/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210125.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 12

                            Headlines

012 SMILE: Lod-Central District Court Recognizes Class Action
22ND CENTURY GROUP: Noto Securities Class Suit Dismissed
96 WYTHE: Witherspoon Suit Alleges Illegal Retention of Tips
ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of Taylor Class Status Bid
ALBERTSON'S INC: Or. App. Reverses Dismissal of Stewart UTPA Suit

ALL AMERICAN: Faces Carter Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Sacks Sues Over Conspiracy to Raise eBooks' Prices
APPLE INC: Extends MacBook Repair Program to Fix Stage Light Issues
AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS: Retta Dixon Residents Unable to Move Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Fraud Suit From EDD Debit Card Holders

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide Account Info, Robinson Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Yick Sues Over Stolen Money From EDD Cardholders
BAYLOR SCOTT: Court Allows FLSA Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Court Junks Rodriguez Class Action
BIT DIGITAL: Faces Pauwels Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop

BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Affirms Fairness of Class Settlement in Shane
BROADWAY ADVANCE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
BT GROUP: Chief Exec Has to Repel Move to Introduce UK Class Suit
BT GROUP: Taps Simmons & Simmons to Assist in Consumer Class Suit
CD PROJEKT: New Details Emerge on Mishandling of Cyberpunk 2077

CD PROJEKT: Responds to Second Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action Suit
CD PROJEKT: To Vigorously Defend Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action Suit
CHARTER COMM: Gennarelli Has Until May 14 to File Class Status Bid
CHICAGO, IL: Challenges Predatory Towing Class Action Lawsuit
CISION US: Mikityuk Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA & NYLL

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Mishra Suit Gets Final Approval
CONGRESSIONAL BANK: Bid to Certify Appeal in Esktrom Suit Denied
CONNECTICUT: Rogers Prisoner Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CONSECO LIFE: $27MM Settlement in Burnett Suit Wins Final Approval
COSTA DEL MAR: Jan. 31 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Asks Court to Junk Rough Class Certification Bid
COSTCO WHOLESALE: March 25 Hearing on Class Cert. Denial Bid Voided
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rough Seeks to Certify Class & Three Subclasses
CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY: Reversal of Summary Judgment in Branch Affirmed
CREDIT CONTROL: Schwartz Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Summary Ruling Bid Nixed in Tarrify Class Suit
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline
DOWNHOLE TECHNOLOGY: Esquivel Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
DRIVELINE RETAIL: McGlenn's Renewed Bid for Class Status Tossed

ECOARK HOLDINGS: Notice of Dismissal Filed in Abrahms Class Suit
EDEN CREAMERY: Feb. 17 Briefing for Class Status Bid Sought
ENEDIS SA: Opponents of Linky Meters Appeal Win Partial Victory
FANNIE MAE: Class Certification Filing Due on June 18
FEDERAL MANAGEMENT: Fox Rothschild Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling

FIRST NATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Sale of Repossessed Properties
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert. Deadline Extended to March 22
GEORGE W. KUHN: Granting of Summary Disposition in Kickham Affirmed
GREAT ARROW: Pennsylvania Court Refuses to Dismiss Then FLSA Suit
GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says

HEALTH INSURANCE: March 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Jan. 29 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
HYDRO GENERATION: Williams Seeks Website Access for Blind Users
IKEA US: Pennsylvania Court Refuses to Dismiss Dukich Suit Claims
IML LABELS: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Opperman Claims

INPHI CORP: Rosenfeld Challenges Proposed Merger With Marvell
INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over 7nm Product Delays
INTEL CORP: Spectre and Meltdown Virus-Related Suits Underway
INTELSAT CORP: Chairman Faces New Shareholder Suit Amid Class Suits
JABU CO: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Williams Suit Claims

JACOBO FARM: Class Cert. Schedule Conference Continued to Feb. 10
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Mississippi PERS, et al., Seek to Certify Class
K12 INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action Filing
KANEX INC: Rakhmanin Labor Suit Moved From N.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
KIMBERLY-CLARK: March 16 Deadline for Filing of Second Amended Suit

L'OREAL USA: Young Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
LAKESIDE MEDICAL: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Moore Suit Says
LASIK VISION: Extension of Class Cert. Related Deadlines Sought
LIBERTY MUTUAL: California Court Refuses to Remand Marano Suit
LLOYD'S LONDON: E.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses IRG Insurance Suit

LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez FCCPA & FDUTPA Class Status Bid Nixed
LOS PRADOS: Meza FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium for Bakers
LOUISVILLE, KY: Faces Inmates' Class Suit Over Release System
MARATHON OIL: Objection to Magistrate's Order in Kunneman Overruled
MCKENNA & DUPONT: Phillips Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement Deal

MDL 2323: Atty. Lien Dispute in NFL Concussion Injury Suit Resolved
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Contaminate Groundwater, Jackson Claims
MDL 2873: Fenner Sues Over Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
MENARD INC: Earls, et al. Seek to Certify Five Classes
MEWBOURNE OIL: Underpays Gas Royalties, Buckles Estate Suit Claims

MIDLAND CREDIT: Sandel Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
MIDWESTERN PET: Dog Foods Contain Mold & Toxins, Simmons Suit Says
NACHURS ALPINE: Gray Sues Over Race Discrimination, FCRA Violations
NEW MOOSEJAW: Class Certification Hearing Rescheduled to Feb. 25
NEW YORK CITY: EMS Officers Union Seeks to Certify 3 Classes

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Gallo Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Suit Seeks Collective Status
O.J. SMITH: Notice Content & Distribution Method in Gonzalez Okayed
OHIO BUREAU: Unlawfully Collects Premium Payments, Parma Alleges
OLD DOMINION: Seeks Mediation in Rizk Class Suit

OPA-LOCKA, FL: Cert. of Water Deposit Class in Suarez Suit Flipped
ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
PARADISE AWNINGS: Underpays Construction Workers, Martinez Alleges
PARTY CITY: McInnis BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PERRIGO COMPANY: March 22 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

PK MANAGEMENT: Bid to Reconsider Court Order Tossed in Riley Suit
PRIME FUNDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Certification Opposition Due on Feb. 26
RNMG INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Baugh Suit Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Luparello Balks at Misleading Trading Services

SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Fox GPTA Suit
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS: Initial OK of Class Settlement Bid Tossed
SANMEDICA INT'L: Pizana's Bid to Resume Deposition Partly Granted
SCIENCE OF LAB: Discards All Data, AI Algorithms Amid Criticism
SCOTIABANK: Class Action Mulled Against Former Officer Over Fraud

SETERUS INC: Morandi & Mercado Seek to Certify Class
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: 4th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Doe 4 Suit
SIMS GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Employee Collective
SMART ENERGY: Xenes Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SOLARWINDS INC: Stockholders File Class Action After Cyberattack

SPARKY BOY: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
SPY OPTIC: Angeles Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
ST MARY AND ST MINA: Walden Seeks Unpaid Store Clerks' OT Wages
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Anderson Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to D.N.J.
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Griffin Class Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey

SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Allowed to File 1st Amended Class Complaint
TARGET CORP: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Greenberg Suit
TASTEBUD MARKET: Candia Seeks Unpaid OT and Spread-of-Hours Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Set for April 9
TRITERRAS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline

TSR INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 21
TWIN CITY: Pennsylvania Court Dismisses Zagafen Insurance Suit
UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over 'Defective' Shampoo Products
UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Must File Class Status Bid by June 25
UNITED FUND: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

UNITED STATES: Lado Class Suit Gets TRO on "Final Transit Rule"
VILLAGES TRI-COUNTY: Watson Seeks to Certify Class of Nurses
WALMART INC: Faces Stanton Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
WELLS FARGO: Neglects Request of Account Information, Mendoza Says
WEST VIRGINIA: Richards Directed to File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 15

YOUNG LIVING: Oil Products Have No Therapeutic Benefits, Suit Says
ZILLOW GROUP: Stipulation on Dissemination of Notices Approved
[*] Clayton Utz, ICP Launch Insurance Suit Over COVID-19 Losses

                            *********

012 SMILE: Lod-Central District Court Recognizes Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PTNR) and (TASE: PTNR), a leading Israeli communications
operator, announces that on January 15, 2021, the Lod-Central
District Court ruled to recognize the lawsuit against a subsidiary
of the Company, 012 Smile Telecom Ltd. ("012 Smile"), as a class
action, which concerns the claim that 012 Smile sold to its
customers data browsing packages at a specified speed, which is not
possible for them to achieve since the infrastructure does not
support this speed. A similar decision was also given in a lawsuit
against a competing company. The causes of action for which the
motion was approved are, among others, misleading acts and breach
of contract.

012 Smile is studying the decision and will treat it in accordance
with the dates set by law.

                  About Partner Communications

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market™ and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (NASDAQ and TASE:
PTNR). [GN]


22ND CENTURY GROUP: Noto Securities Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 19, 2021, that
the company issued a press release announcing the dismissal with
prejudice of the federal securities class action lawsuit captioned
Noto v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., 19-CV-1285.

A copy of the press release is available at
https://bit.ly/2MgjfHA.

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotine alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.

96 WYTHE: Witherspoon Suit Alleges Illegal Retention of Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
KEENAN WITHERSPOON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 96 WYTHE ACQUISITON LLC, TOBY MOSKOVITS,
YOEL GOLDMAN, and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
501071/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 14, 2021) brings this complaint
as a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover
unlawfully retained tips and gratuities pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the Plaintiff
and other food service workers in furtherance of their catering
business. However, the Defendants allegedly paid them an hourly
wage only and did not pay them their rightful portion of the
Mandatory Charge. The Defendants unlawfully withheld and retained
portions of gratuities intended for food service employees,
including but not limited to those collected by their assessment of
the Mandatory Charge, the suit added.

The complaint further asserts that the Defendants willfully
disregarded and purposefully evaded recordkeeping requirements of
applicable New York State law by failing to maintain proper and
complete records of mandatory charges in the nature of gratuities.

96 Wythe Acquisition LLC provides catering services owned and
operated by Toby Moskovitz and Yoel Goldman. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Tel: (516) 873-9550


ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of Taylor Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON TAYLOR, v. JEFFERSON
S. DUNN, et.al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody recommended that:

   1. The plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.

   2. This case, with respect to the claims presented by the
      plaintiff, be referred back to him for appropriate
      proceedings.

Judge Coody said, "On or before February 2, 2021, the parties may
file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must
specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions
contained in the Recommendation to which his objection is made.
Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered
by the court. Failure to file written objections to the proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in the
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge shall bar a party from a de
novo determination by the District Court of these factual findings
and legal conclusions and shall "waive the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of plain error if
necessary in the interests of justice."

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

A copy of the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated Jan. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qSB2nf
at no extra charge.[CC]

ALBERTSON'S INC: Or. App. Reverses Dismissal of Stewart UTPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Schearon STEWART and Jason Stewart, individually and
on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. ALBERTSON'S, INC., Defendant, and ALBERTSON'S COMPANIES LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; Albertson's LLC, a foreign
corporation; and Safeway, Inc., a foreign business corporation,
Defendants-Respondents, Case Nos. 16CV15125; A166857 (Or. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the trial court's order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and remanded the
limited judgment.

The appeal presents questions of first impression concerning a
class-action procedure unique to Oregon: the so-called "notice and
cure" process under Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure 32 H and I.

The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased meat from the
Defendants' supermarkets on a "buy one get one free" ("BOGO")
basis.  Plaintiff Schearon Stewart is an Oregon resident who
shopped at a Safeway store in Sherwood, and Plaintiff Jason Stewart
(no relation to Schearon) is an Oregon resident who shopped at a
Safeway store in Tigard; both of them bought chicken shortly before
filing the action.  In early May 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a
complaint, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, alleging claims about meat-sale practices against
Safeway.

The Plaintiffs brought class-action claims for damages alleging
that, during those promotions, the Defendants inflated the regular
purchase price of the meat in order to pass along the cost of the
supposedly "free" items to the consumers, thereby violating the
Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA").

According to the Plaintiffs, the BOGO promotions violated ORS
646.608(1)(j) (providing that it is an unlawful practice to make
"false or misleading representations of fact concerning the reasons
for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions"), and ORS
646.608(1)(s) (providing that it is an unlawful trade practice to
make "false or misleading representations of fact concerning the
offering price of, or the person's cost for real estate, goods or
services"). The Plaintiffs also alleged that the BOGO promotions
violated OAR 137-020-0015, a rule promulgated by the Attorney
General to implement ORS 646.608 that regulates the deceptive use
of "free" offers.

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleged a single claim for relief based
on the alleged violations of ORS 646.608 and OAR 137-020-0015, and
it included two counts within that claim.  The first count alleged
that Safeway had willfully violated ORS 646.608 through the BOGO
promotions and that, as a result, the Plaintiffs and the members of
the class suffered ascertainable losses, in that they paid more for
meat, they did not receive free meat, and they bought more meat
than they otherwise would have purchased without the deceptive
designation of `free' product."

The second count re-alleged previous allegations and further
alleged that Safeway had engaged in the conduct in reckless
disregard or with knowledge of the fact that that its practices
violated ORS 646.608(1) and OAR 137-020-0015.  Those additional
allegations tracked ORS 646.638 (8)(a), which authorizes the
recovery of statutory damages of $200 on behalf of class members
only if the Plaintiffs in the action establish that the members
have sustained an ascertainable loss of money or property as a
result of a reckless or knowing use or employment by the defendant
of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS 646.608.

In response, the Defendants conceded that they had inflated some
prices during their promotions and offered a remedy as an
alternative to litigation under ORCP 32 I.  Their proposed remedy,
however, calculated the class size and resulting damages
differently from the Plaintiffs' allegations.

Over the Plaintiffs' objection, the trial court agreed with the
Defendants that the proposed remedy was "appropriate" within the
meaning of ORCP 32 I, and it granted their motion to dismiss the
damages claims.  The Plaintiffs now appeal the limited judgment on
those claims, arguing that (1) the Defendants' attempt to cure
under ORCP 32 I was untimely because it occurred after the damages
claims had been filed; (2) the trial court impermissibly engaged in
judicial factfinding when considering the Defendants' motion; and
(3) in any event, the limited damages offered by dthe efendants
were not "appropriate" compensation within the meaning of that
rule.

The Court of Appeals finds that the Plaintiffs have not offered a
persuasive argument to overcome the glaring textual omission of any
requirement that the "showing" under ORCP 32 I be of a
prelitigation offer or that the requirements set out in ORCP 32 I
"exist" before the damages claims have been filed.  It is not the
Court's role to write into the rule what has been omitted.  It
therefore rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the trial court was
required to deny Safeway's motion to dismiss as untimely.

The Court of Appeals then reviews the trial court's ultimate
determination that a proposed cure provides the appropriate
compensation, correction, or remedy for an abuse of discretion.
With that understanding, it turns to the merits of the parties'
dispute regarding the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' damages action.
As described, the trail court granted the motion after determining
that (1) Safeway's methodology for determining ascertainable loss
was correct; (2) Safeway's exhibits reflected the correct "regular
prices" for employing that methodology; and (3) statutory damages
did not need to be included in order for the proposed cure to
satisfy ORCP 32.

The Appellate Court resolves the appeal by focusing on the trial
court's third determination: that statutory damages could be
omitted from the appropriate cure under ORCP 32 I.  It concludes
that the trial court's exercise of discretion with regard to that
issue was contrary to the legal principles governing available
remedies for the alleged wrong.

The Court explains that history confirms what is evident from the
text of ORS 646.638(8)(a): After its enactment in 2009, the
recovery of statutory damages for a knowing or reckless violation
of the UTPA is not a discretionary award.  If the representative
plaintiff proves that type of violation, the class members are
entitled to the greater of actual damages or $200.  The legislature
viewed that type of wrong to be one that must be corrected with
statutory damages on a class-wide basis, just as "willful"
violations are compensated with statutory damages on an individual
basis.

Thus, the Appellate Court holds that ORS 646.638 reflects a
legislative judgment about the minimum compensation that is
appropriate for a knowing or reckless violation of the UTPA for the
class members: It must include a $200 statutory penalty to
adequately compensate for and deter the harm in small dollar cases.
Safeway's cure, and the trial court's ruling, did not sufficiently
account for that legislative judgment.

Because Safeway's cure omitted the statutory damages the
legislature has deemed necessary to compensate for a knowing or
reckless violation of the UTPA, it was not within the range of
appropriate remedies for that alleged wrong, and the trial court
abused its discretion in concluding otherwise.  The trial court
therefore erred in granting the motion to dismis.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals holds that the trial court
followed the correct procedure in the case: It considered the
pleadings, took evidence on the nature and extent of the harm and
Safeway's proposed cure, then made the determinations under ORCP 32
I.  However, because the class members are legally entitled to
statutory damages for knowing or reckless violations of the UTPA,
the trial court erred in concluding that Safeway's cure was
"appropriate" notwithstanding the absence of those damages.  For
these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the
limited judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4f3qtl2 from Leagle.com.

Travis Eiva -- travis@eivalaw.com -- argued the cause for
Appellants. Also on the briefs were David F. Sugarman --
david@sugermanlawoffice.com -- and Tim Quenelle --
tim.quenelle@gmail.com.

Andrew Escobar -- andrew.escobar@dlapiper.com -- Washington, argued
the cause for Respondents. Also on the brief were Austin Rainwater
-- austin.rainwater@dlapiper.com -- and DLA Piper LLP, Washington.


ALL AMERICAN: Faces Carter Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL AMERICAN OILFIELD, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00007-JMK (D. Alaska, January 14, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who worked as a non-exempt employee for the
Defendant, asserts that although he frequently worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay his lawfully
earned overtime premium compensation for all hours he worked over
40 in a workweek at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with
the FLSA. Additionally, the Defendant allegedly failed to maintain
and preserve payroll records which accurately show the total hours
worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff seeks all damages available for the Defendant's
failure to timely pay all overtime wages owed, including back
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and post-judgment interest, the suit says.

