was raised within
the response.

Due to the similarity of all of the cases, which were dealt with by
the same judge, it was decided that this preliminary issue would be
heard at the first stage.

The court stated that as a general rule in class action
proceedings, preliminary arguments should not be dealt with in a
separate motion for dismissal of the claim, but rather within the
certification motion stage (which by its nature is a preliminary
stage). However, there are exceptions to this rule - which have
been established by the courts in previous cases - such as unique
and extreme cases in which it is clear that there is no basis for
the certification motion.

The judge stated that in her opinion, the nature of these arguments
fell within the above exception.

Applicants' arguments

The applicants in the various proceedings argued that although the
first addendum to the ASL sets a fixed amount of damages for
cancelled flights based on the length of the flight in kilometres,
this should not be considered as being neither exemplary
compensation nor compensation without proof of damage, and the
language of the provision does not explicitly use these terms.

Therefore, the court may award the fixed compensation set by the
ASL in the framework of a class action.

The applicants further argued that the certification motion is also
based on other causes of action, such as tort law or the Consumer
Protection Law; hence, there is no basis to dismiss in limine.

Airlines' arguments

The main argument raised by the airlines in all of the proceedings
was that according to Clause 20(e) of the Class Action Law, it is
not possible to claim the statutory compensation set by the ASL in
case of a cancelled flight.

Clause 20(e) of the Class Action Law provides that the court "will
not award in a Class Action exemplary damages and will not award
compensation without proof of damage".

Several airlines also argued that it is not possible to base the
certification motions on other causes of action (eg, tort or
contract) due to the exclusive cause of action set by the Montreal
Convention and the Carriage by Air Law 1980.

Decision

The court dismissed all of the actions which sought the statutory
compensation.

The judge accepted the airlines' arguments that the compensation
according to the first addendum (according to Clauses 5(b) 6(a)(3)
and 8(b)(1) of the ASL (the fixed compensation)) is considered
compensation without proof of damage, which cannot be awarded in
the framework of class action proceedings.

It was further determined that although not specifically stated in
the ASL, this is a form of compensation which does not require
proof of damage, a principle deriving from the wording of the
clauses.

Any claimant can file:

  * a personal claim seeking fixed damages without proving that
they have sustained any damage; or
  * a claim whereby a group of claimants join a class action which,
under the Class Actions Law, requires proof of damage.

Hence, fixed damages are not suitable for class actions.

This principle was applied via various laws which provide for fixed
damages without proof of damage, such as the Prohibition of
Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Public and
Entertainment Places Law 2000.

In a previous class action proceeding (Dahan), another district
court judge reached a similar conclusion.(3)

In Dahan the court stated that the fixed compensation under the ASL
for a cancelled flight is statutory compensation. Passengers are
entitled to this compensation without needing to prove actual
damage. Therefore, it is compensation without proving damage.

As to the applicants' argument on other causes of action, such as
tort (negligence or breach of statutory duty) or unlawful
enrichment, the court stated that in view of the exclusive cause of
action provided by the Carriage by Air Law 1980,(4) parties cannot
file a claim against a carrier based on causes of action which are
not based on the ASL under the circumstances in which the Montreal
Convention applies.

An appeal to the Supreme Court was filed in some of the proceedings
and is still pending.

For further information on this topic please contact Peggy Sharon
or Keren Marco at Levitan, Sharon & Co by telephone (+972 3 688
6768) or email (peggysh@levitansharon.co.il or
kerenm@levitansharon.co.il). The Levitan, Sharon & Co website can
be accessed at www.israelinsurancelaw.com. [GN]


[*] Krieg DeVault Discusses Class Action Waiver, Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott S. Morrisson, Esq., and Alexander L. Mounts, Esq., of Krieg
DeVault, in an article for Lexology, report that is it time you
consider amending your plan document to provide a waiver of class
actions and mandatory arbitration? We first visited this issue one
year ago after a 2019 federal court decision approved use of class
action waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions as a means to
reduce potential exposure to fiduciary breach and related claim
litigation. The law has evolved since that time, and thus we
revisit the issue.

In short, a no class action provision requires participants to
litigate fiduciary breach claims on an individual basis, and
generally limits damage claims to just the plaintiff-participants'
individual accounts or claims. Mandatory arbitration clauses are
exactly that, -- prohibit participants from filing lawsuits in
court, and rather require arbitration, such as with the AAA. Most
agreements couple these provisions together, but it is not
necessary. A plan can provide for one or the other, or both. Such
provisions can be added to many types of plans, including ESOPs and
401(k) plans.