All American Oilfield, LLC provides oilfield services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Pace, Esq.
          PACE LAW OFFICES
          101 E 9th Ave., Ste 7A
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Tel: (907) 222-4003
          Fax: (907) 222-4006
          E-mail: dan@pacelawoffices.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Sacks Sues Over Conspiracy to Raise eBooks' Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN SACKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00421 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has conspired with five
publishing companies by entering into anticompetitive agreements
such as most favored nations (MFN) clauses to ensure that
Amazon.com faces no competition in the U.S. retail market for trade
electronic books (e-books). The Plaintiff alleges that Amazon and
the publishers agreed to price restraints in e-books market that
cause the Plaintiff and other consumers to pay supracompetitive
prices for e-books purchased from the publishers through a retail
platform other than Amazon.com. Moreover, via MFNs, Amazon has
required, and publishers have agreed to grant Amazon, prices,
terms, and conditions equal to or better than those offered to
Amazon's competitors, and to notify Amazon about such terms,
thereby restricting discounts to consumers, and stifling innovation
in the trade e-book market. Had Amazon and its co-conspirators only
raised prices on Amazon.com, consumers would be free to shop for
lower-priced eBooks on other retailer sites, the suit says.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
         Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
         Louis Kessler, Esq.
         Marc Foto, Esq.
         NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
         1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (917) 438-9102
         E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
                 lkessler@nussbaumpc.com
                 mfoto@nussbaumpc.com

                - and –

         Michael E. Criden, Esq.
         Kevin B. Love, Esq.
         Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
         CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
         7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
         South Miami, FL 33143
         Telephone: (305) 357-9000
         E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                 klove@cridenlove.com
                 lgrossman@cridenlove.com

APPLE INC: Extends MacBook Repair Program to Fix Stage Light Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Owen, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple has
updated its repair program for the 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro to fix
the so-called "stage light" problem, increasing the eligibility
from four years to five years after the first retail sale of the
unit.

Apple launched its 13-inch MacBook Pro Display Backlight Service
Program in May 2019, enabling a small number of 2016 13-inch
MacBook Pro users to fix an issue with the backlight of their
devices. For some units, the backlight can exhibit a stage
light-style effect, which the program offers to fix.

The problem of bright and dark spots at the bottom of the screen
was found to be due to Apple using fragile flex cables instead of
wire cables, as used in earlier models, which wear down over time.
This can cause parts of the backlight to stop showing, or break the
backlight completely.

The issue only affected a "very small percentage" of 2016 13-inch
MacBook Pro units sold between October 2016 and February 2018, and
not other models. Affected Macs are repaired by Apple or an Apple
Authorized Service Provider free of charge, though if there are
other detected faults that have to be repaired, the extra fixes are
chargeable.

Previously, Apple defined the program as being eligible for "four
years after the first retail sale of the unit." In an update to the
program page on January 15 spotted by MacRumors, Apple has changed
the language to extend the period.

The new terms state eligible models can be repaired up to "five
years after the first retail sale of the unit or 3 years from the
start date of this program, whichever is longer." As the program
commenced on May 21, 2019, this means the affected MacBook units
are eligible for the program until May 20, 2022, or at latest,
February 2023.

Apple is in the process of dealing with class-action complaints
against the company over the issue. [GN]


AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS: Retta Dixon Residents Unable to Move Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Gordon, writing for ABC News, reports that the organisation
that operated the infamous Retta Dixon Home in Darwin, where
multiple children were allegedly raped and abused between 1947 and
1980, will not be a part of the National Redress Scheme.

Australian Indigenous Ministries (AIM), previously known as the
Aborigines Inland Mission, ran the facility that housed mainly
Aboriginal children, including many who identified as being part of
the Stolen Generations.

AIM tried to join the National Redress Scheme, but was deemed
ineligible by the Department of Social Services.

A spokesperson for the department told the ABC it prohibited AIM
from joining the National Redress Scheme because it did not believe
the organisation had enough money to adequately pay out potential
claimants.

"To join, under the National Redress Act institutions must be able
to demonstrate their capacity to pay redress for current and any
possible future applicants over the life of the scheme," a
statement from the department read.

"As AIM has taken necessary steps to join the scheme it will not,
at this stage, be subject to financial consequences."

Administrative limbo
The news that AIM will not be required to participate in the
National Redress Scheme has left a group of people who say they
were abused at Retta Dixon unable to move their claims for redress
forward.

As AIM is not a participating institution, survivors cannot expect
to receive any financial compensation from the organisation.

Further, no "funder of last resort" has been identified, meaning
neither the NT nor Federal Government have committed to picking up
the tab for any redress payments that could be owed to former
residents.

Anna Swain, the acting principal lawyer at knowmore Legal Service,
which has provided legal advice to 10 survivors of alleged sexual
abuse at Retta Dixon, said the delay was devastating for the
service's clients.

"It's frustrating, it's disappointing, it feels as though they've
been forgotten again," she said.

The lawyer said the situation illustrated a flaw in the current
structure of the scheme that needed to be urgently fixed.

"The funder of last resort provision needs to be broadened so that
in cases such as this, where an institution has tried to join the
scheme but cannot because of their financial situation, state and
commonwealth governments can step in and say, 'We'll pay for
this,'" Ms Swain said.

Class action
In 2017 a landmark class action led to a settlement for 71 of the
people who say they were abused or mistreated while at Retta
Dixon.

Stolen Generations NT chairperson Eileen Cummings says this went
some way to healing the wounds of the past, but not everyone who
was abused while at Retta Dixon was included in the settlement.

In the years after the class action, when former Retta Dixon
residents came to her saying they needed redress from their time in
the home, Ms Cummings directed them to the National Redress
Scheme.

She said she was disappointed it had not delivered swift
compensation, acknowledgement and justice.

She urged the Commonwealth Government to quickly find a solution to
the current problem.

"The people that have put into the redress scheme are still
suffering," she said.

"We see them on a daily basis.

"There are a lot of [Retta Dixon] children that are elderly,
they've got chronic illnesses, and surely the Commonwealth can come
to the party and try and help these people."

AIM willing to apologise
In a statement provided to the ABC, general director of Australian
Indigenous Ministries (previously Aborigines Inland Mission) Cliff
Letcher said his organisation did attempt to join the scheme.

"We have indicated to the National Redress Scheme our desire to
provide support for the survivors," the statement read.

"They have indicated that, under their current regulations, if we
cannot meet our financial obligations we cannot participate in any
other way through the National Redress Scheme to support them."

Mr Letcher offered an olive branch to former residents of Retta
Dixon, whose allegations of mistreatment are from decades before he
managed the organisation.

"Should any of the survivors wish to contact us directly to be able
to tell their story and receive an apology it is my belief that our
organisation would be willing to undertake such a meeting," a
statement read.

Claims hanging in the balance
For the former residents of Retta Dixon seeking compensation and
acknowledgement under the National Redress Scheme, a wait that has
gone on for decades continues.

In a statement, a Department of Social Services spokesperson said
the fate of National Redress Scheme applications relating to Retta
Dixon Home would be discussed at an as-yet-unscheduled Ministers'
Redress Scheme Governance Board Meeting in 2021.

Ms Cummings hopes her message is heard loud and clear in any such
discussion.

"I want [the Commonwealth] to take responsibility, because they
were the ones that removed the children in the first place," she
said. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Fraud Suit From EDD Debit Card Holders
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
3:21-cv-00494-JCS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021) asserts claims against
Bank of America's alleged gross security failures and failure to
address the criminal activity and provide proper debit card
safeguards in connection with issued debit cards to Employment
Development Department (EDD) benefit recipients.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of Californians
were forced to survive on unemployment benefits provided by
California's EDD through an exclusive contract with Bank of
America. However, Bank of America provided Californians receiving
benefits a debit card with security features so dated they were
easily hacked by even the most unsophisticated thieves. Indeed,
Bank of America forced the Plaintiff and the Class to use debit
cards with "magnetic stripes," an obsolete technology that was
phased out of normal debit cards many years ago for these
well-known security reasons. Bank of America also failed properly
monitor the Plaintiff's and the Class's EDD accounts for suspicious
activity, seemingly ignoring the widespread fraud as it happened,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that Bank of America's lack of concern for
the EDD customer demographic allowed criminals to syphon millions
from those already struggling to put food on their tables. Bank of
America then exacerbated the harm when it froze hundreds of
thousands EDD accounts as a "too little, too late" measure to
combat the fraudsters. In doing so, Bank of America also inhibited
valid benefit recipients' access to the funds they needed to
survive. To make matters even worse, Bank of America has not
responded appropriately to the EDD fraud. Unlike regular Bank of
America customers, account holders with EDD funds must interact
with Bank of America representatives through a separate department.
The EDD victims have reported spending hours on the phone waiting
to speak with a Bank of America, the suit added.

Mr. Rodriguez is a citizen and resident of the State of California.
Rodriguez's job as a real estate agent slowed to almost a complete
stop during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rodriguez applied for and
received EDD unemployment benefits under the CARES Act. Rodriguez
received a Bank of America EDD Visa debit card to access his
benefits. His Bank of America EDD Visa debit card has a magnetic
strip and no EMV chip. Rodriguez was the victim of unauthorized
transactions that depleted a total of $1,130 from his EDD debit.

Bank of America is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. The
Defendant conducts significant business in the State of California
including administering unemployment benefits through its exclusive
contract with the State of California's EDD.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David. S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          Catherine M. McBain, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com
                  kmcbain@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jmartin@ForThePeople.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide Account Info, Robinson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CORY ROBINSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00110-JM-RBB
(S.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021) alleges that Bank of America has
neglected to fulfill its duty to provide information available to
it in the regular course of business to Plaintiff upon receipt of
Plaintiff's Qualified Written Request (QWR) or Request for
Information (RFI).

As alleged in the complaint, BANA has demonstrated a "pattern or
practice" of failing to adequately respond to borrowers' requests
for account information, which makes BANA liable for statutory
damages in an amount up to $2,000 for each failure to adequately
respond.

Notwithstanding this glaring failure to abide by its statutory
duty, and despite the Plaintiff's informing BANA of its failure,
BANA continues to incorrectly characterize the Plaintiff's and
other borrowers' reasonable requests for account information as
"overbroad and unduly burdensome," the suit says.

On July 20, 2020, Mr. Robinson, through counsel, sent BANA a Notice
of Error and Request for Information pursuant to RESPA. In this
letter, the Plaintiff disputed the amount of the debt owed, and
asked for several documents associated with his account, including:
"A copy of any and all recordings of [Plaintiff] or any other
person concerning [Plaintiff's] account." On August 13, 2020, the
Plaintiff's counsel received a response to the request from BANA
dated August 10, 2020. In its response, BANA failed to provide any
of the requested information.

The Defendant is a national bank with its headquarters located in
Charlotte, North Carolina. BANA is the loan servicer for the
Plaintiff's mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Alan Gudino, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  alan@kazlg.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Yick Sues Over Stolen Money From EDD Cardholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER YICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00518 (C.D. Cal., January
19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligent performance of contract, negligent failure to warn,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of
contract, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act,
the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard
unemployment insurance and other benefits issued by the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) from fraudulent activities.
The Plaintiff and Class members are EDD cardholders whose money in
their Bank of America EDD accounts was suddenly gone and the bank
has failed to assist them or even communicate to them about how the
incident happened and when they can get their money back. The
failure of the Defendants to act according to industry security
standards by securing the private financial information of EDD
cardholders and accounts, and by issuing EDD cards with EMV chips
has resulted in significant harm to recipients of EDD benefits,
depriving them of their financial lifeline in the midst of a
pandemic and full-blown economic crisis, the suit says.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking company with its principal place
of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Brian Danitz, Esq.
         Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
         Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
         Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
                 nrahman@cpmlegal.com
                 akirtley@cpmlegal.com
                 jpeng@cpmlegal.com

BAYLOR SCOTT: Court Allows FLSA Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Maddox, writing for D Magazine, reports that the federal court
in the Northern District of Texas has granted conditional
certification to the plaintiffs against Baylor Scott & White
Health, where they allege that their employer docked their pay
unfairly. The certification will allow the plaintiff's lawyers to
send notice to all qualifying BSW employees to see if they would
like to join the lawsuit with the original 18 plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are a group of advanced practitioners (i.e., nurse
practitioner or physician's assistant) who say that they were
docked pay by BSW and HeathTexas Provider Network when they didn't
work 40 hours in a week, even though they were salaried employees
who weren't paid by the hour. When these employees worked more than
40 hours per week, they were not given overtime pay as one would
receive if they were hourly employees. From the plaintiff's
perspective, the hospital system treated these employees like
hourly workers only when it benefitted the system, and are seeking
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The 18 plaintiffs are seeking around 1.9 million in damages for
lost salary over two to three years. They allege that if they are
hourly employees, they should be able to charge for duties done at
home, such as answering work emails and texts, finishing notes, or
other work they did at home. The court's ruling allows the case to
have class-action status, meaning hundreds of BSW practitioners can
be contacted and opt into the suit if they experienced similar
deductions.

Plaintiffs come from a variety of BSW facilities, such as Baylor
University Medical Center in Dallas. Baylor Scott & White is the
largest nonprofit health system in the state and one of the largest
in the country. The original suit says that Baylor attempted to
make corrective payments and said they were accounting mistakes.
Plaintiffs claim the errors were not an accounting mistake but are
part of the policy and practice for BSW. FLSA allows employers to
make corrective payments for good-faith mistakes, not policy
decisions, so plaintiffs argue that BSW's payments are not viable.

Employees who met the qualifications and worked for the defendants
after April 6, 2017, can opt into the lawsuit, the court filing
says.

Baylor Scott & White Health did not comment as the suit is ongoing.
[GN]


BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Court Junks Rodriguez Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA RODRIGUEZ, v.
BEYER & ASSOCIATES LLC and PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES INC.,
Case No. 19-C-1677 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C.
Griesbach entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants Beyer & Associates LLC's motion to
      dismiss and Parking Revenue Recovery Services Inc.'s
      motion to dismiss;

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
      class and motion to compel discovery;

   3. dismissing the case.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's second amended complaint does not
allege that the claimed statutory violations harmed her in any way
or created any appreciable risk of harm to her. Although the
Plaintiff alleges that she was confused because the letter did not
clearly identify the creditor. The Plaintiff's second amended
complaint contains no allegation that the letter "detrimentally
affected" the handling of her debts. She does not allege that she
attempted to clarify her confusion, make a payment, or otherwise
manage the debt. The Plaintiff has failed to allege that she
suffered an injury from the claimed FDCPA violations necessary for
standing. Therefore, this case must be dismissed for lack of
standing."

The Plaintiff is a Wisconsin resident. PRRS collects and attempts
to collect consumer parking debts incurred or alleged to have been
incurred on behalf of third parties. Beyer regularly engages in the
collection of defaulted consumer debts alleged to be owed to
others. The Plaintiff received a letter dated August 30, 2019, from
Beyer & Associates stating that Plaintiff incurred and defaulted on
a financial obligation to an unknown parking lot owner.

The Plaintiff alleges that using the letter in an attempt to
collect the debt violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) because it contained a false, deceptive, or misleading
representation in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2YkpahDat no extra charge.[CC]

BIT DIGITAL: Faces Pauwels Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PAUWELS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BIT DIGITAL, INC., MIN HU, and ERKE HUANG, Case No.
1:21-cv-00515 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021) is a class action on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bit
Digital securities between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021,
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research issued a research report
alleging that Bit Digital operates "a fake crypto currency
business" "designed to steal funds from investors." Though the
Company claims "it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners in China," J
Capital alleged that "is simply not possible" and stated that "we
verified with local governments supposedly hosting the BTBT mining
operation that there are no bitcoin miners there."

On this news, Bit Digital's stock price fell $6.27 per share, or
25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
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 including failure to
disclose to investors that Bit Digital overstated the extent of its
a bitcoin mining operation.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Mr. Pauwels purchased Bit Digital securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

Bit Digital is a holding company that purports to engage in the
bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned subsidiaries in
U.S. and Hong Kong. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          LANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Affirms Fairness of Class Settlement in Shane
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms
the district court's finding that the class action settlement
agreement fair, reasonable and adequate in the lawsuit captioned
SHANE GROUP INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee, CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS,
Objector-Appellant, Case No. 19-2260 (6th Cir.).

Objector-Appellant Andrews objects to a class-action settlement
agreement and appeals the district court's finding that the
agreement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under the Rule
23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Appellate Court rejects Mr. Andrews' arguments and affirms the
ruling.

The lawsuit is a class action in which the Plaintiffs alleged that
Blue Cross had engaged in an extensive price-fixing scheme. A
proposed settlement first came to the Appellate Court in 2016, when
the Appellate Court held that the district court had abused its
discretion when it sealed various filings and records. The
Appellate Court, therefore, vacated the district court's approval
of the original settlement and instructed it to "begin the Rule
23(e) process anew."

On remand, the district court eventually approved a new settlement
agreement in 2019. The agreement provides for a total settlement
fund of $29.99 million. That amount, after deductions for fees and
expenses, would leave about $16 million for payments to class
members, whose damages were allegedly about $50 million (after
deducting $58 million in alleged damages for a single class member
that opted out).

Mr. Andrews himself (proceeding pro se) is a serial objector, who
in the case unsuccessfully sought a $150,000 payoff to drop his
objections. He is now the sole remaining objector.

The Appellate Court reviews the approval of a settlement agreement
for an abuse of discretion. In re Dry Max Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d
713, 717 (6th Cir. 2013).

Mr. Andrews raises a raft of objections, many of them undeveloped,
all of them meritless. His argument that the district court judge
should have recused herself is waived (in addition to being
undeveloped), since Andrews did not make that argument in the
district court. He argues that the named plaintiffs lacked standing
to assert their claims, but does not explain why. He also argues
that the distribution of any leftover funds to Free Clinics of
Michigan would be a kickback for Blue Cross. But the two entities
are not legally related, and Andrews's argument is otherwise
conclusory.

Mr. Andrews also argues that payment of so-called "service awards"
to certain named plaintiffs amounted to a bounty. On this record,
however, those payments correlate to the substantial amount of time
that the named plaintiffs actually spent producing documents and
otherwise advancing the litigation of the case. Andrews further
argues that the named plaintiffs and class counsel were
"inadequate" representatives of the class. But that argument too is
conclusory, and is undermined by the substantial recovery (32% of
alleged damages, after deductions for fees and expenses) for
unnamed class members. Andrews' remaining objections are likewise
undeveloped and are, therefore, forfeited.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6tu5qr9 from Leagle.com.


BROADWAY ADVANCE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROADWAY ADVANCE, LLC, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00352
(C.D. Cal., January 14, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed calls on his
cellular telephone number beginning in or around November 2017 in
an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant purportedly used
an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing its
calls, and did not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive such calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on his cellular telephone number ending in -1083, which was
added on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4,
2008.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
members of the ATDS Class were harmed by causing them to incur
certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid, and invading their privacy.

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

Broadway Advance, LLC is a financial services 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


BT GROUP: Chief Exec Has to Repel Move to Introduce UK Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Elder, writing for Financial Times, reports that Philip
Jansen probably had enough going on already. On top of the auctions
for 5G spectrum and English Premiership rights due this quarter, as
well as the pension fund and wholesale market reviews due before
summer, the BT chief executive now has to repel an attempt to
introduce class actions to the UK courts.

Justin Le Patourel, a former consultant at regulator Ofcom, said BT
has failed to compensate 2.3m customers for overcharging on line
rental. His case stems from BT's agreement in 2017 to cut the price
of its landline-only package by £7 a month, Ofcom having found
that the telecoms incumbent had delivered years of poor value for
money to some typically elderly and vulnerable customers.

The threatened action would follow roughly the same shape as a test
case against Mastercard, which is being pursued for damages on
behalf of 46m credit and debit card holders. The Consumer Rights
Act 2015 had made these opt-out class actions possible for
competition issues but progress since has been glacial. The only
ones compensated so far have been lawyers.

A Supreme Court ruling against Mastercard in December might unblock
the case pipeline, in effect by deciding that the Competition
Appeal Tribunal had become an obstacle by setting the evidence bar
to trial too high. But the complications of that case -- including
the death of one judge during the case and a 2-2 split decision
between the remaining justices who then agreed to reject
Mastercard's appeal because a re-hearing would be too expensive --
suggest it is too early to talk about precedent. The case against
BT looks more simple, yet it is still far from straightforward.

BT's landline-only customers were collateral damage in last
decade's broadband price war. Line rental costs jumped as operators
rejigged pricing bundles to reflect falling voice use and a shift
to flat pricing for unlimited calls. And while market dominance
forced BT into being the market's last-man-standing for landline
connections, Ofcom found that the company exploited its position as
price setter from 2013 onwards. Discounts on offer (BT's defence
against the legal claims on Jan. 18) were designed to pacify the
few that complained from defecting rather than to protect
vulnerable groups.

Where Ofcom failed was to secure any binding remedy. Its final
report found no clear breaches of competition law and made no
explicit references to excessive pricing. Everything was voluntary.
So, while the fight for compensation is likely to be little more
than another long and convoluted distraction for BT management,
broader fears of a US-style ambulance-chasing legal culture to the
UK still seem largely theoretical.

Virtuous Circle
Covid-19 may have led to plenty of sleepless nights for Britain's
small business owners. But it has been rather less stressful for
some of the companies that lend them money, writes Jonathan Ford.

Take, for instance, Funding Circle, which has just issued its
trading update for 2020. A year ago, this online peer-to-peer
lender to SMEs was visibly struggling. Concerned by a weakening
credit environment, it had slowed down loan originations,
imperilling its "fintech" style growth story. The shares fell as
low as 44p -- 90 per cent below the 2018 float price of 440p.

Covid-19 has now delivered a salutary shot in the arm to the
business. Demand for government backed business interruption loans
-- dubbed "CBILS" -- have more than immunised it against the force
of the pandemic.

Demand rose last year, with originations up 17 per cent to £2.7bn
and by an even more impressive 41 per cent in the second half.
What's more, much of the income came in like clockwork. The fees
Funding Circle receives for new UK lending have been obligingly
paid by the government, as well as the first year of interest
payments. The state even picks up 80 per cent of the losses on any
defaults.

Funding Circle has shown it can lend money in the teeth of a public
health crisis. The bigger question is whether it will still have
such a vibrant business when the rest of us get a shot in the arm.

First there is the question of how demand will evolve when the
government pulls back on its support. CBILS is likely to continue
until the end of the first quarter. Beyond that, it is less
certain. It is a similar story with the US version, the Paycheck
Protection Program.

Funding Circle argues that government support is not the be all and
end all. The pandemic has converted more businesses to the joys of
online lending, with its quick decision turnround.

The biggest question though is about the lending side. With CBILS
now the only show in town, government rules have forced Funding
Circle to switch off the retail side of the lending operation —
historically about a fifth of the total. That has turned it into a
wholly institutional business.

It is one thing picking up 9 per cent on loans 80 per cent backed
by the government. But as support tapers off it will be a different
story. If the history of institutionally-dependent finance
companies teaches anything, it is that those backers can get
flighty if the going gets tough.

Funding Circle's share price has more than doubled from its nadir
in March last year. Lockdown has been kind. Further progress will
depend on what happens when the shutters come back up. [GN]


BT GROUP: Taps Simmons & Simmons to Assist in Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Lock, writing for Law.com, reports that telecoms giant BT has
called in Simmons & Simmons to assist in a major dispute, after
Mishcon de Reya filed a multi-million pound claim accusing the
company of overcharging customers.

A claim worth 600 million pounds has been filed against the
telecoms giant, alleging it overcharged customers. [GN]




CD PROJEKT: New Details Emerge on Mishandling of Cyberpunk 2077
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Haughn, writing for Screen Rant, reports that new details
have emerged that shed light on CD Projekt Red's mishandling of
Cyberpunk 2077, including the alleged facts that it was originally
a third-person game like The Witcher 3 and its police system wasn't
added until the final stretch of development. Since launch,
Cyberpunk 2077 has been widely criticized for game-breaking bugs,
poor frame rates, graphical issues, and unpredictable crashes on
last-gen consoles. The controversy surrounding the game prompted
Cyberpunk 2077 to be removed from the PlayStation Store, and many
players have reached out through various avenues to secure
refunds.

There has been no shortage of criticism aimed at CD Projekt Red,
with staff offering insights into the crunch work culture they made
the game under and more. Some CDPR devs have even gone so far as to
suggest that publisher CD Projekt intentionally deceived customers
and investors about the game's level of preparedness. The polish
studio must now defend itself against multiple class-action
lawsuits that are being pursued by CD Projekt shareholders.

In a series of tweets based on CDPR developer testimony, Jason
Schreier revealed that the Grand Theft Auto-like wanted system was
introduced to the game at the last-minute, explaining why
interactions with the NCPD feels incomplete and at odds with the
rest of the game. In what is probably the most surprising
discovery, staff insights also revealed that Cyberpunk 2077 was
originally a third-person game until 2016, much like The Witcher
series that put CDPR on the map. These revelations are just the tip
of the iceberg in a long list of frustrations that developers have
dealt with internally for years, and it's now all boiling over as a
damning report on Cyberpunk 2077's development has emerged.

To its credit, CD Projekt Red has publicly acknowledged its failure
to release a fully prepared game and clearly understands why
consumers are so upset with the game's abysmal performance,
especially on consoles. Despite all of the issues that continue to
mount, there is light at the end of the tunnel for now, at least.
Cyberpunk 2077 received its last big patch in late December and two
more are planned, and a newly released roadmap (while vague in
terms of timing) seems to promise a functional game by the end of
the year.

CD Projekt Red has a long way to go if it ever hopes to inspire
consumer and shareholder confidence again. In order to do achieve
that ultimate goal, the studio will need to be much more
transparent in all its future Cyberpunk 2077 updates and
improvements continue to be applied, as the developer and publisher
CD Projekt's lack of transparency and planning is what it got them
to this critical point. [GN]


CD PROJEKT: Responds to Second Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PCGames reports that the studio behind Cyberpunk 2077 faces another
class action lawsuit from investors (thanks, The Loadout). CD
Projekt explains on its investor relations website that the second
civil class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by a law firm
acting on the investors' behalf. The claim is reportedly the same
as the first lawsuit, which means it's arguing that investors are
owed damages as they were misled over the state of the cyberpunk
game prior to its launch. CD Projekt says it'll "undertake vigorous
action to defend itself" against it.

The initial lawsuit CDP refers to was filed back in December, with
a press release from Rosen Law Firm stating that the lawsuit claims
CD Projekt "failed to disclose that Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually
unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems
due to an enormous number of bugs".

As a result, Sony removed Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation
Store, and the company, alongside Microsoft and CD Projekt, "would
be forced" into issuing refunds. The press release then reads: "CD
Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; and as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times".

Because of all this, the lawsuit claims that the investors suffered
damages when Cyberpunk 2077 launched and the "true details entered
the market".

Again, CD Projekt Red acknowledged this first lawsuit on its
investor relations website, issuing the same response as it would
to the second lawsuit: it would "undertake vigorous action" to
defend itself. [GN]


CD PROJEKT: To Vigorously Defend Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jahan Patel, writing for Digi Statement, reports that the Cyberpunk
soap opera is renewed for a new season in 2021, and the pilot is
very promising. On the program: a still buggy game, grumpy
investors and CD Projekt's response to the lawsuits looming. We
told you about it a few days before the end of the holiday season,
CD Projekt must now face hordes of angry investors, determined to
make them pay the Cyberpunk 2077 affront on Xbox One and PS4 fat.
According to Rosen Law Firm, specializing in investor rights, the
game would be virtually unplayable on the aforementioned media, the
fault of an improbable number of bugs and other technical
problems.

A complaint followed by other firms, all this adding to the long
list of repercussions of the chaotic launch of the futuristic RPG.
However, the Polish studio intends to defend itself against these
accusations, supported by the outright withdrawal of the game from
the Playstation Store, pending the famous optimization patches: in
a statement in response to the legal attacks targeting CP2077, CD
Projekt indicates that 'he will put in place "a vigorous defence
against the facts with which they are accused".

As for the situation of the game at the time of this writing: the
game is in version 1.06, but most of the work remains to be done.
The updates supposed to stabilize the grinds should, as a reminder,
arrive as early as this month, with a second essential patch next
month. The situation seems to be getting worse & worse for CD
Projekt. Despite the games great playing numbers and sells, what
will be the future of this futuristic RPG game is yet to be seen.
[GN]


CHARTER COMM: Gennarelli Has Until May 14 to File Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL GENNARELLI, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-09635-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order approving the Joint
Stipulation to Extend Motion for Class Certification Briefing
Schedule and good cause appearing, as follows:

   1. Last Day to File Motion for Class        May 14, 2021
      Certification:

   2. Last Day to File Class Certification     June 25, 2021
      Opposition:

   3. Last Day to File Reply to                July 23, 2021
      Defendant's Opposition:

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Charter Spectrum.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Y7fxCP at no extra charge.[CC]

CHICAGO, IL: Challenges Predatory Towing Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that the class action
status of a predatory towing lawsuit against the city of Chicago is
being challenged, another delay for the complaint that was filed in
2019.

In December, the city of Chicago's petition for appeal was granted
by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The city is challenging
the class action status of a group of motorists claiming the city
practiced predatory towing. A federal district court had granted
class action status for two groups in November.

The city first questions whether the plaintiff is actually
challenging the constitutionality of the state statute. Rather, the
city argues, the lawsuit questions the notification process of the
towing statute. Therefore, the complaint has no place in federal
court.

Second, the city is challenging the district court's ruling that
individual circumstances within the class are irrelevant in the
predatory towing lawsuit. The city of Chicago cites case law where
class status was denied based on individual issues overriding
common issues.

Although the appeal is pending, the district court has hit the
pause button on discovery for the class groups. The city of Chicago
argues that if discovery were to continue, it "would lead to
confusion among the public should the certification order be
reversed, vacated or modified."

"Any such confusion will undoubtedly be attributed to the city and
require the city to spend time and resources fielding complaints
and responding to claims based upon this confusion," attorneys for
Chicago state in the motion to stay discovery. "Until there is
certainty regarding the certification order, the public and class
members should not be notified."

Also, the city argues that responding to discovery requests
regarding predatory towing will require substantial time and
expenses.

Those resources will be an unnecessarily lost if the Seventh
Circuit just partially rules in the city's favor. Furthermore,
since injunctive relief was denied, there is no harm in delaying
discovery while both parties await a definitive ruling on class
certification.

The predatory towing lawsuit was filed in July 2019 by Andrea
Santiago, a senior citizen with multiple sclerosis who is confined
to a wheelchair. Santiago accuses the city of towing her car and
eventually selling it for scrap without giving her due process.

Santiago owned a van that was regularly parked on the side of the
street for easy access. In June 2018, the van was towed and
impounded. The complaint claims that Santiago never received a
notice by mail warning her, calling the action "towing without
telling."

The city claims it mailed a post-tow notice of vehicle impoundment
on June 15, 2018.

Meanwhile, storage fees were accumulating as Santiago's daughter
attempted to retrieve the van.

The lawsuit alleges that the city never mailed an additional notice
of impending vehicle disposal. Such notice is required under state
statute. The city sold the van to the towing company, United Road
Towing, before Santiago's daughter was able to locate it. That
company then sold it for scrap to a salvage yard.

Santiago never received any of the proceeds from the van's sale,
which also is required by state law.

In 2005, Illinois amended the state's vehicle code to address
predatory towing.
Cities with a population of more than 500,000 people are required
to notify motorists that their vehicle has been towed. Santiago's
lawsuit claims Chicago never amended its code to reflect those
changes.

For more details about the lawsuit and the 2005 predatory towing
legislation, click https://bit.ly/2M4E0WJ.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has a history of
battling predatory towing within the trucking industry. Mike
Matousek, OOIDA manager of government affairs, has been in the
trenches in the fight against predatory towing.

"While the definition of 'predatory towing' might vary a bit for
cars and trucks, there's no question commercial motor vehicles are
targeted by unscrupulous towing operators," Matousek told Land
Line. "We see it all over the country on a regular basis, which
includes predatory booting schemes, legally questionable drive-away
tows, and other forms of nonconsensual towing. The Chicago Police
Department appears to be going after some of these crooked
operators, but more can and must be done - not only in Chicago, but
all across the country." LL [GN]


CISION US: Mikityuk Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANATOLIY MIKITYUK, MITCH TALLUNGAN, and MICHAEL ESQUIBEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CISION US INC. and CISION LTD., Case No. 1:21-cv-00510 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 20, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other damages for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
who have worked for the Defendants as sales representatives.

The Plaintiffs contend that Cision requires sales representatives
to work long hours, often in excess of 40
hours per workweek, in order to complete required tasks. While
employed by Cision, they consistently worked more than 40 hours per
workweek without receiving overtime compensation for all the hours
they worked, the Plaintiffs add.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Cision employs sales representatives to sell its products and
services. Sales Representatives perform non-exempt sales-related
tasks, including communicating with clients and potential clients
via phone and email, researching sales leads, booking sales
meetings with prospective clients, and/or makings sales of Cision's
products to current and/or prospective clients

Cision is a public relations software and services provider. Cision
sells software products that identify influencers, create and
distribute content, and measure the impact of communications.
Cision sells several software products and/or services, including
Bulletin Intelligence, PR Newswire, and Falcon.io, among
others.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          Eliana J. Theodorou, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

               - and -

          Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq.
          601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 847-4400
          Facsimile: (202) 847-4010

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Mishra Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBI MISHRA, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Real Party in Interest v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01785-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
and the Class Counsel's requests for Fee and Expense Awards.

The matter was before the Court on Nov. 12, 2020.  Judge Nunley has
carefully considered the briefs, arguments of counsel, and all
matters presented to the Court.

Accordingly, he approves the settlement terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement is, in all
respects, fair, adequate and reasonable, and further finds that the
Plaintiff has satisfied the standards and applicable requirements
for final approval of the class action settlement under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. Section 216.

The Judge grants final certification approval, for settlement
purposes, to the Classes, consisting of:

   a. California Class: All current and former employees of
      Defendants who were eligible to receive Tru Up payments
      while employed in California at any time during the
      California Class Period.

   b. FLSA Class: All current and former employees of Defendants
      who were eligible to receive Tru Up payments at any time
      during the FLSA Class Period who have opted into this
      litigation pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.  All
      members of the FLSA Class are identified on Schedule A to
      this Order.

The Judge finds the Individual Settlement Payments provided for
under the Settlement to be fair and reasonable in light of all the
circumstances.  He, therefore, orders the calculations and the
payments to be made and administered in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement.

For the reasons set forth in the current Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement (including the Class Counsel's request
for a Fee and Expense Award), the Class Counsel's requests for a
Fee Award in the amount of $1,431,500, and reasonable actual
expenses $24,040, as the Expense Award, are granted pursuant to
California law because the Class Counsel's requests fall within the
range of reasonableness, the result achieved justified the award,
and the expenses were reasonably incurred.

For the reasons set forth in the current Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, the Plaintiff's request for Enhancement
Payment in the amount of $10,000 granted.  The request for
Administration Costs in the amount of $28,816.20 is also granted
and will be paid to the Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc.,
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

No other costs, fees or other relief will be awarded, either
against the Defendants or related persons or entities, as defined
in the Settlement Agreement, or from the award to the Settlement
Class Members.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Judge
dismissed instant action with prejudice.  Judgment is entered in
accordance with the findings in the Order.  The Judgment is the
Final Judgment in the suit as to all the Settlement Class Members.
The Judge finds no just reason for delay and expressly directs the
Clerk of the Court to enter Judgment immediately.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6leabjj from Leagle.com.


CONGRESSIONAL BANK: Bid to Certify Appeal in Esktrom Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY EKSTROM, et al., Plaintiffs v. CONGRESSIONAL
BANK, SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO AMERICAN BANK, Defendant, Case No.
ELH-20-1501 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland denies Congressional's
Motion to Certify Discretionary Appeal and to Stay Litigation.

The putative class action concerns an alleged kickback scheme
between American Bank and All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland based
title and settlement services company.  Plaintiffs Ekstrom and
Davida Carnahan, who are mortgagors, have sued Congressional,
American Bank's successor-by-merger in a suit consisting of more
than 50 pages with 24 exhibits.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
kickback scheme violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section 2601, and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962.