Under current law there is now little disagreement that a plan can
enforce class action waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions if
written into the plan from its inception. However, much of the
litigation in 2020 instead focused on whether these provisions were
enforceable following a plan amendment. Generally speaking, to
enforce this plan amendment it is necessary to show that the
participant was aware of and showed consent to the amended
provision. For instance, did the participant have notice that the
plan was amended, and did the participant continue employment after
the plan was amended, so that the participant manifested agreement
by continuing his or employment? The courts have recently allowed
or disallowed enforcement of class action waivers or mandatory
arbitration provisions in the following scenarios:

   * Arbitration clause added to plan after participant left
employment and cashed out of plan. (No).
   * Arbitration clause added to the plan after participant left
employment, but participant remained in plan. (No).
   * Arbitration clause added to the plan when participant was a
current employee, but no notice of the plan amendment was provided
to employee. (Pending and thus undecided).
   * Arbitration clause added to plan when participant was a
current employee and participant had notice of it and continued
employment. (Yes).

These types of cases continue to work their way through the courts,
and courts may further limit or expand enforceability of these
provisions in the future.

ERISA generally allows an employer to amend a plan at any time.
Plaintiff's counsel has objected to class action waivers or
mandatory arbitration, arguing that ERISA prohibits such waivers,
but with only limited success. As a result, under the concept "you
get what you ask for," some plaintiffs' counsel have filed mass
individual arbitration demands against employers, literally
hundreds of demands, flooding am employer with mandatory
arbitration of hundreds of claims given the mandatory arbitration
provision.

The pros and cons to arbitration are well recognized, -- no appeal,
conflicting decisions, questionable adherence to governing law,
etc. The pros and cons to a class action waiver are more obvious,
-- and in some instances an employer may actually want a class
action determination to prohibit similar repetitive claims. Yet the
benefits of class action waiver and arbitration provisions are
many, and thus plans should consider amendments along these lines.
We are happy to discuss the pros and cons of this approach for your
plan. [GN]


[*] New York State Legislature Introduces Standalone BIPA Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahlering, Esq. Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Paul Yovanic
Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report
that the New York state legislature recently introduced a
standalone biometric information privacy bill, AB 27, that mirrors
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS § 14/1 et
seq., "BIPA"), which has spawned thousands of class actions in the
Land of Lincoln. If enacted, The New York bill would become only
the second biometric privacy act in the United States to provide a
private right of action and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees for
successful litigants. This represents a significant development for
companies and employers operating in New York in light of the
explosion of class action litigation over workplace privacy
issues.

Details Of New York's Proposed Legislation

What can otherwise be characterized as BIPA 2.0, New York proposed
and introduced its own "Biometric Privacy Act" on January 6, 2021.
New York's proposed "Biometric Privacy Act" is a carbon copy of the
Illinois BIPA, including identical definitions of both biometric
identifiers and biometric information. The proposed law prohibits
private entities from capturing, collecting, or storing a person's
biometrics without first implementing a policy and obtaining
written consent. Most notably, the proposed bill provides for
identical remedies to BIPA, whereas an aggrieved person under the
proposed bill will be afforded a private right of action with the
ability to recover $1,000 for each negligent violation, $5,000 for
each intentional or reckless violation, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

Implications For Companies

Companies that are already familiar with the Illinois BIPA are
undoubtedly aware of the risks that the proposed New York biometric
privacy bill poses. While the BIPA was enacted in 2010, Illinois
has seen an explosion in class action litigation over the past few
years brought by employees and consumers alleging that their
biometric data was improperly collected for timekeeping, security,
and consumer transactions. In fact, between 2015 and 2020 alone,
there were over 1,000 Illinois BIPA class action complaints filed
across the United States, with additional new filings continuing to
be initiated every day.

It remains to be seen if New York's biometric privacy bill will
pass as drafted. However, if enacted as it is currently drafted,
companies in New York can also expect to face an onslaught of
biometric privacy litigation. Compliance is key, and there no
better time to think about your company's biometric privacy
compliance than right now. Companies with New York operations that
are utilizing anything that could be considered biometrics, for any
reason, should consider audit their practices, policies, and
procedures to avoid potentially costly exposure in the event that
the bill ultimately passed. Businesses with compliance questions
should contact a member of Seyfarth Shaw's Biometric Privacy
Compliance & Litigation Practice Group.