Congressional moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b).  It argued that the Plaintiffs' claims
are time-barred because the alleged violations occurred in 2010,
and the Plaintiffs did not set forth facts sufficient to toll the
statute of limitations under a theory of fraudulent concealment.
Further, the Defendant urged dismissal of the Plaintiffs' RICO
claim, arguing that they did not allege a RICO enterprise, a
pattern of racketeering, or a proximate injury.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order of Nov. 9, 2020, Judge Hollander
denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  She determined that the
Defendant was not entitled to dismissal based on limitations
because the Plaintiffs set forth sufficient allegations of
fraudulent concealment and equitable tolling.  In addition, she
concluded that the Plaintiffs adequately stated a RICO claim.

Thereafter, Congressional filed a Motion to Certify Discretionary
Appeal and to Stay Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b).  The Motion is supported by a memorandum of law.  In
seeking an interlocutory appeal, Congressional argues that there
are four controlling questions of law at issue, for which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion.

Specifically, Congressional requests certification of the
following: (1) whether the Plaintiffs' conceded knowledge of the
allegedly excessive price precludes them from relying on fraudulent
concealment tolling; (2) whether nondisclosure of a kickback scheme
constitutes fraudulent concealment if there is no independent legal
duty to disclose; (3) if the Plaintiffs' alleged bilateral
conspiracy constitutes a RICO enterprise; and (4) whether the
Plaintiffs alleged a causal relationship between the fraudulent
scheme and the Plaintiffs' damages.

In Congressional's view, an immediate appeal may materially advance
the ultimate termination of the litigation.  And, it argues that it
only needs to demonstrate that a substantial ground for difference
of opinion exists as to one of these issues, because they are all
controlling questions of law that will materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.

In opposing the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiffs contend that, as
to the four issues, none satisfies all three prongs of Section
1292(b).

Judge Hollander agrees.  In her view, all four issues satisfy the
material advancement prong of Section 1292(b) because reversal by
the Fourth Circuit on any one of the issues would resolve at least
one or both of the Plaintiffs' claims.  And, because the case is
still in an early phase of litigation and substantive discovery has
not yet occurred, an immediate appeal would materially advance the
termination of litigation.  However, the Judge finds that the
Defendant has not satisfied the remaining prongs of Section 1292(b)
or demonstrated that there are "exceptional circumstances" that
justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate
review until after the entry of a final judgment.

The Defendant raises two issues in relation to limitations and
tolling based on fraudulent concealment.  As to the first issue,
Congressional avers that the question of whether the Plaintiffs'
knowledge of the allegedly excessive price for settlement services
placed them on inquiry notice of the kickback scheme is a
controlling question of law that involves substantial ground for
difference of opinion as a result of two recent Fourth Circuit
rulings--Baehr v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C., 953 F.3d 244, 256 (4th
Cir. 2020), and Edmonson v. Eagle Nat'l Bank, 922 F.3d 535 (4th
Cir. 2019).

Congressional also asserts that the question of whether "mere
nondisclosure of an alleged kickback scheme constitutes fraudulent
concealment" is a controlling question of law, citing Pocahontas
Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 828 F.2d 211, 218-19
(4th Cir. 1987), to support its claim that there are substantial
grounds for a difference of opinion.

Under these circumstances, the Judge opines that the Defendant has
not shown that there is a controlling question of law as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.  In Baehr,
the Fourth Circuit concluded that the deprivation of impartial and
fair competition between settlement services providers--untethered
from any evidence that the deprivation thereof increased settlement
costs--is not a concrete injury under RESPA.  In addition, the
suggestion from Pocahontas Supreme Coal that silence or
nondisclosure are insufficient to plead fraudulent concealment is
immaterial in the case and does not create a substantial ground for
difference of opinion.

The Defendant also contends that there are two questions of law
with respect to the Plaintiffs' RICO claim that are subject to
interlocutory appeal.  First, the Defendant requests certification
on the question of whether the Plaintiffs' alleged bilateral
conspiracy constitutes a RICO enterprise.  Second, it assets that
the question of whether the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that a RICO
violation proximately caused their injuries is dispositive of their
RICO claims, and there are substantial grounds for difference of
opinion.

In the Judge's view, the Defendant fails to establish that either
of these issues involves a controlling question of law or
substantial grounds for difference of opinion.  She notes that the
Defendant's disagreement with the Court's ruling is not enough to
find a controlling question of law or a substantial difference of
opinion as to either of the Defendant's RICO-related questions.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Hollander denies the
Defendant's Motion.  An Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yx8nswjm from Leagle.com.


CONNECTICUT: Rogers Prisoner Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK ROGERS, Plaintiff v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-1813 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael
P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
dismissed the Class Complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff Rogers, incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional Institution
in Cheshire, Connecticut, filed the case under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  He names 12 Defendants: former Commissioners of Correction
Scott Semple, James Dzurenda, Leo Arnone, Theresa Lantz, James
Armstrong, and Larry Meachum; Warden Henry Falcone, Director of
Engineering and Facilities Management Stephen Links, former
Director David Batten; and John Does 1-3.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his health by confining him in a facility with high
levels of radon.  He is proceeding in forma pauperis.

The Plaintiff was housed at Garner Correctional Institution from
Oct. 26, 2018, until Oct. 24, 2019.  Testing conducted in December
2013 and January 2014 showed levels of radon in excess of the EPA
action level of 4.0 piC/L.  The levels at Garner sometimes exceeded
five times the EPA action level.

The Defendants knew that inmates housed at Garner from its opening
until the installation of the radon mitigation system in 2014 faced
substantial harm from radon exposure but did nothing to abate it.
Inmate housing units were not tested for radon.  Correctional
employees were informed of radon exposure in March 2014, but
inmates were not told.

Judge Shea explains that the Court must review prisoner civil
complaints and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is
frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.  Such requirement applies
to all prisoner filings regardless whether the prisoner pays the
filing fee.  The complaint must include sufficient facts to afford
the Defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which
they are based and to demonstrate a plausible right to relief.  The
plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.

The Judge finds that although the Plaintiff stated that he is
filing a complaint asserting his own claims only, he has filed a
class action complaint with allegations focusing on inmates
confined at Garner in 2014 and earlier.  The Plaintiff was confined
at Garner from October 2018 through October 2019, over four years
after the period addressed in the class action.

To state a claim for deliberate indifference to health or safety,
the Judge holds that the Plaintiff must show that the conditions of
his confinement posed a substantial risk of serious harm and that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety.
Deliberate indifference exists when prison officials know of and
disregard an excessive risk to inmate safety.  A condition is
sufficiently severe if it deprives an inmate of basic human
needs--e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable
safety.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to radon during the year
he was confined at Garner.  Although the Plaintiff does not allege
that he suffered any radon-associated conditions, he need not have
contracted an illness to state a cognizable claim.  However, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff has alleged no facts relating to his
confinement at Garner other than the dates of his confinement and
it is not clear that he has identified any defendant responsible
for his confinement at Garner.

The limitations period for filing a section 1983 action in
Connecticut is three years.  The Plaintiff alleges, for example,
that Defendant Meachum was Commissioner of Correction from 1987 to
1995, Defendant Armstrong from 1995 to 2003, Defendant Lantz from
2003 to 2009, Defendant Arnone from 2010 to 2013, and Defendant
Dzurenda from 2013 to 2014.  All these Defendants were
commissioners of correction over four years before the Plaintiff
was confined at Garner and over six years before he filed the
action.

The Judge holds that the allegations against all the Defendants
relate to the period from the construction of Garner until the
remediation in 2014.  There are no allegations showing that any of
the Defendants were responsible for the Plaintiff's transfer to
Garner, that they took any actions within the limitations period,
or even that they were employed by the Department of Correction
when the Plaintiff was transferred there in October 2018.

It is well-settled in the circuit that, to state a claim under
section 1983, the Plaintiff must allege the personal involvement of
the defendants in the alleged constitutional violation, the Judge
says.  Absent allegations showing how the Defendants were
personally involved in the Plaintiff's confinement at Garner, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiff fails to state a plausible
claim.

For these reasons, Judge Shea dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b)(1).  The Plaintiff
may file an amended complaint including only allegations relevant
to his confinement at Garner from October 2018 through October 2019
and naming as the Defendants persons responsible for his
confinement there.  The Plaintiff will file his amended complaint
within 20 days from the date of the Order.  If he fails to timely
file an amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment
and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5n9zhuu from Leagle.com.


CONSECO LIFE: $27MM Settlement in Burnett Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM JEFFREY BURNETT, JOE H. CAMP, Plaintiffs v.
CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY n/k/a Wilco Life Ins. Co, CNO
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., CNO SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00200-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the class action settlement.

Plaintiffs Burnett and Camp--former holders of "LifeTrend" life
insurance policies--allege that the Defendants breached their
Policies by announcing and implementing changes in the calculation
of Policy premiums and expense charges that caused thousands of
policyholders to surrender their Policies.

On Oct. 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in
the Central District of California against the Defendants.  They
allege that Conseco Life announced that individual LifeTrend
policyholders could no longer maintain their Policies without
paying substantial new premiums and charges as part of a "shock
lapse" strategy designed to induce policyholders to give up their
Policies.

In November 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the case to the Northern District of
California (No. 10-md-02124; the "LifeTrend MDL").  The LifeTrend
MDL encompassed several lawsuits brought by several different
plaintiffs.  One of the cases, Brady v. Conseco Life Insurance Co.,
No. 08-cv-5746 (N.D. Cal.), was filed on behalf of almost all
LifeTrend policyholders--including policyholders who had retained
their policies, as well as policyholders, who had surrendered their
policies.

In December 2011, the MDL Court held that former policyholders no
longer could be included in the Brady Rule 23(b)(2) class because
former policyholders had no standing to seek declaratory or
injunctive relief, and because the damages they sought were not
incidental to injunctive relief.  Former policyholders were
thereafter removed from the Brady class.

In November 2013, the MDL Court approved the Brady settlement and
certified two settlement classes--a Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) class of
"In Force Policyholders" and a Rule 23(b)(3) class of "Lapsed
Policyholders."  The Brady Lapsed Policyholders class included
approximately 190 former policyholders whose Policies had
"lapsed."

In April 2015, the MDL Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  It also dismissed the Burnett Plaintiffs' claims against
the CNO Defendants because those claims derived from the Burnett
Plaintiffs' claims against Conseco Life.

In May 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the MDL Court's dismissal
of the complaint and remanded the instant case to the MDL Court.
In September 2017, the Northern District of California remanded the
case back to the Central District of California.  In January 2018,
the case was transferred to this district.

In April 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  In September 2019, the Plaintiffs moved for class
certification, ad subsequently, on March 20, 2020, the Court
granted Conseco Life's request to withdraw its motion to dismiss
and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On April 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  The Court granted preliminary
approval on July 22, 2020, and scheduled the Fairness Hearing for
Dec. 3, 2020.  On Sept. 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for final
approval.  Conseco Life has filed a response in support.

The Plaintiffs seek (1) final approval of the Settlement Agreement
with only Defendant Conseco Life; (2) certification of the
settlement class of Conseco Life policyholders; (3) the Plaintiffs'
designation as the class representatives; (4) appointment of
attorneys from Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC and DeLaney & DeLaney
LLC as te class counsel; (5) appointment of Donlin Recano &
Company, Inc. as the settlement administrator; (6) approval of the
notice of settlement; and (7) approval of the Settlement
Agreement's plan of distribution.

The proposed class Plaintiffs are Burnett and Camp.  The proposed
class includes: All Persons who owned a LifeTrend 3 Policy or
LifeTrend 4 Policy that was surrendered or lapsed on or after Oct.
1, 2008 and before June 30, 2013.  However, the Class does not
include LifeTrend 3 Policies or LifeTrend 4 Policies included in
the class action settlement in a separate lawsuit known as Brady v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-CV-5746
(N.D. Cal.).

Judge Hanlon has carefully reviewed the 53-page Proposed Settlement
Agreement that would resolve the Plaintiffs' claims against Conseco
Life. Some of the critical provisions are:

   a. The CNO Defendants are not parties to or beneficiaries of
      the agreement, and nothing in the agreement will impair any
      rights of the Plaintiffs to prosecute Claims in the Action
      or otherwise against the CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO
      Services LLC.

   b. Conseco Life will pay $27 million in cash to settle the
      claims of the Class.

   c. No Class member will receive less than $500.

   d. The amount distributed to the Class will be reduced by the
      proportional pro rata share of the Settlement Fund
      attributable to any Opt-Outs.

   e. No portion of the Settlement Fund will revert to Conseco
      Life.

   f. Notices will be mailed to Class members within 30 days
      after the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
      preliminary class approval.

   g. Conseco Life reserves the right to withdraw from the
      Proposed Settlement Agreement if the number of Class
      Policies requested to be excluded from the Class by opt-out
      is more than 150.

   h. The Class members may opt-out of the Class by serving
      written requests for exclusion up to 28 days before the
      Fairness Hearing.

   i. The Class members may object to the Proposed Settlement
      Agreement by filing and serving written objections up to 28
      days before the Fairness Hearing.

   j. The Settlement Administrator will distribute the Net
      Settlement Fund in two distributions.

   k. Any portion of the Net Settlement Fund that remains
      unclaimed after the Second Distribution, as well as any
      funds that are not distributed to Opt-Outs in satisfaction
      of individual settlements or judgments, will be used to
      fund a cy pres award to the National Consumer Law Center,
      or alternatively to another recipient designated by the
      Court.

   l. Once the settlement becomes final and Conseco Life funds
      the Settlement Fund, the Plaintiffs and the Class members
      will release any and all claims against Conseco Life (and
      certain related individuals and entities) based on the
      LifeTrend Policies.
   m. No attorneys' fees, expenses, or Class representative
      awards will be distributed out of the Settlement Fund
      without the Court's approval, and the total expenses to be
      withdrawn from the Settlement Fund will not exceed $1.25
      million.

   n. The Plaintiffs may seek a reasonable portion of the
      settlement fund to be set aside for litigation costs,
      attorneys' fees, and Class representative incentive awards.

As the Court confirmed at the Dec. 3, 2020 fairness hearing, no
class members have filed objections or opted out.

Judge Hanlon granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.  He
granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2).  The previously certified Class is finally certified
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement
purposes.

The Judge designated Plaintiffs Burnett and Camp as the class
representatives and appointed the following attorneys as the Class
Counsel: Stephen A. Weisbrod, Shelli L. Calland, Tamra B. Ferguson,
Saul Cohen, at Weisbod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Kathleen A. DeLaney
at DeLaney & DeLaney LLC.  He confirmed approval of Donlin Recano &
Company, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator of the Claim
Process.

For the reasons in the Order and in the parties' submissions, the
Judge also granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Plaintiffs' Incentive Awards.  The Class Counsel are
awarded fees of $9 million.  The Class Counsel are awarded
reimbursement of $577,662.29 from the Settlement Cash Consideration
for the amount of Preliminary Settlement Administration Expenses
that the Class Counsel have paid to date.

Conseco Life is given a credit toward the Settlement Cash
Consideration of $50,000 for the Preliminary Settlement
Administration Expenses that Conseco Life has paid to date.
Reasonable Settlement Administration Expenses incurred after the
entry of the Final Approval Order under the Plan of Allocation will
be paid to Donlin Recano out of the Settlement Cash Consideration,
provided that the total sum of all the Class Counsel's Expenses and
Settlement Administration Expenses (including Preliminary
Settlement Administration Expenses) will not exceed $1.25 million.

Plaintiffs Burnett and Camp are awarded the Plaintiffs' Service
Awards of $25,000 each.  The fees and expenses are to be paid as
outlined in Article 9 of the Settlement Agreement.

Partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
will be issued by separate entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4dubr4b from Leagle.com.


COSTA DEL MAR: Jan. 31 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that a lawsuit against Costa
Del Mar claims their sunglasses lifetime warranty comes with an
unfair repair fee. The suit claims it's more than a nominal fee.

A settlement means if you bought before 2018 and paid for repairs,
you could qualify for part of the $60 million dollar settlement.

The deadline to file a claim is January 31st, 2021.

Costa Del Mar claims no wrongdoing in settling this lawsuit. Click
here for more on this settlement.

A different class action lawsuit involves something you may not
know; privacy laws prevent credit and debit card receipts from
having more than the last five digits shown.

Also, receipts cannot show expiration information.

A lawsuit involving Everi, the provider of ATMs and casinos,
alleges receipts showed more numbers than allowed.

If by chance you have those receipts from February 2016 through
2019, you could get up to $60 per violation.

Everi claims no wrongdoing in settling this lawsuit.

The deadline to file a claim is February 1, 2021. Click here for
more on this settlement.

But the law allows up to $1000 per violation if you can prove it.
Unfortunately, you may have to go to court to get it. [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Asks Court to Junk Rough Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN ROUGH, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01340-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion to  certify the following class and subclasses:

      -- The Nonexempt Class:

         "all current and former nonexempt employees who worked
         for Costco in the State of California at any time from
         four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through
         the present;"

      -- Wage Statement Subclass:

         "all members of the Nonexempt Class, who worked for the
         Defendant in the California within one year of the
         filing of the complaint and whose time punches were
         automatically changed through Defendant's Three Minute
         Window Policy;"

      -- The Closing-Shift Subclass:

         "all members of the Nonexempt Class, who worked for the
         Defendants in the State of California at one of the
         Defendants' warehouse stores and who worked one or more
         closing shifts at any time from four years prior to the
         filing of the Complaint to March 4, 2019;" and

      -- The Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:

         "all members of the Nonexempt Class, whose employment
         with Costco ended at any time from three years prior to
         the filing of the Complaint through the present."

The Defendant will move for an order that class certification be
denied with respect to Plaintiff's exit delay theory for the
following reasons:

   -- Plaintiff's theory that closing practices cause unpaid
      working time cannot produce common answers to common
      questions based on common proof, meaning that she cannot
      prove predominance and superiority under Rule 23(a)(2) and
      23(b)(3).

   -- No policy necessarily caused unpaid working time. Costco
      policies required prompt employee exits, required pay for
      all time worked, required employees to record all
      compensable time, and provided exception logs to record
      off-the-clock activities.

   -- To the extent exit delays occurred, many were de minimis,
      and many minor delays not otherwise recorded were covered
      by Costco's pro-employee rounding practice. Thus, Costco
      managers would not necessarily have known, and would not
      necessarily should have known, of unpaid time.

Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation that
operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.

A copy of the Defendant's motion to deny class certification dated
Jan. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KHdKkC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          David D. Jacobson, Esq.
          Jinouth D. Vasquez Santos, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  djacobson@seyfarth.com
                  jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: March 25 Hearing on Class Cert. Denial Bid Voided
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rough v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01340 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. entered an order vacating the March 25,
2021 hearing on the Motion to Deny Class Certification

   -- The opposition or statement of non-opposition and reply
      due dates shall be filed in accordance with the original
      motion hearing date.

   -- If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it
      will be scheduled at a later date.

The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation involving
Diversity-Employment Discrimination.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation that operates a chain of membership-only warehouse
clubs.[CC]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rough Seeks to Certify Class & Three Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN ROUGH, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees of the DEFENDANTS in the State of California, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01340-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class and subclasses:

      -- The Nonexempt Class:

         "all current and former nonexempt employees who worked
         for Costco in the State of California at any time from
         four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through
         the present;"

      -- Wage Statement Subclass:


         "all members of the Nonexempt Class, who worked for the
         Defendant in the California within one year of the
         filing of the complaint and whose time punches were
         automatically changed through Defendant's Three Minute
         Window Policy;"

      -- The Closing-Shift Subclass:

         "all members of the Nonexempt Class, who worked for the
         Defendants in the State of California at one of the
         Defendants' warehouse stores and who worked one or more
         closing shifts at any time from four years prior to the
         filing of the Complaint to March 4, 2019;" and

      -- The Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:

         "all members of the Nonexempt Class, whose employment
         with Costco ended at any time from three years prior to
         the filing of the Complaint through the present;"

   2. approving herself as class representative; and

   3. appointing GrahamHollis A.P.C. as class counsel.

Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation that
operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a1bdKE
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Nathan Reese, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 0800
          Facsimile: (619) 692 0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  nreese@grahamhollis.com

CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY: Reversal of Summary Judgment in Branch Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Elmer Branch, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Cream-O-Land
Dairy, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. A-29 September Term 2019,
083379 (N.J.), the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirms as modified
the Appellate Division's determination reversing the trial court's
order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Branch asserted claims
against his employer, Defendant Cream-O-Land Dairy, for payment of
overtime wages pursuant to the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("WHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to-56a38.  The Plaintiff sought
certification of a class consisting of "all individuals that
performed truck driving functions in the State of New Jersey for
Defendants from November 2014 to the present."

The Plaintiff alleged that he and other class members worked an
average of 60 to 80 hours per week loading and unloading the
Defendant's snack products and delivering those products to its
customers.  The Plaintiff claimed that he and the other truck
drivers employed by the Defendant were entitled to be paid 1 ½
times their hourly rate in overtime compensation when they worked
more than 40 hours per week.  He contended that the Defendant
violated the WHL by failing to pay them overtime in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(b)(1).

The Defendant countered with two principal arguments.  First, it
asserted that it is a "trucking industry employer" under another
WHL provision, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(f), and that it is therefore
exempt from the overtime requirements of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(b)(1)
and required to pay only 1 ½ times the minimum wage for overtime
hours.  Second, the Defendant argued that it relied in good faith
on certain determinations that it qualified as a "trucking industry
employer" and could therefore invoke the defense set forth in
N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2.

N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2 is a provision of the WHL that affords to an
employer an absolute defense in certain WHL actions involving
minimum wages and overtime compensation based on the employer's
good-faith reliance on certain Department of Labor and Workforce
Development determinations.

In support of its assertion of the WHL's good-faith defense, the
Defendant cited three prior determinations by employees of the
Department concluding that it was a "trucking industry employer"
entitled to claim an exemption under N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(f).  The
trial court viewed those decisions to satisfy N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a25.2's standard for the good-faith defense and granted
summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claims.

The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's grant of summary
judgment, holding that none of the Department's determinations on
which the Defendant relied met the requirements of the good-faith
defense.  It accordingly remanded the matter to the trial court for
further discovery as to whether the Defendant meets the statutory
definition of a trucking industry employer and the actual hourly
compensation the Plaintiff received.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the Defendant's petition
for certification.  It maintained the amicus curiae status of the
Attorney General, and granted the joint applications of the New
Jersey Civil Justice Institute ("NJCJI") and the National
Federation of Independent Business ("NFIB"), and of the New Jersey
Business & Industry Association ("NJBIA") and the Commerce and
Industry Association of New Jersey ("CIANJ"), as well as the
application of the New Jersey Association for Justice ("NJAJ"), to
appear as amici curiae.

The Defendant claims that the Appellate Division ignored the plain
language of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2 when it held that the three
decisions it cited do not give rise to a good-faith defense.  It
contends that N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2 does not mandate that the
employer rely on a "final agency decision" in order to assert the
defense.  The Defendant asserts that the Appellate Division
improperly deferred to what it characterizes as the Attorney
General's new interpretation of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2.  It urges
the Court to rely on federal case law and regulations applying 29
U.S.C. Section 259, an FLSA provision addressing the good-faith
defense.

The Plaintiff counters that the Appellate Division properly
construed the WHL's good-faith defense narrowly, as the defense
exempts certain employers from WHL provisions protecting employees
from unfair wages and excessive hours.  He maintains that the
Appellate Division correctly determined that none of the three
decisions cited by defendant met the requirements of N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a25.2.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Appellate Division's
decision accords with the plain language of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2
and the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute.  He notes
that the federal standard governing the good-faith defense under
the FLSA has not been adopted in New Jersey, and he urges the Court
not to consider that standard in the appeal.

Amicus curiae the Attorney General asserts that the good-faith
defense applies only to the high-level decisions by the Department
enumerated in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2: administrative rulemaking, a
final decision by the Commissioner or Director, or an official
practice or policy that affects a class of employers.  The Attorney
General contends that none of the three cited informal decisions by
subordinate employees of the Department meets N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a25.2's requirements.  The Attorney General acknowledges,
however, that the 2006 Opinion Letter, which broadly discussed the
Department's policy and interpretation of the WHL, meets the
description set forth in the second prong of the statute.

Amici curiae NJCJI and NFIB contend that it is impractical for the
Commissioner or the Director to personally make and communicate all
decisions to terminate investigations and that it is unfair to
require an employer to demonstrate the involvement of one of those
senior officials in order to assert the good-faith defense.  They
argue that repeated findings by Department investigators that a
business's employees were properly compensated for overtime work
should give that business a legitimate basis to assert good-faith
compliance with the WHL.

Amici curiae NJBIA and CIANJ assert that the three decisions
defendant received, each confirming defendant's status as a
"trucking industry employer" within the meaning of N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a4(f), clearly reflected the Department's "ruling, approval
and/or interpretation." Amici argue that an employer should be
permitted to rely on such decisions in good faith.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey concurs with the Appellate Division
that none of the decisions identified by the Defendant satisfy the
requirements of the good-faith defense under the plain language of
N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2.  It acknowledges, however, the dilemma
faced by an employer such as the Defendant, which repeatedly
prevailed in overtime disputes before subordinate Department
employees but was unable to seek a ruling from the Commissioner of
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (Commissioner)
because each of those disputes was resolved without further
review.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey respectfully suggests that the
Department would further the Legislature's intent in N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a25.2 if it instituted a procedure by which an employer in
the Defendant's position could obtain an opinion letter or other
ruling clarifying its obligations under the WHL's overtime
provisions.  The Legislature and the Department may determine
whether further statutory or regulatory guidance should be provided
regarding the good-faith defense under N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2.  In
that regard, the federal approach to the good-faith defense set
forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 to 219, and the regulations promulgated pursuant to
the FLSA, may be considered.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirms as modified
the Appellate Division's determination.  It remands the matter to
the trial court for consideration of the Defendant's argument that
it is a trucking-industry employer within the meaning of N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a4(f) and for determination of whether it complied with the
applicable WHL overtime standards in compensating its employees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y5hudtx6 from Leagle.com.

David R. Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -- argued the cause for
Appellant (Fox Rothschild and McCarter & English, attorneys; Mark
E. Tabakman -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- and Adam N. Saravay
-- asaravay@mccarter.com -- on the briefs).

Ravi Sattiraju argued the cause for respondent (Sattiraju &
Tharney, attorneys; Ravi Sattiraju, of counsel and on the briefs,
and Anthony S. Almeida and Steven B. Gladis, on the briefs).

Michael A. Galpern -- mgalpern@lawjw.com -- argued the cause for
amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Javerbaum Wurgaft
Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, attorneys; Michael A. Galpern on the
brief).

Thomas A. Linthorst -- thomas.linthorst@morganlewis.com -- argued
the cause for amici curiae New Jersey Business & Industry
Association and Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey
(Morgan Lewis & Bockius, attorneys; Thomas A. Linthorst, of counsel
and on the brief).

Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com -- argued
the cause for amici curiae New Jersey Civil Justice Institute and
National Federation of Independent Business (Faegre Drinker Biddle
& Reath, attorneys; Jeffrey S. Jacobson, on the brief).

Caroline Jones, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for
amicus curiae State of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel, and Caroline Jones, on the brief).


CREDIT CONTROL: Schwartz Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
YOEL SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CREDIT
COLLECTION SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00262 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a misleading and
deceptive collection letter to the Plaintiff about the status of an
alleged debt. The alleged debt arises from medical services
rendered to the Plaintiff's daughter, who is enrolled in Medicaid.
As a Medicaid patient, the Plaintiff's daughter may not be
balance-billed. The Defendant's debt letter misrepresented the
debt's status as collectible, when it was not, the suit says.

Credit Control Services, Inc., doing business as Credit Collection
Services, is a debt collection company with its principal place of
business located in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
         BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
         100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 203-7600
         Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
         E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Summary Ruling Bid Nixed in Tarrify Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC,
et al., v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293-JG (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order denying Cuyahoga
County's summary judgment motion.

The Court recognizes that the nature of the case has changed
following its class certification and summary judgment rulings and
is aware that the Plaintiff has requested leave to appeal the
Court's class certification decision.

Accordingly, the Court grants the parties' joint motion to stay
pending litigation deadlines, including the trial date, and stays
this case until the Sixth Circuit decides whether to accept
Tarrify's appeal.

If the Sixth Circuit accepts the appeal, the case is stayed until
the appeal is resolved. If the Sixth Circuit declines Tarrify's
appeal, the Court will set a status conference to revisit the case
schedule, the Court added.

On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff Tarrify sued the Defendant Cuyahoga
County. With its lawsuit, Plaintiff Tarrify claimed that Cuyahoga
County violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by seizing
Tarrify's Cleveland property without compensating Tarrify for any
value above Tarrify's $35,000 property tax debt.

On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class of:

   "Cuyahoga County residents whose property the County has
   seized to satisfy County property tax debts where those tax
   debts were less than the seized property's value."

On December 21, 2020, this Court denied the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion, finding, as many Courts have, that tax
valuations are inadmissible to show fair market property value for
non-tax purposes.

Cuyahoga County is located in the northeastern part of the U.S.
state of Ohio on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the
U.S.-Canada maritime border.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sMFIgd at no
extra charge.[CC]

CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 19, 2021, that
the putative securities class action lawsuit that was commenced in
May 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and three current and former
officers alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, was dismissed without prejudice on January 14, 2021.

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. operates as an oncology-focused
biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing
probody therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. CytomX
Therapeutics serves pharmaceutical industries throughout the United
States. The company is based in South San Francisco, California.

DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 18
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Decision Diagnostics Corp. (OTC:
DECN) between March 3, 2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Decision
Diagnostics investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Decision Diagnostics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2009.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) Decision Diagnostics had not developed any viable
COVID-19 test, much less a test that could detect COVID-19 in less
than one minute; (2) Decision Diagnostics could not meet the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization testing
requirements for its purported COVID-19 test; (3) accordingly,
defendants had misrepresented the timeline within which Decision
Diagnostics could realistically bring its COVID-19 test to market;
(4) all of the foregoing subjected defendants to an increased risk
of regulatory oversight and enforcement; and (5) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 16,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2009.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.

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


DOWNHOLE TECHNOLOGY: Esquivel Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CARLOS ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DOWNHOLE TECHNOLOGY LLC,
NATIONAL BOSS HOG ENERGY SERVICES LLC AND THE WELLBOSS COMPANY LLC,
Case No. 7:20-cv-00038, was transferred from the Western District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on January 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-00181 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

Downhole Technology LLC is an oil field equipment manufacturer
based in Texas.

National Boss Hog Energy Services LLC, now known as Downhole
Technology LLC, is an oil field equipment manufacturer based in
Texas.

The Wellboss Company LLC is an oil field equipment manufacturing
company based in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
         1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
         Southlake, TX 76092-4322
         Telephone: (817) 416-5060
         Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
         E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

DRIVELINE RETAIL: McGlenn's Renewed Bid for Class Status Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN MCGLENN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. DRIVELINE RETAIL
MERCHANDISING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02097-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

The Court said, "It recognizes that the putative class members
share certain issues, including whether the Defendant owed a duty
and whether the Defendant breached that duty. However, these issues
do not predominate overall claims as they are only related to two
claims. The Plaintiff has alleged six claims against the Defendant.
Additionally, the Plaintiff agrees that damages will require
individual assessment for each class member, and the Plaintiff
seems to acknowledge that causation may require an individual
inquiry, to which the Court agrees."

The Court finds that certifying the issues identified by Plaintiff
for class purposes would not promote judicial efficiency. Similarly
here, the Plaintiff's suggestion to determine a portion of her
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims on a class-wide
basis would be inefficient, the Court added. Accordingly, the Court
denies Plaintiff's request to certify the class for particular
issues pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Driveline provides retail
merchandising services, including setting up product displays and
shelving products at big-box retail establishments throughout the
United States. In the ordinary course of Driveline's business,
Driveline maintains current and former employees' personal and tax
information, including the name, address, zip code, date of birth,
wage and withholding information, and Social Security number. On
January 25, 2017, an employee in Driveline's payroll department,
Susan Merciel, sent an email to a phishing perpetrator with 15,878
perpetrator posed as Driveline's Chief Financial Officer and asked
for all employee W-2s for 2016. The Driveline employee complied
with the email request and sent the phishing perpetrator a data
file containing copies of W-2 statements for employees who worked
at and received wages from Driveline during the time period of
January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, which contained
sensitive personally identifiable information (PII).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Driveline employee, Susan Merciel,
voluntarily made an authorized disclosure of PII of former and
current employees of Driveline to a third party without encryption
or password protection. On February 14, 2017, Driveline sent a
letter to its current and former employees advising that their 2016
W-2 had been subjected to a data breach.

A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated Jan. 19, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ocH1RZ at no
extra charge.[CC]

ECOARK HOLDINGS: Notice of Dismissal Filed in Abrahms Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecoark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 19, 2021, that
Simon Abrahms filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of the
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of
the District of Nevada.

On January 15, 2021, Simon Abrahms filed a notice of dismissal
without prejudice of the class action lawsuit which was filed in
the United States District Court of the District of Nevada on
November 9, 2020 against Ecoark Holdings, Inc. and members of its
Board of Directors.

This lawsuit is discussed in more detail in the Company's revised
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed on December 11,
2020.

As disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 4,
2021, the Company's shareholders ratified the corporate action
giving rise to this litigation at a special meeting that was held
on December 29, 2020.

As a result, the Company expects that its sole liability is to
reimburse the plaintiff for his reasonable attorneys' fees.

Ecoark Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary, Zest Labs, Inc.,
provides freshness management solutions for fresh food growers,
suppliers, processors, distributors, grocers, and restaurants. It
offers Zest Fresh solution, a cloud-based post-harvest shelf-life
and freshness management solution that matches customer freshness
requirements with actual dynamic product freshness and
reducespost-harvest losses; and Zest Delivery solution, which
provides real-time monitoring and control for prepared food
delivery containers, and helps delivery and dispatch personnel to
ensure the quality and safety of delivered food. The company was
founded in 2011 and is based in Frisco, Texas.

EDEN CREAMERY: Feb. 17 Briefing for Class Status Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOUSSIF KAMAL, GILLIAN
NEELY, RICHARD LICHTEN, SUSAN COX, NICK TOVAR, MICHELE KINMAN,
RALPH JACOBSON, ASHLEY PETEFISH and TERI BROWN, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDEN CREAMERY,
LLC, dba HALO TOP CREAMERY, and JUSTIN T. WOOLVERTON, Case No.
3:18-cv-01298-TWR-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order regarding a schedule for the briefing on the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the Defendants' Motion
to Exclude the Report of Stefan Boedeker, both of which are set for
hearing on February 17, 2021 at 1:30pm

Halo Top Creamery is an ice cream company and brand sold in the
United States, Australia, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the
Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Taiwan, South Korea, Austria, United
Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.

A copy of the joint motion dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/39TMvMjat no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf All Others
Similarly Situated, are:

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          Brian J. Ellsworth, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501- 6550
          E-mail: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com
                  brian@bjellsworth.com

Attorneys for the Defendants Eden Creamery LLC and Justin T.
Woolverton, are:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          Keri E. Borders, Esq.
          Daniel D. Queen, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
                  kborders@mayerbrown.com
                  dqueen@mayerbrown.com

ENEDIS SA: Opponents of Linky Meters Appeal Win Partial Victory
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connexion France reports that opponents of the Linky meters won a
partial victory when the Bordeaux appeal court ruled that the legal
texts Enedis has relied on to impose them did not apply to
installing electricity meters - but this will not lead to any
immediate change on the ground.

Enedis was also ordered to put filters on the meters installed in
the homes of 13 customers who had complained they were aggravating
their sensitivity to electronic devices.

The court did not go as far as to say Enedis must stop installing
the meters.

Although most homes in France now have them - around 30million
meters had been installed by the end of 2020 - they have met with
frequent opposition since the firm started the roll-out in 2015.