While this proposed bill is only days old, we will provide
immediate updates on its progress when available. [GN]


[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Action Trends
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that in the Law firm's continuing coverage of the
top trends found in Seyfarth's 2021 Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report, in 2020, government enforcement litigation
slowed considerably. Although the value of government enforcement
settlements went up, agencies like the EEOC downsized their
litigation enforcement programs and brought fewer lawsuits in 2020
than in any year of the past decade. Most significant for
employers, during the past year, the EEOC undertook multiple
initiatives that reflected a shift away from systemic litigation as
a priority.

During 2020 employers saw significant shifts in the EEOC's
enforcement agenda, including a notable shift away from litigation
as a one-size-fits-all tool for combatting workplace
discrimination. As the EEOC's enforcement agenda shifted, employers
experienced a marked decrease in federal complaints and a marked
increase in settlements as the EEOC sought to wind down its
litigation docket. These shifts likely resulted from the
pro-business stance of the Trump Administration. The EEOC saw
considerable leadership turnover at the top as Trump's nominees for
Commissioner slots were finally confirmed on May 3, 2019 (Janet
Dhillon, Chair) and September 22, 2020 (Keith Sonderling, Vice
Chair, and Andrea Lucas, Commissioner).

Prior to September 2020, the EEOC's leadership consisted of only
three of five Commissioners, including Janet Dhillon, Chair
(Republican), Vicki Lipnic (Republican), and Charlotte Burrows
(Democrat). Commissioner Lipnic's term technically expired in July
2020, but she was allowed to stay on through September 2020 so that
the Commission would have a quorum and could operate. On September
22, 2020, the Senate confirmed three new Commissioners, two
Republicans and one Democrat, for the two vacant seats and the seat
formerly held by Lipnic. The Commission must remain bipartisan by
law, but these new additions solidified a Republican majority at
least until July 2022 when Dhillon's term expires, despite the
result of the 2020 election in flipping the White House from red to
blue.

The total number of new lawsuits filed by the EEOC decreased
significantly during 2020. The EEOC filed 94 merits lawsuits and
seven subpoena enforcement actions, a stark decline compared to the
144 merits lawsuits and eight subpoena enforcement actions filed
during 2019. This represented a 35% reduction in total actions
commenced by the Commission year over year. Despite the shift in
administrations, employers can expect that the EEOC's
majority-Republican leadership will continue to curtail litigation
efforts in 2021.

Although the numbers declined, when considered on a percentage
basis, the distribution of cases filed in terms of their theories
of liability remained largely consistent compared to 2019. Title
VII and ADA cases once again comprised the majority of cases filed
by the Commission, suggesting that enforcement priorities did not
shift dramatically and remained fairly consistent under the Trump
Administration. This past year marked the fourth year of the EEOC's
2017-2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan ("SEP"), which guides
enforcement activity. The six enforcement priorities set forth in
the SEP include: (1) the elimination of systemic barriers in
recruitment and hiring; (2) protection of immigrant, migrant, and
other vulnerable workers; (3) addressing emerging and developing
issues; (4) enforcing equal pay laws; (5) preserving access to the
legal system; and (6) preventing harassment through systemic
enforcement and targeted outreach.

The Commission maintains discretion to interpret and pursue these
priorities as it deems appropriate. Although the SEP defined
priorities, they are broad and apply to an expansive landscape of
issues. For example, the EEOC consistently has focused on the
protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals
over the past several years as an emerging and developing issue in
the workplace.

The EEOC's efforts in this area resulted in a body of case law
across jurisdictions, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court's
landmark decision in R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC &
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that Title VII
prohibits discrimination against gay or transgender employees as a
form of sex discrimination. The 6-3 decision authored by Justice
Gorsuch represented a significant victory for the EEOC during
2020.

Additionally, during 2020, employers saw a flurry of activity at
the EEOC relative to its internal practices and procedures, with
the Commission pushing to meet objectives prior to the change in
administrations on January 20, 2021. Notably, the EEOC made strides
to shift its internal decision-making authority, update its
conciliation and mediation procedures, and voluntarily scale back
some of its authority.