Some say the fluorescent green meters, which automatically send
readings instead of having to be read in person, can cause health
problems, especially for those who suffer hypersensitivity to
electromagnetic waves - a controversial condition, which many say
does not exist.

Others have data confidentiality concerns, considering that they
may collect too much information on people's lifestyles or fearing
the data could be hacked into or passed to third parties.

Even so, the roll-out corresponds to an EU directive on member
states having 80% of smart meters by the end of this year.

Toulouse avocat Christophe Leguevaques said: "It is the first time
that a challenge on the legality of Linky meters of this sort has
been won and the court agreed with the arguments we put forward.
However, Enedis is also claiming victory because it was not told to
take the meters out.

"There are filters which work and, for the 13 people, Enedis must
put them on at its own cost."

Mr Lèguevaques, founder of the MySMARTcab group of lawyers
specialising in collective actions, added: "The judges said there
is no legal or regulatory text, at European or national level,
which obliges Enedis, either as a private company or as a public
service contractor, to install Linky meters in homes.

"They also recognised that there is an illicit function in Linky,
which allows the characteristics of electrical equipment, like a
dishwasher, to be used to identify what equipment is running when
in a house, and Enedis should tell customers about this, which it
has not done."

Around 200 people were involved in the case as a class action, made
possible by recent changes in the law, allowing such group cases.

Mr Lèguevaques said another action was now being prepared,
specifically to challenge the legal basis for the installation of
the meters. "The Bordeaux decision has given us encouragement."

The Agence nationale des frequences, which manages electromagnetic
frequencies in France, has said that no abnormal levels of waves
are given off by the meters.

Enedis was unable to find anyone to talk to The Connexion about the
case. [GN]


FANNIE MAE: Class Certification Filing Due on June 18
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, Case
No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth
entered the fourth amended scheduling order, as follows:

   1. Fact discovery shall close on March 26, 2021.

   2. The deadline for seeking leave to add additional parties
      or amend the pleadings is April 23, 2021.

   3. Regarding expert discovery:

      a. The Plaintiff's expert witness reports shall be
         produced by June 18, 2021;

      b. Deposition of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be
         conducted by July 23, 2021;

      c. The Defendants' rebuttal expert reports shall be
         produced by August 20, 2021; and

      d. All expert discovery, including deposition of
         Defendants' experts shall be completed by September 17,
         2021.

   4. Regarding class certification:

      a. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due
         on June 18, 2021;

      b. The Defendants' opposition is due on August 20, 2021;
         and

      c. The Plaintiffs' reply is due on September 17, 2021.

   5. Regarding motions for summary judgment:

      a. The Defendants shall file their motion for summary
         judgment on or before October 15, 2021;

      b. The Plaintiffs' response and cross-motion for summary
         judgment is due November 19, 2021;

      c. The Defendants' reply and response is due on December
         22, 2021; and

      d. Plaintiffs' reply is due January 14, 2022.

   6. Trial is set for May 16, 2022, or at the Court's earliest
      convenience thereafter, with a pretrial conference 30 to
      60 days beforehand, the exact date to be set later.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/367LTSa at no extra charge.[CC]

FEDERAL MANAGEMENT: Fox Rothschild Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in class
actions there is always a named plaintiff (or two or three, etc).
That person acts as the class representative and is the "flagship"
for the entire case. When that individual does something to
jeopardize their status as such a "representative," the entire case
might go away. That is precisely what happened in a recent class
case for alleged unpaid overtime where the named plaintiff
contradicted her deposition testimony, tried to change it to better
bolster her case and failed. The case is entitled Tam et al. vs.
Federal Management Co. Inc. et al. and issued from the
Massachusetts Appeals Court.

The plaintiff here tried to, through the "abundant" use of the
errata sheet, used to correct ostensible errors in a deposition, to
make wholesale changes in that deposition testimony, where she
admitted that she may have been exempt from overtime, in diametric
opposition to her claims and theory of the case. Thus, her tactic
came under the sham affidavit rule, which precludes a party from
undermining their own deposition testimony so as to manufacture a
factual dispute that would preclude summary judgment.

As the Judge aptly stated, "she admitted to subsidiary facts that
contradicted her earlier statements and then ultimately had to
acknowledge the opposite of what she initially had asserted." The
Judge then added that "given that the sham affidavit rule applies,
Tam's admissions about the nature of her job stand uncontradicted.
There is, therefore, no genuine dispute as to the material fact
that her job qualified as an exempt administrative position."

The plaintiff, a property manager, submitted a 32-page errata, far
after the due date for such a submission. She claimed her
deposition was paused, not completed, which made her submission
timely. The Court knocked down that argument quickly. On the
merits, the Court noted that the plaintiff changed "no" answers
from her deposition to "yes" and other answers from "yes" to "no"
more than more than 60 times. As to fifty of the changes, the
plaintiff claimed she either misunderstood a question or found it
confusing. The Court shot that down as well, stating that "nothing
in the deposition transcript suggests that the relevant questions
were posed to Tam in a manner that overbore her will or that even
could be characterized as intimidating, that the questions
themselves were unclear, or that she failed to understand them."

The Takeaway

What the plaintiff was trying to reverse was her admission that she
was exempt from overtime based upon her job description. The
defendant's brief labeled what she was trying to do as a
"troublesome tactic" that would "undercut the very purpose of civil
discovery and summary judgment." They were right. This case serves
as an object lesson for plaintiffs and lawyers when undertaking
lawsuits on exemption issues.

Take heed plaintiffs (and their lawyers) . . . [GN]


FIRST NATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Sale of Repossessed Properties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran Ryan, writing for Moneyweb, reports that it's been known for
years that the banks have been flogging off repossessed properties
for a fraction of their market worth, but the evidence was
anecdotal and fragmented. Not anymore.

An affidavit filed in support of the R60 billion class action suit
brought by Lungelo Ditokelo Human Rights Foundation against the
major banks, based on a sample of about 12 000 repossessed
properties, found that these properties were sold for 50-60% of
their proper value, mainly through sheriff's auctions.

The class action suit, which is being defended by the banks, seeks
to recover billions of rands in lost home equity as a result of
this practice.

"Our South African banks sell property about five times more than
the international average as a percentage of the total number of
outstanding bonds and 20 times more than best practice," says Garth
Zietsman, a statistician who analysed data from the National Credit
Regulator.

Even more disturbing is that the poor are worst affected.

Lower valued homes were sold for about 40% of their market value,
against 81% for the higher valued ones.

According to the evidence

The evidence shows dozens of properties were sold for less than 1%
of their market value. Of the 200 worst cases, all were sold for
less than 17.2% of their market value.

The banks have yet to file their replies to the case.

In this case, the lending bank was FNB. Standard Bank and Nedbank
also had several properties selling at auction for R1 000 when the
market value was R200 000 to R440 000. There is no comparable data
available for Absa.

As can be seen from the banks' responses below, it seems the rates
of evictions and properties ending up in sale in execution
(auction) has declined during the Covid crisis. Banks say they are
endeavouring to assist clients in difficulties through various
interventions (see below).

Zietsman's analysis focuses on sales of repossessed properties from
2011 to 2014, before new court rules came into effect obliging
banks to establish a reserve (or floor) price before auctioning
properties.

Prior to this, properties could be sold without floor prices,
resulting in some being sold for as little as R100 and even R10.

Practices such as this gave rise to claims that criminal syndicates
were operating out of the sheriffs' offices.

'Inhumane'

King Sibiya, head of the Lungelo Ditokelo Human Rights Foundation,
is not convinced of the banks' self-proclaimed virtue and argues
that SA has among the most inhumane practices in the world when it
comes to bank repossessions.

"Here we are in the middle of a Covid crisis when millions of
people have fallen into arrears on their homes through no fault of
their own, and the government imagines it is business as usual,
where banks can carry on like they have done for decades. Eighty
percent of the cases before the high courts are brought by banks
attempting to recover debts and evict people from their homes.

"Other countries impacted by Covid put a total freeze on evictions,
while we imposed a freeze of three months. Three months? There's no
justice in that.

Zoom justice

"We have default judgments being handed down by Zoom judges because
people cannot attend court in person to defend themselves," says
Sibiya.

"But then the sheriff comes to evict them, and that is not virtual.
That is real."

He adds: "People have no idea how to access this virtual justice
system -- which is in itself a denial of people's constitutional
rights of access to justice."

The Foundation says it will be lobbying the Department of Justice
to put a total freeze on evictions while the Covid crisis is still
in effect. "People will get thrown out of their houses in the
thousands, and make no mistake -- that is when you will see a Covid
crisis out of control," says Sibiya.

The bogus arrears matter

Analysis by consumer advocate Leonard Benjamin suggests that many
properties are being repossessed over bogus arrears figures.
Homeowners are being sued for arrears that have effectively been
written off, due to a practice known as "double dipping".

Benjamin says the banks are automatically spreading any arrears
over the remaining term of the loan each time interest rates are
adjusted, which has the effect of extinguishing the arrears. All
the customer has to do is pay the new, adjusted instalment to catch
up on any outstanding amount owed. Yet the banks continue to pursue
customers through the courts for the lump sum arrears. The UK
courts ruled against the banks on double-dipping - something local
banks have denied doing.

Advocate Douglas Shaw, who is representing the Foundation in its
class action suit, says the banks resisted the introduction of a
reserve price system at sheriffs' auctions which would allow
homeowners an opportunity to recover some of the equity in their
properties.

Now that reserve pricing is part of the law, the banks are still
managing to game the system by arguing cases in the high courts
instead of the magistrates courts, driving people further into
arrears through higher legal costs, and by setting reserve prices
so low as to prejudice the defaulting homeowner.

"The government needs to treat this as a national crisis and put a
freeze on evictions until the Covid crisis has been handled," says
Sibiya.

FNB's response

How many mortgages (and what percentage of mortgage accounts) are
now in arrears as a result of lockdown difficulties or rescheduled
arrangements?

Our stance is to assist customers and only as a last resort to
proceed with litigation. Over the course of Covid-19 and the
lockdown, we have focused on trying to assist customers via our
Cashflow Relief programmes. During the hard lockdown period,
litigation was suspended.

What percentage of these cases proceed to sale in execution (ie.
sheriff's auction)?

Refer to question 1 re: suspended litigation during this period.

What steps are being taken to accommodate mortgage customers in
difficulty as a result of Covid-related loss of income?

From 1 April 2020, FNB assisted customers with a customer-centric
Cashflow Relief Plan to cover all instalments that a qualifying
customer has with us. Our Cashflow relief was for a period of
3-months at prime interest rates with a flexible repayment term.
Furthermore, a number of pre-selected customers were offered
extended relief for a further 3-months, totalling a 6-month payment
break. Our Cashflow Relief Plan covered our customers' instalments
across credit, insurance and FNB Connect repayments. We are
committed to helping customers to minimise the impact of Covid-19
on their finance and continue to evaluate our assistance for
customers on individual merits.

Nedbank's response

Nedbank will respond, as appropriate, to the allegations contained
in Garth Zietsman's affidavit as part of those court proceedings.
We do however wish to clarify that the assertion that properties
are sold in execution for negligible amounts can be misleading if
the complete context (as discussed below) is not provided.

The reserve price for sales in execution, being the minimum price
at which the property can be auctioned for, is currently determined
by the courts. This has been the position since December 2017.
Prior to this, in any instance where Nedbank itself purchased a
property at a sale in execution, the client's account would always
be credited with the fair market value of the property irrespective
of the price at which Nedbank would purchase the property for. The
client's loan account would therefore reduce with the fair market
value of the property and any surplus would be for the client's
benefit. The property would then be marketed for sale or auctioned
by Nedbank, with a view to achieve the best price possible. If the
property is sold or auctioned at a price which is higher than the
fair market value, resultant profits (if any), after any
[outstanding amounts] on the loan and property expenses are
settled, are paid to the client. Nedbank receives no profit from
these sales.

We are currently in a closed period (for financial reporting), and
unfortunately not able to provide the stats requested. Nedbank has
several options available to assist customers who are experiencing
financial difficulties, such as payment arrangements and
restructures. Each case is assessed on its individual circumstances
and an appropriate assistance option is provided. We encourage
customers who are experiencing difficulties in meeting their
obligations to contact us as soon as possible. There are various
ways for the clients to reach us. They can either go online via the
Nedbank website, MoneyApp, or call the dedicated call centre number
(0860 110 702).

Standard Bank's response

Many customers fear telling their bank that they are not in a
position to make a payment on a loan, however, the more engaged
customers are, the more likely they are to keep their homes. It is
important to remember, it is not in the bank's interest to
repossess properties our aim is to try to help customers keep their
properties wherever we can.

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic Standard Bank has offered
instalment relief for personal and business banking customers
across its markets in Africa. It has also partnered with both
private and public sector to provide debt and payment relief for
small businesses across the continent.

We continue to engage with each of our clients based on their
individual needs on a client-by-client basis. We have also
encouraged all our clients to contact us as soon as possible if
they are concerned that they are facing, or will face, financial
distress. We have committed to do everything in our power to
assist.

The nature of this will differ per customer and over the lockdown
may have received a payment holiday, during which time they need
not make any payments or may be allowed to make part-payments,
while others may benefit from an extended home loan term with lower
monthly payments.

As economies have opened, our clients have required less support,
and many have resumed their payments. At the end of September, the
PBB [Personal and Business Banking] SA client relief portfolio had
declined from R107 billion to R61 billion, with mortgage lending
relief reducing at the same rate. The vast majority of clients are
up to date with mortgage lending instalments. This has also been
assisted by the favourable interest rates which are at historically
low levels.

In the extremely unfortunate outcome of repossession, a process
that is governed the courts, properties are auctioned by the
sheriff of the high court and minimum reserve price for these
auctions are also set by the courts as a result to amendments Rule
46 (of the high court rules). Despite the setting of reserve
prices, recovery rates are significantly impacted by condition of
the property but more importantly the level of arrear rates and
taxes as well as levies. These repossessions accounted for less
than 0.02% of properties bonded with Standard Bank. This reduced by
60% as a result of the national lockdown. As the lockdown level
have eased it expected to return to levels seen prior lockdown.

However, when a property is attached, everybody loses and therefore
this process is only utilised when all other avenues to assist the
rehabilitation the customer has been exhausted. We actively look at
alternatives for our customers. Standard Bank's EasySell process is
in place to help such customers. This ensures that the best price
possible is obtained for the property, the bond is settled and
customer's get their credit record back on track. Standard Bank,
via the EasySell programme, also offers customers the benefit of
reducing the outstanding balance. To date EasySell has assisted in
excess of 4 000 customers via this programme. [GN]


FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert. Deadline Extended to March 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lafleur, et al., v. State
University System of Florida, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01665 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn K. Mizelle entered an order granting
motion to extend class certification deadline.

The class certification deadline is now March 22, 2021. All other
deadlines from the Case Management and Scheduling Order remain
unaffected, says Judge Mizelle.

The nature of suit involves Diversity-Breach of Contract.

The State University System of Florida is a system of twelve public
universities in the U.S. state of Florida. As of 2018, over 341,000
students were enrolled in Florida's state universities.[CC]

GEORGE W. KUHN: Granting of Summary Disposition in Kickham Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirms the order granting summary
disposition in favor of the Defendant in the lawsuit titled KICKHAM
HANLEY PLLC, as Trustee for a Certified Class of Persons and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GEORGE W. KUHN
DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 351317 (Mich.
App.).

The Plaintiff, assignee of the City of Oak Park and trustee for a
certified class of persons defined in the final order approving a
class settlement in Lower Court No. 15-149751-CZ, appeals as of
right the trial court's opinion and order granting summary
disposition in favor of the Defendant.

The Defendant is a drainage district, which is an independent
corporate entity that has powers conferred upon it by law. Drainage
districts are governed by drainage boards. The Defendant maintains
and operates the George W. Kuhn Drain, which operates in an area
that includes Oak Park.

Oak Park has a combined sewer system that collects both sanitary
sewage and stormwater. That sewer system flows to the system
operated by the Defendant. Generally, the Defendant diverts all of
the stormwater flow from Oak Park and the other communities within
the operational area of the drain to two water treatment plants
respectively operated by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
and the Great Lakes Water Authority. All of the subject stormwater
flow travels through Detroit's Dequindre Interceptor, and there the
flow is measured by a meter. Accordingly, the water treatment
plants charge the Defendant an annual flat rate to dispose of
stormwater based on the measured flow, and the Defendant allocates
that charge among the communities within the operational area of
the drain.

In February 2005, the Defendant's drainage board tentatively
established an apportionment of the costs of the drain for
stormwater disposal for the communities within the operational area
of the drain. As part of the apportionment, the drainage board made
an allocation on the basis of an assumption that all water
purchased from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department would be
returned as sanitary flow, and so only the difference between the
purchased water and the "Master Meter Charges" would be considered
stormwater flow. Thus, under the apportionment, two rates would be
charged to the communities within the drain's operational area, one
for the cost of sanitary sewage flow into the drain, and the other
for stormwater flow, which would be apportioned among the
communities on the basis of an engineering study that determined
each community's contribution of stormwater.

In April 2005, the drainage board resolved to adopt the tentative
apportionment of costs it established in February 2005. On the same
day, the drainage board entered a Final Order of Apportionment that
provided an apportionment of costs between the communities within
the operational areas of the drain.

In February 2019, in Lower Court No. 2015-149951-CZ, the trial
court entered a final judgment and order approving a class
settlement between the Plaintiffs, two persons acting as
individuals and as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and the Defendant, Oak Park. The instant trial court took
specific notice of the assignment provisions of that settlement
agreement according to which any claims Oak Park possessed against
Oakland County or its agencies -- including the Defendant -- for
storm water management services relating to overcharges for
stormwater management services would be assigned to the class
action plaintiffs "or for their benefit." Additionally, the
Plaintiff was appointed trustee of a litigation trust to pursue the
claims against the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and was
also appointed counsel for the litigation trust.

The trial court also noted that the class action plaintiffs and
other members of the class, who did not ask to be excluded from the
class would be deemed to have executed a release of all claims
against Oak Park relating to the assessment and costs of water and
sewer rates "from the beginning of time through the date" of the
final judgment and a period of time thereafter. Subsequently, Oak
Park executed an assignment of claims to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed its complaint against the Defendant on the
basis of the assignment of Oak Park's claims to the Plaintiff as a
trustee for the class action plaintiffs. In its complaint, the
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant charged Oak Park approximately
$3 million per year for the disposal of stormwater. It further
alleged that Oak Park "passe[d] on that cost to its sewer Customers
by imposing stormwater charges in its sewer rates to recover the
entire $3 million plus per year imposed upon the City by Defendant
on an annual basis." According to the complaint, the amount the
Defendant charged Oak Park for stormwater disposal should have been
the same amount the Defendant was charged by the water treatment
plants for stormwater disposal.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant charged Oak Park
"substantially more than the amount" charged by the water treatment
plants for the disposal of Oak Park's stormwater since at least
2011. According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly
reallocated the sanitary sewage disposal costs imposed by the water
treatment plants to stormwater disposal costs, and as a result
defendant overcharged Oak Park. Thus, the Plaintiff raised claims
of breach of contract, assumpsit, and unjust enrichment against the
Defendant. The trial court ultimately granted the Defendant's
motion for summary disposition and dismissed the Plaintiff's
claims.

The Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it granted the
Defendant's motion for summary disposition. The Appellate Court
disagrees.

The Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it ruled that
the Plaintiff failed to state a breach-of-contract claim. The
Appellate Court disagrees.

The Plaintiff did not raise any challenges regarding the elements
of contract formation in its brief on appeal, and may not do so in
its reply brief. Given that the Plaintiff failed to adequately
brief this argument, the Appellate Court deems it abandoned. And
even if the Plaintiff had properly presented its arguments
regarding consideration, the Plaintiff failed to address the other
elements of contract formation, therefore, the Plaintiff would have
otherwise failed to expose error on the part of the trial court,
according to the Appellate Court's Opinion.

The Plaintiff next asserts that the trial court erred when it ruled
that the Plaintiff failed to allege any damages in support of its
assumpsit and unjust enrichment claims. The Appellate Court again
disagrees. The Plaintiff has not shown that there is any complexity
with issues of proof regarding the effect of the overcharges, and
Oak Park's rate-payers were entitled to recover the overcharges
from Oak Park but they released those claims. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's reliance on this decision is inapt.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff has failed to show that the trial
court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Oak Park did not
incur any damages in this matter.

The Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred when it
granted the Defendant's motion for summary disposition because the
Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant charged Oak Park an
unreasonable rate for stormwater disposal presented a question of
fact. Again, the Appellate Court is not persuaded, stating that the
Plaintiff fails to show that the defendant was under some general
duty of reasonableness in connection with its stormwater disposal
charges.

The Plaintiff did not raise an independent claim in its complaint
that the Defendant charged unreasonable rates; rather, its
allegation that the rates were unreasonable merely supported a
claim in assumpsit and a claim of unjust enrichment. Given that the
Plaintiff has failed to cite legal authorities that establish the
Defendant was required to charge a reasonable rate, or otherwise
adequately brief how the trial court erred, the Plaintiff has
abandoned this argument on appeal.

The Plaintiff also briefly contends that the Defendant asserts that
Oak Park released its claims against the Defendant during the class
action suit. There is no indication that the Defendant actually
raised this argument in the trial court. Because the trial court
never considered any such contention, the Appellate Court declines
to consider it.

In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5fb5oog from Leagle.com.


GREAT ARROW: Pennsylvania Court Refuses to Dismiss Then FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denied without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled RAFAEL A. MOREL THEN v. GREAT ARROW BUILDERS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-CV-00800-CCW (W.D. Pa.).

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of
Plaintiff Rafael Morel Then's Complaint, relating to alleged
violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), 43 P.S.
Section 333.101 et seq.

On June 1, 2020, the Plaintiff initiated the action by filing his
"Collective and Class Action Complaint," seeking damages on behalf
of himself and putative collective/class members for the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay certain wages (including
overtime) as required under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required its workers,
including the Plaintiff, to park their personal vehicles at a
company-controlled parking lot before boarding company-owned busses
to be driven to their jobsite each day. The Defendant's workers
were then returned to the company-controlled parking lot via those
same company-owned busses at the end of each shift. The Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant failed to include the travel time from
the company-controlled parking lot to the jobsite -- which could
take upwards of 20 minutes each way -- in its computation of the
hours worked by each employee for purposes of wages and overtime.

On July 30, 2020, the Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Complaint, in part,
arguing that the Plaintiff's travel time claim under the PMWA must
be dismissed with prejudice because it is pre-empted by the FLSA.
In short, the Defendant asserts that the PMWA is "conflict
preempted" by the FLSA because the PMWA is less generous than the
FLSA with regard to travel-time claims.

According to the Defendant, it is because while the PMWA requires
overtime compensation for travel occurring only during normal
working hours, the FLSA requires an employer to pay wages for time
spent traveling outside of normal working hours under certain
circumstances. In support of that proposition, the Defendant relies
principally on Espinoza v. Atlas R.R. Constr., LLC, No. CV 15-1189,
2016 WL 279000, *4 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2016). It concludes from
these holdings that the PMWA falls below the "floor" set by the
FLSA for the type of travel time at issue here, and the Plaintiff's
claim for unpaid travel time under the PMWA should be dismissed.

The Plaintiff, in opposing the Defendant's preemption theory,
argues that its contention that the PMWA provides less generous
protections than the FLSA with regard to the Plaintiff's travel
time claim is at odds with more recent persuasive authority from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Smith v.
Allegheny Techs., Inc., 754 Fed.Appx. 136 (3d Cir. 2018). He notes
that the unanimous panel in Smith -- which explicitly disagreed
with the non-precedential holding of the divided panel in Espinoza
-- found that "the PMWA requires compensation for a broader range
of activities, including travel time, than the FLSA."

Under the regulations implementing the PMWA, travel time is
compensable when it is "time spent in traveling as part of the
duties of the employee during normal working hours and time during
which an employee is employed or permitted to work," notes District
Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. On the other hand, under the FLSA,
as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, employees will receive
overtime pay for commuting when the commute is (1) a principal
activity or (2) integral and indispensable to a principal
activity.

At the outset, then, the Court notes that the FLSA's "integral and
indispensable" standard is different than the PMWA's requirement
that travel time be "part of the duties of the employee during
normal working hours." The difference is important to the analysis
here because there may be situations where travel time is
compensable under the FLSA that would not be under the PMWA -- and
vice versa, Judge Wiegand explains.

Judge Wiegand holds that the cases the Defendant relies on do not
persuade the Court that the FLSA preempts the PMWA for the travel
time at issue here. Judge Wiegand avers that, among other things,
the court in Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc., 89 A.3d 841 (Conn. 2014)
noted that its analysis was confined "to the facts of the present
case," in which the Plaintiff, a plumber, drove a company work
truck to and from his home to his assigned jobsites.

The Defendant also leans heavily on Espinoza, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7561 (W.D. Pa. Jan 22, 2016), in which Magistrate Judge Maureen
Kelly found that a railroad worker's long-distance travel away from
home to his assigned jobsites "on days he was not scheduled to work
at all" was not compensable under the PMWA.

Again, as with Sarrazin, Espinoza is distinguishable from the case:
The Plaintiff does not seek compensation for time spent travelling
on days he was not scheduled to work, but for travel time on days
he did work, Judge Wiegand explains. As the Court in Smith made
clear, such time may be compensable under the PMWA.

In sum, preemption is an affirmative defense which must be clear on
the face of the complaint for a 12(b)(6) motion to succeed, Judge
Wiegand holds. The compensability of the travel time at issue under
either the PMWA or FLSA is a fact-specific inquiry, and the
Defendant has not shown that the travel time protections under the
PMWA are less generous than those found under the FLSA. She,
therefore, determines that the Defendant has failed to carry its
burden with respect to preemption at this early stage of the case.

For these reasons, the Defendant's, Motion to Dismiss is denied
without prejudice, and may be renewed at the summary judgment
stage.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 14, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5c34q7b from
Leagle.com.


GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GROWERSHOUSE, L.L.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-00431-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiff's visits to the
website, https://growershouse.com/, the last occurring in December
2020, in an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

GrowersHouse, L.L.C., operates the GrowersHouse online retail store
across the United States. The Company's website provides consumers
with access to an array of goods including information about
purchasing gardening items such as houseplants, nutrients, test
kits, pest control, growing kits, pumps, plant accessories and
other products available online for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

HEALTH INSURANCE: March 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

CASE NO. 8:19-CV-00421-WFJ-CPT

CLASS ACTION

JULIAN KEIPPEL, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

                                   Plaintiff,

v.

HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS,
INC. n/k/a BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., GAVIN SOUTHWELL, and MICHAEL
D. HERSHBERGER,
                                   Defendants.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND

REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who, during the period from September
25, 2017 through April 11, 2019, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("HIIQ") common stock,
and were allegedly damaged thereby:

Please read this notice carefully, your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class and Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Class and Settlement
Class as set forth in the full printed Notice Of (I) Pendency Of
Class Action And Proposed Settlement of Class Action; (II)
Settlement Hearing; And (III) Motion For An Award Of Attorneys'
Fees And Reimbursement Of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $11,000,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims
in the Action.

A hearing will be held on March 23, 2021 at 9:30 a.m., by
telephonic means by calling the reserved conference toll-free
number at 1-888-557-8511, then entering the access code 4744914
followed by the # (pound) key, then entering the security code:
0421 followed by the # (pound) key, as posted on the website of the
Claims Administrator. The hearing will determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement (and in
the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you
file a written objection and notice of appearance before the
hearing, you may ask to be heard orally at the hearing or you may
appear at the hearing through an attorney you retain.

This Summary Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a
pending securities class action lawsuit brought by investors
alleging, among other things, that Defendants HIIQ, Michael D.
Hershberger, and Gavin Southwell (collectively, the "Defendants")
violated the federal securities laws by making alleged
misrepresentations or omissions regarding compliance and customer
complaints, which Defendants deny.

If you purchased HIIQ common stock from September 25, 2017 through
April 11, 2019 and were damaged thereby, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Health
Insurance Innovations Securities Settlement c/o Epiq, P.O. Box
5657, Portland, OR 97228-5657. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator,
www.HealthInsuranceInnovationsSecuritiesSettlement.com.

In order to be potentially eligible to receive a payment under the
proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online at the
Settlement website or by mail. The Claim Form must be submitted or
postmarked no later than May 11, 2021. If you do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you wish to exclude yourself, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than March 2, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself, you will not be bound by any judgments
or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to representatives of Lead Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than March 2, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, HIIQ, or
Defendants' Counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Health Insurance Innovations Securities Settlement
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 5657
Portland, OR 97228-5657

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Brandon T. Grzandziel
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
bgrzandziel@saxenawhite.com

Dated: December 3, 2020

By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
URL: www.HealthInsuranceInnovationsSecuritiesSettlement.com [GN]


HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Jan. 29 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action 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-TDS-LPA
(M.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending
the deadline for class certification until January 29, 2021 and for
the Defendant's answer until February 12, 2021.

On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint
against the Defendant. On September 4, 2020, the Defendant filed
its motion to dismiss. On October 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to
extend the class certification deadline until 14 days after the
Court issues its order on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and
the Court granted the same in a text order on October 13. On
January 4, 2021, the Court issued its order denying Defendant’s
motion to dismiss.

While Defendant's motion to dismiss remained pending before the
Court, the Parties began informal discovery related to Plaintiffs'
class allegation. The Parties ultimately came to a preliminary
agreement as to a class settlement, and are in the process of
preparing settlement documents and obtaining estimates from class
action administrators.

The Parties request an eleven-day extension of time to file their
joint motion for class certification and preliminary approval of
class settlement -- until January 29, 2020. Similarly, the Parties
request the Court extend the Defendant's answer deadline until
February 12, 2021 -- in the unlikely event the class settlement is
not finalized.

Higgins Benjamin is a law firm in Greensboro, North Carolina.

A copy of joint motion for extension dated Jan. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sMgKNN at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Brown, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
          121 Kendlewick Dr.
          Cary, NC 27511
          Telephone: (888) 332-7252
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: cbrown@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua B. Durham, Esq.
          BELL, DAVIS & PITT
          227 W. Trade St., Ste. 1800
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 502-6275
          E-mail: jdurham@belldavispitt.com

HYDRO GENERATION: Williams Seeks Website Access for Blind Users
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYDRO GENERATION INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00433 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

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

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

Hydro Generation Inc. is a company that operates the Atlantis
Hydroponics online retail store across the United States, with its
principal executive office located at 4051 Southmeadow Parkway,
Suite C, East Point, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

IKEA US: Pennsylvania Court Refuses to Dismiss Dukich Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
refuses to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit entitled
DIANA and JOHN DUKICH v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC, et al., Case No.
20-2182 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs Diana and John Dukich have sued Defendants IKEA US
Retail LLC and IKEA North America Services LLC ("IKEA") in the
putative class action brought under the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") and for
negligence. These counts arise from the Plaintiffs' purchase of two
IKEA dressers that were later recalled by IKEA and for which they
allege they have never received the refund IKEA promised.

Before the Court is the motion of IKEA to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because of the primary
jurisdiction of the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission ("CPSC"). In the alternative, it moves to strike the
class allegations of any claim that is not dismissed.

IKEA is a major retail chain, which designs and sells furniture.
The Plaintiffs are a husband and wife couple with two young
children, who purchased two four-drawer dressers of the MALM model
from IKEA for approximately $100 each in or around 2012.

By June 28, 2016, IKEA knew of two deaths and 13 injuries from
tip-over accidents involving the MALM line of dressers, as well as
deaths and injuries from other chests and dressers. That day IKEA
issued a voluntary recall ("2016 recall") with the CPSC for 29
million chests and dressers, including the MALM series which the
Plaintiffs had purchased.

By November 21, 2017, IKEA had become aware of another death of a
child from a MALM dresser tip-over and 91 more injuries, as well as
deaths and injuries from other models of dressers. IKEA
re-announced the recall on November 21, 2017 ("2017 recall") which
subjected 17.3 million dressers to recall. In the 2017 recall, IKEA
provided the same two options for either refund or a free
wall-anchoring kit and specified that it will "pick up the recalled
dressers free of charge or provide a one-time, free in-home
wall-anchoring service" upon request.

In August 2018, the Plaintiffs visited the return section of an
IKEA retail store near their home in Minnesota to return their
dressers, which were subject to both the 2016 and 2017 recalls, for
a cash refund in the amount of the purchase price of approximately
$200. The Plaintiffs allege that IKEA refused to accept the
dressers, give the Plaintiffs $200 in cash as a refund, or provide
any alternative refund. The Plaintiffs have stored the dressers in
their garage since then due to the recalls.

The Plaintiffs bring the action seeking certification of the
proposed class, a full cash refund, damages for returning or
disposing of the recalled products, and direct notification by IKEA
to all class members of the defective nature of the chests and
dressers. They do not seek damages for personal injuries or
diminution in the value of the dressers.

The basis for the action relates to IKEA's failure to issue a
refund to the Plaintiffs and comply with the terms of the 2016 and
2017 recalls. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that IKEA violated
the UTPCPL by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
promising refunds and failing to issue such refunds. In addition,
they aver that IKEA acted negligently in voluntarily undertaking a
recall and then failing to abide by its terms.

At oral argument, the parties agreed that the action solely relates
to the 2016 and 2017 recalls and the Plaintiffs' attempt to secure
a refund for their recalled dressers. IKEA now concedes that the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint states claims for relief under the
UTPCPL and for negligence as relates to the refund and recalls.

District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, states that it is important to
note that the Plaintiffs' claims may proceed under the UTPCPL and a
theory of negligence even though the Plaintiffs only plead economic
injury. The Court of Appeals (Third Circuit) previously held in
Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co. that the economic loss doctrine
prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to
which their entitlement flows only from a contract. The Court of
Appeals in Werwinski upheld the district court's decision that the
economic loss doctrine applies to statutory fraud claims, in that
case UTPCPL claims, as well as common law fraud claims.

Judge Bartle opines that the economic loss doctrine does not bar
the Plaintiffs' suit in this instance since this is not a matter
based on contractual duties between the parties. The Plaintiffs'
claims only focus on the recalls IKEA issued and the refund that
the Plaintiffs allege IKEA failed to provide. Neither the recall
nor refund is based on any contractual obligations between the
parties.

According to the amended complaint, Defendant IKEA US Retail LLC
sold the Plaintiffs the dressers while IKEA North American Services
LLC issued the 2016 and 2017 recalls, which offered the refund. As
the Plaintiffs have pleaded common law and statutory duties
independent from any contractual obligations between the parties,
the economic loss doctrine does not bar these claims, Judge Bartle
holds. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims under the UTPCPL and for
negligence may proceed as pleaded at this stage.

IKEA also seeks dismissal of the action on the ground that the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction favors deferring to the CPSC since
the CPSC is overseeing IKEA's recalls and this suit is within the
specific expertise of the CPSC. The Plaintiffs counter that it is
not one of the special or unusual cases in which deferring to an
agency is appropriate, especially since the relief they seek does
not conflict with the CPSC's actions.

Judge Bartle notes that the Court of Appeals has cautioned that
federal courts should only abstain from exercising their
jurisdiction in exceptional cases. He insists that it is not one of
those exceptional cases. The Court is well-suited for determining
whether IKEA has violated the UTPCPL or acted negligently. The case
does not involve overly technical or policy considerations that
demand the expertise of the CPSC.

Furthermore, Judge Bartle finds, IKEA has not pointed the court to
any law or regulation that the CPSC is even capable of providing a
remedy for the Plaintiffs in the instance other than revoking the
recall plan if IKEA is found to be non-compliant with the terms of
the recall. The CPSC cannot offer the Plaintiffs the refund that
they seek in the suit or award damages. Thus, the issue is not
within the CPSC's particular jurisdiction nor is there a risk of
inconsistent rulings between the CPSC and the Court as it has
vastly different tools available to it to address the claims
asserted. There is nothing before the Court to support abstention
in favor of granting primary jurisdiction to the CPSC.