First, on March 10, 2020, the EEOC released information about a
significant internal resolution that reassigned authority for
certain high-stakes litigation decisions within the Commission. The
resolution reined in many of the powers previously held by the
EEOC's General Counsel and, in turn, the Commission's various
Regional Attorneys, who historically have wielded considerable
discretion over the types of lawsuits that they file and the legal
positions that they advance. Under the new resolution, the
Commissioners -- and not the General Counsel (or Regional
Attorneys) -- will make key litigation decisions concerning
systemic litigation and various other matters. According to the
resolution, the Commissioners now have exclusive authority over the
following:

   -- Cases involving an allegation of systemic discrimination or a
pattern or practice of discrimination;

   -- Cases expected to involve a major expenditure of agency
resources, including staffing and staff time, or expenses
associated with extensive discovery or expert witnesses;
Cases presenting issues on which the Commission has taken a
position contrary to precedent in the Circuit in which the case
will be filed;
   -- Cases presenting issues on which the General Counsel proposes
to take a position contrary to precedent in the Circuit in which
the case will be filed;

  -- Other cases reasonably believed to be appropriate for
Commission approval in the judgment of the General Counsel. This
category includes, but is not limited to, cases that implicate
areas of the law that are not settled and cases that are likely to
generate public controversy;

  -- All recommendations in favor of Commission participation as
amicus curiae; and

   -- A minimum of one litigation recommendation from each District
Office each fiscal year, including litigation recommendations based
on the above criteria.

Even with respect to those cases that do not raise the issues
enumerated above, the General Counsel is now obligated to
communicate about more garden variety cases with the Chair and, at
the Chair's request, shall consult with the Chair to decide whether
those cases should be brought before the Commissioners for a vote.
If the Chair does not advise the General Counsel within five
business days as to whether a particular case must be submitted to
the Commissioners for a vote, the General Counsel retains authority
to proceed with a lawsuit on her own initiative.

These changes represent a stunning reduction in the General
Counsel's discretion. For many years, the General Counsel and
attorneys in the field appeared to exercise broad control over the
types of cases the EEOC would file, the theories of law that it
would pursue, and the litigation tactics that it would employ.
Because the General Counsel was encouraged to delegate that
authority to Regional Attorneys across the country, the result was
a sometimes fragmented, district-by-district approach to EEOC
enforcement litigation.

Second, on July 7, 2020, the EEOC issued a press release announcing
two new six-month pilot programs aimed at increasing voluntary
resolutions of discrimination charges via changes to its
conciliation and mediation programs. Then, on October 8, 2020, the
EEOC released the specifics of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
("NPRM") seeking to make additional changes to the conciliation
process. In its NPRM, the EEOC acknowledged that, historically, it
elected not to adopt detailed regulations relative to its
conciliation efforts based on its belief that retaining flexibility
over the conciliation process would "more effectively accomplish
its goal of preventing and remediating employment discrimination.
Although the Commission's NPRM makes clear that the Commission
still believes that it is important to maintain a flexible approach
to conciliation, it also acknowledged that, over the last several
years, its conciliation efforts resolved less than half of the
charges where a reasonable cause finding was made. Specifically,
between fiscal years 2016 and 2019, only 41.23% of the EEOC's
conciliations with employers were successful.

Third, on September 3, 2020, the EEOC issued a rare opinion letter
regarding the Commission's interpretation and enforcement of §
707(a) of Title VII, which authorizes the EEOC to sue employers
engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. The opinion
letter addressed two seemingly technical questions, including: (1)
whether a pattern or practice claim under § 707(a) requires
allegations of violations of § 703 or § 704 of Title VII; and (2)
whether the EEOC must satisfy pre-suit requirements such as
conciliation before it can bring a § 707 case. In a lengthy
discussion, the EEOC ultimately concluded that the answer to both
questions is "yes." Notably, the Commission's letter first
acknowledged that "[t]he Commission, like all agencies, is a
‘creature of statute' that only has the authority that Congress
has given it . . . Therefore, in performing its duties, the
Commission must follow the statutory language that Congress has
provided." This language signals a new approach from the Commission
that voluntarily limits the EEOC's authority, particularly relative
to claims in pattern or practice suits to only concrete allegations
of discrimination.

Fourth, on November 2, 2020, the EEOC held its first public meeting
of FY 2021 to consider a proposed memorandum of understanding
("MOU") between the EEOC, the Department of Labor ("DOL"), and the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") aimed at recommitting to
collaboration between the agencies and coordinating efforts to
protect civil rights in the workplace. Key provisions of the MOU
included strengthening procedures for coordination between the
three agencies at the field and headquarters levels, including
discussions on enforcement priorities and coordinating on issues
like religious liberty, conscious protections, and novel or unique
issues and bringing greater efficiencies to the investigation
process.

Collectively, these changes represent a significant shift in the
EEOC's philosophy and practice toward a curtailment of its own
powers and a shift away from using litigation as the blunt-force
instrument of choice. These changes are apt to influence the
Commission's approach into 2021 and beyond.

Although the EEOC's total litigation filings for 2020 reflected a
marked decline, the Commission's "Agency Financial Report" ("AFR"),
which was released in November 2020, touted a surge in recoveries
on behalf of employees. The AFR provided a snapshot of FY 2020
performance highlights, including the following:

During FY 2020, the EEOC recovered a record amount of $535.4
million on behalf of alleged discrimination victims. By comparison,
the EEOC recovered approximately $486 million in FY 2019;
approximately $505 million in FY 2018; and approximately $484
million in FY 2017.

The amount recovered through mediation, conciliation, and
settlement dropped from $354 million in FY 2019 to $333.2 million
in FY 2020.

Conversely, litigation recoveries increased from $39.1 million in
FY 2019 to $106 million in FY 2020, the highest in 16 years. The
EEOC credits this surge in litigation recovery to its resolution of
165 lawsuits in FY 2020 and stated that it achieved "favorable
results" in approximately 96% of its court resolutions.

The Commission reported a reduction of the inventory of pending
private sector charges by 3.7% - to 41,951 charges -- that now
represents the lowest inventory of charges in 14 years.

Further, national origin discrimination has continued to become an
increasingly large part of the EEOC's enforcement agenda. The EEOC
has expressed in a number of places that it is concerned about the
impact that global phenomena can have on worker relations in the
United States. Historically, those concerns have been focused on
how global terrorism and unrest in the Middle East could lead to
discrimination against Muslim or Sikh employees or those of Middle
Eastern or South Asian descent, or how illegal immigration issues
could give rise to discrimination against Mexican or South and
Central American workers. The COVID-19 pandemic could change this
focus somewhat moving forward, as the outbreak of a deadly pandemic
that had its origin in China has given rise to increased concerns
about national origin discrimination against Asian Americans, as
cautioned by EEOC Chair Dhillon in a statement issued early during
the COVID-19 pandemic.

On the DOL front, like many agencies, its agenda this year was
occupied with issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The DOL was
busy enforcing and issuing guidance on implementation of the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act, with the Wage & Hour
Division consistently updating FAQ guidance on the Act. The DOL
also issued final "temporary" regulations interpreting the FCRA.
Despite the COVID-19 detour, the DOL accomplished many of its other
objectives prior to the 2020 election. The agency announced new
joint employer and independent contractor rules, discussed above;
issued a final rule that allows employers to pay bonuses or other
incentive-based pay to salaried, non-exempt employees whose hours
vary from week to week; issued joint guidance with the IRS
providing that insurers can allow the newly jobless to sign up for
a coverage extension known as the COBRA, at any time up to 60 days
after the national emergency declaration for COVID-19 is lifted;
and announced it would no longer seek "double damages" in FLSA
actions where there is no clear evidence of bad faith and
willfulness or where the employer has no prior history of
violations.

Finally, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") continued its
trend toward more conservative views of labor laws in 2020. It
ruled that an employer may discipline workers for making profane,
abusive, or offensive statements, so long as the employer's action
is not based on specific anti-union animus, reinstating the
previously-reversed Wright Line analysis, and it issued a final
rule providing that an entity may be considered a joint employer of
a separate employer's employees only if the two share or
co-determine employees' essential terms and conditions of
employment, which are exclusively defined as wages, benefits, hours
of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction.
Employers can anticipate, however, that 2021 will look markedly
different, as the Biden Administration has reiterated that
supporting organized labor will sit atop of the agenda. The Board
is currently operating with a vacant seat with a term running
through August 2023, and the General Counsel's term expires in one
year. Before any significant change can happen at the NLRB, the
Biden Administration will need to fill the two open seats,
necessitating additional changes in leadership. [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 ***