IKEA also moves to strike the class allegations set forth in the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of all United States residents, who purchased or owned any
chest or dresser included in the 2016 and 2017 recalls, regardless
of whether those consumers sought a refund or repair kit under the
terms of the recall and were denied like the Plaintiffs. IKEA
argues that the amended complaint indicates that even with
discovery the Plaintiffs will be unable to establish claims of the
other members of the class without individual investigations into
the circumstances of each class member.

Judge Bartle holds that the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' class
allegations is premature at this early stage. He avers that the
Court is mindful of the analysis of the Court of Appeals in
Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates where the district
court's dismissal of class certification at the motion to dismiss
stage was reversed. In this matter discovery would help determine
the contours and nature of the class and whether the Plaintiffs
have met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

At oral argument, the Court raised the concern about the difficulty
of maintaining a nationwide class action for a state law negligence
claims because of the necessary choice of law analysis for each
member of the class. It also raised questions as to the exact
definition of the purported class and whether the proposed class
members will have sufficient factual similarities with the named
plaintiffs so as to satisfy all requirements for certification
under Rule 23. There is also a question of the ascertainability of
the class and whether IKEA possesses sufficient records or the
Plaintiffs have other means of readily identifying members of the
class. These are just some of the issues with which the Plaintiffs
will have to deal at the class certification stage.

Judge Bartle says the Court does not reach any conclusions on these
issues at this time. The Court will be in a better position to
determine whether the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act
and Rule 23 have been met once the Plaintiffs file a motion for
class certification and appropriate discovery has been conducted.

The Court will deny IKEA's alternative motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
must promptly file a motion for class certification at which point
the Court will schedule a conference with counsel to discuss the
scope of discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y69avbwy from Leagle.com.


IML LABELS: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Opperman Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES OPPERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IML LABELS CHICAGO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2021L000065 (Ill. 18th Jud. Cir. Ct., Dupage
Cty., January 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged collection, storage
and use of the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without obtaining the requisite prior informed written consent or
providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies.

IML Labels Chicago, Inc. is a label printing company based in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
         111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 391-5059
         Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
         E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

                 - and –

         Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
         David W. Hall, Esq.
         HEDIN HALL LLP
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1140
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 357-2107
         Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
         E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                 dhall@hedinhall.com

INPHI CORP: Rosenfeld Challenges Proposed Merger With Marvell
-------------------------------------------------------------
BEREL ROSENFELD v. INPHI CORPORATION, DIOSDADO P. BANATAO, NICHOLAS
E. BRATHWAITE, CHENMING C. HU, DAVID E. LIDDLE, BRUCE M.
MCWILLIAMS, ELISSA MURPHY, WILLIAM J. RUEHLE, SAM S. SRINIVASAN,
and FORD TAMER, Case No. 5:21-cv-00486 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2021)
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, seeking to enjoin a vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Inphi will be acquired by Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. through its wholly owned subsidiaries Marvell
Technology, Inc. ("HoldCo"), Maui Acquisition Company Ltd., and
Indigo Acquisition Corp in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

On October 29, 2020, Inphi and Marvell issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated October 29, 2020 to sell Inphi to Marvell. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Inphi common stock
will receive (i) $66.00 in cash, and (ii) 2.323 shares of HoldCo
common stock for each share of Inphi common stock they own (the
"Merger Consideration"). Upon closing of the merger, Marvell and
Inphi will become wholly owned subsidiaries of HoldCo, and Holdco's
shares will be listed on the Nasdaq under the symbol "MRVL." Inphi
stockholders are expected to own approximately 17% of the
outstanding shares of the combined company, and Marvell
stockholders immediately prior to the merger are expected to own
approximately 83% of the outstanding shares of the combined
company. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $40
billion.

On December 22, 2020, Marvell filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
Registration Statement, which recommends that Inphi stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents
material information concerning the financial projections and the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial
advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP, the suit says.

In short, unless remedied, Inphi's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making
a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the
Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured.

The Plaintiff is, and has been a continuous stockholder of Inphi.

Inphi is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located at 2953 Bunker Hill Lane, Suite 300, Santa Clara,
California. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd., No. 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over 7nm Product Delays
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to its July 2020
announcement of 7nm product delays.

Starting in July 2020, five securities class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against Intel and certain current and former officers
based on Intel's July 2020 announcement of 7nm product delays.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent classes of acquirers of
Intel stock between October 2019 and July 2020, generally allege
that the defendants violated securities laws by making false and
misleading statements about the timeline for 7nm products in light
of subsequently announced delays.

In October 2020, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed
lead plaintiffs, and in January 2021 the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.

Intel said, "We dispute the claims described above and intend to
defend the lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural posture and
the nature of these cases, including that the proceedings are in
the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified,
that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes
being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if
certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from
these matters."

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.

INTEL CORP: Spectre and Meltdown Virus-Related Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to
defend suits, including class action suits related to Spectre and
Meltdown virus.

In June 2017, a Google research team notified the company and other
companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities (commonly
referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown") that affect many types of
microprocessors, including our products. As is standard when
findings like these are presented, the company worked together with
other companies in the industry to verify the research and develop
and validate software and firmware updates for impacted
technologies.

On January 3, 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was
publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address
the vulnerabilities were made widely available.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Intel and, in certain
cases, the company's current and former executives and directors,
in U.S. federal and state courts and in certain courts in other
countries relating to the Spectre and Meltdown security
vulnerabilities, as well as other variants of these vulnerabilities
that have since been identified.

As of January 20, 2021, consumer class action lawsuits relating to
the above class of security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed
since 2018 were pending in the U.S., Canada, and Israel.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by
Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the security
vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. In the U.S.,
numerous individual class action suits filed in various
jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.


In March 2020, the court granted Intel's motion to dismiss the
complaint in that consolidated action but granted plaintiffs leave
to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2020, which
Intel moved to dismiss in July 2020; argument on the motion was
heard in December 2020.

In Canada, in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled.
In a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of
Quebec, the court has stayed the case until January 2021.

In Israel, two consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Haifa. In the first case, the District Court
denied the parties' joint motion to stay filed in January 2019, but
to date has deferred Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint.
Intel filed a motion to stay the second case pending resolution of
the consolidated proceeding in the U.S., and a hearing on that
motion has been scheduled for November 2020.

Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary
damages or other related relief.

Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and
intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending
proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not
been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that
might arise from those matters."

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.

INTELSAT CORP: Chairman Faces New Shareholder Suit Amid Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kosman, writing for New York Post, reports that the chairman
of satellite operator Intelsat is being sued for insider trading in
an explosive new shareholder lawsuit that also dings private-equity
giants BC Partners and Silver Lake Partners, a New York Knicks
shareholder.

The Oakland, Calif., federal court lawsuit claims that David
McGlade, Intelsat's chairman and former CEO, sold stock in the
satellite operator on Nov. 5, 2019 -- mere hours after the
company's CEO learned that the Federal Communications Commission
was leaning against a proposal that would have earned the company
billions.

McGlade made the trade -- together with fellow Intelsat insiders
Silver Lake and BC Partners -- via a $246 million block sale of 10
million shares, the lawsuit says. Weeks later, on Nov. 18, the FCC
rejected Intelsat's proposal to run the sale of government-owned
airwaves it had been using for TV and radio communications --
squashing its dreams of a $7 billion-plus windfall. By May, the
company had filed for bankruptcy protection. The stock, which had
been trading at around $23 a share ahead of the insider selling,
closed on Jan. 15 at 72 cents a share.

"This is the quintessential insider trading case," read the lawsuit
filed by law firm Labaton Sucharow on behalf of Intelsat
shareholder Walleye Group. "Intelsat, a satellite operator, was
successfully pursuing a bet-the-company-deal with the FCC. Its
board chairman, defendant David McGlade, and its two largest
shareholders, defendants BC Partners and Silver Lake, sold $246
million in stock the very same day they learned the FCC was turning
against the deal."

As The Post first reported in March, Intelsat shareholders have
been fuming over the $246 million block sale since first learning
that it took place the same day Intelsat's chief executive, Stephen
Spengler, met with the FCC's senior counsel, Nicholas Degani, to
discuss Intelsat's ill-fated plans to profit off a government-owned
telecom asset.

But shareholders had previously believed that only BC Partners and
Silver Lake were behind the trades -- claims that resulted in a
couple of class-action lawsuits filed against the firms last year.
The Jan. 15 lawsuit, which joins the earlier cases, cites an
anonymous ex-Intelsat executive who says Spengler told him that the
FCC was going in a different direction from the one proposed by
Intelsat "just after" the Nov. 5 meeting. The exec "surmised it
must have been one of the top three worst meetings Spengler ever
had," the lawsuit said.

Leading up to the meeting, Intelsat and a band of satellite
operators had been proposing to help the government repurpose
spectrum they had been using for a nationwide 5G wireless network
by selling it via a private auction. The FCC under Ajit Pai seemed
amenable to the plan until it started to receive pushback from Sen.
John Kennedy (R-La.), who advocated for a public auction that would
enrich government coffers instead of private industry.

"Shelling out billions for airwaves we already own is no way to
handle taxpayer money," Kennedy said publicly at the time. "These
foreign satellite firms want all four feet and their snout in the
taxpayer trough."

Kennedy reportedly made his concerns known to Trump days before the
Nov. 5 meeting.

"Just hours after that meeting, defendants began selling $246
million in stock in an overnight fire sale, avoiding over $185
million in losses that investors suffered as Intelsat promptly
collapsed," the lawsuit claimed.

The suit cites e-mails from Morgan Stanley, which brokered the
trade, and an interview with the anonymous ex-Intelsat exec, who
says he learned about the Nov. 5 block sale after noticing the high
volume of trades on a New York Stock Exchange internal system,
which he later discussed with CFO David Tolley, who only learned
about them from the staffer.

The former executive recalled feeling that the trading was
"outrageous" and that it was "obvious" that the insiders had been
updated about the meeting, according to the suit.

The lawsuit doesn't say how many shares McGlade might have sold,
and he didn't return requests for comment. McGlade, who was
responsible for government outreach and advising the CEO on
business and policy issues, owned 4.5 million Intelsat shares in
2018.

BC Partners also didn't return requests for comment but previously
told The Post that the trades were "based solely on available
public information."

BC's two Intelsat directors -- Raymond Svider and Justin Bateman --
either didn't return comment or couldn't be reached. Bateman last
month left BC Partners after 20 years, sources told The Post.

Silver Lake, which owns a 7.5 percent stake in Madison Square
Garden, declined to comment. The firm didn't have Intelsat board
seats but had a contract that gave it special rights to
information, including board meeting materials, the suit says.

Silver Lake has also come under fire for its well-timed sale of
$158 million shares of software provider SolarWinds six days before
it emerged that the company was subject of a massive hack, sending
the shares down 40 percent.

"Silver Lake is a large shareholder of SolarWinds, just as in this
case, and once again they are entitled to board level information
about the company," the Intelsat suit says.
SolarWinds has said it was not made aware of the hack at the time
of the Silver Lake sale. Silver Lake pointed to a statement from
private-equity firm Thoma Bravo, which sold SolarWinds shares in
the same Dec. 7 transaction.

"We were not aware of this potential cyberattack at SolarWinds
prior to entering into a private placement to a single
institutional investor on Dec. 7," Thoma Bravo said.

"Silver Lake is a large shareholder of SolarWinds, just as in this
case, and once again they are entitled to board level information
about the company," the Intelsat suit says.

A hedge fund manager who was a large Intelsat shareholder in Nov.
2019 told The Post he was astonished by the SolarWinds news and
does believe it represents a pattern. He is not part of the suit
against Silver Lake, though he believes its trading in Intelsat was
highly suspicious.

Silver Lake declined comment on the Intelsat allegations.

The firm pointed to a statement on the SolarWinds allegation from
fellow PE firm Thoma Bravo that also sold SolarWinds shares in the
same Dec. 7 transaction.

"We were not aware of this potential cyberattack at SolarWinds
prior to entering into a private placement to a single
institutional investor on Dec. 7," Thoma Bravo said. [GN]


JABU CO: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Williams Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JABU CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00429-ER (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

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

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

Jabu Co. is a company that operates the Horizen Hydroponics online
retail store across the United States, with its principal executive
office located at 2200 Alpine Ave. NW, Walker, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

JACOBO FARM: Class Cert. Schedule Conference Continued to Feb. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm
Labor Contractor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01489 (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony W. Ishii entered an order continuing
scheduling conference to February 10, 2021.

   -- The parties shall meet and confer in advance of the
      conference regarding proposed scheduling dates, including
      any dates for merits discovery, expert discovery,
      dispositive motions, a pretrial conference and trial.

   -- At least seven days prior to the conference, the parties
      shall file a Joint Scheduling Report with proposed dates
      for the Courts consideration.

   -- The parties shall appear at the conference with each party
      connecting remotely either via Zoom video conference or
      Zoom telephone number.

The nature of suit states Labor - Other Labor Litigation involving
Farmworker Rights.

The Defendant is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Selma,
California.[CC]

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Mississippi PERS, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re JELD-WEN HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00112-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Lead
Plaintiffs Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
("Mississippi PERS") and Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension
Fund ("PPNPF"), along with Additional Plaintiff Wisconsin Laborers'
Pension Fund ("WLPF") ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      23(a) and (b)(3), on behalf of:

      "all persons and entities who or which, during the period
      from January 26, 2017 through October 15, 2018, inclusive
      purchased the publicly traded common stock of Jeld-Wen
Holding,
      Inc.;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Mississippi PERS, PPNPF, and
      WLPF as Class Representatives,

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton
      Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(g); and

   4. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Liaison
      Counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that during the proposed Class Period, over
100 million shares of Jeld-Wen common stock were outstanding and
were actively traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). There
are likely thousands of Class members who were harmed by the
conduct of Jeld-Wen and certain of its officers and directors and
controlling shareholder Onex.

Jeld-Wen, one of the world's largest door and window manufacturers,
makes and sells interior molded doors, the most popular type of
interior door in North America.

A copy of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Jan.
19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Y5tEsj at no extra charge.[CC]

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs, are:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Joshua Handelsman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  jhandelsman@cohenmilstein.com

Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund, Additional Plaintiff Wisconsin Laborers’ Pension
Fund, and the Class, are:

          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          Debra Wyman, Esq.
          Mark T. Millkey, Esq.
          Francis P. Karam, Esq.
          William J. Geddish, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
                  debraw@rgrdlaw.com
                  mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com
                  fkaram@rgrdlaw.com
                  wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com

Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System
of Mississippi and the Class, are:

          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          James T. Christie, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
          E-mail: jjohnson@labaton.com
                  mrogers@labaton.com
                  jchristie@labaton.com

K12 INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)

Investors Affected: April 27, 2020 - September 18, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
K12 Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructures, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable
provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training
to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/k12inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12216&from=1

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK)

Investors Affected: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project
was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public
interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be
larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a
result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project
would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=12216&from=1

CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY)

Investors Affected: January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
CD Projekt SA. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: Throughout the class period, defendants were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and the Company
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form/?id=12216&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


KANEX INC: Rakhmanin Labor Suit Moved From N.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SERGEI RAKHMANIN, NATALIA STEPANOVA and
SVETLANA LARINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KANEX INC. d/b/a GRAND MOUNTAIN HOTEL, ALEX SMUSHKOVICH
and TATYANA RUGANOVICH, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-01287, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on January 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00275-WFK-SJB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the minimum wage, failing to pay overtime premium pay, failing to
pay spread-of-hours pay, unlawfully retaining gratuities, failing
to provide payrate and payday notice, and failing to provide an
accurate wage statement.

Kanex Inc., doing business as Grand Mountain Hotel, is a hotel
owner and operator, with its principal place of business located at
22 Mountaindale Road, Greenfield Park, Ulster County, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                    
         
         Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
         Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10170-1830
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 milana@lipskylowe.com

KIMBERLY-CLARK: March 16 Deadline for Filing of Second Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA ARMSTRONG, ROLAND
NADEAU, KARYN RAY, LINDA GORDAN, ERIK HEINRICH, SANDRA GREEN, and
RUTH BOGUE, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
persons, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03150-M
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn entered an order
granting the parties' "Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule, to
Permit the Parties to File Briefs in Excess of the Page
Limitations, and to Extend Plaintiffs' Deadline to Move for Class
Certification," as follows:

   1. The January 19, 2021 due date for Kimberly-Clark's
      responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint is
      vacated.

   2. The Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or
      before March 16, 2021.

   3. Kimberly-Clark shall file a responsive pleading to the
      second amended complaint on or before April 15, 2021.
      Kimberly-Clark's page limit for its opening brief is
      extended to 35 pages in total.

   4. The Plaintiffs shall file an opposition brief on or before
      May 14, 2021. The Plaintiffs' page limit for their
      opposition brief is extended to 35 pages in total.

   5. Kimberly-Clark shall file a reply brief, if any, on or
      before May 28, 2021. Kimberly-Clark's page limit for its
      reply brief is extended to 15 pages in total.

   6. The Court vacates the deadline for class certification
      motions pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 and orders that the
      parties propose deadline(s) for class certification
      motions as part of their Report for Contents of Scheduling
      Order, due March 8, 2021.

Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products. The
company manufactures sanitary paper products and surgical & medical
instruments.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iGr318 at no extra charge.[CC]

L'OREAL USA: Young Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RENEE YOUNG and ROXANE TIERNEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00944, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 19,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00446-GHW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and unjust
enrichment by marketing and selling liquid cosmetic products in
defective manual pumping bottles.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of cosmetics products
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                            
         
         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         Matthew B. George, Esq.
         Mario M. Choi, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) -772-4700
         Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                 mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                 mchoi@kaplanfox.com

                 - and –

         Karen E. Snyder, Esq.
         Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
         SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC
         10955 Lowell Ave., Suite 710
         Overland Park, KS 66210
         Telephone: (913) 685-3900
         Facsimile: (913) 440-0724
         E-mail: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
                 psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com

                 - and –

         Matt Dameron, Esq.
         Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
         WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
         1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Telephone: (816) 945-7110
         Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
         E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com

LAKESIDE MEDICAL: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Moore Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DREW MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00462 (C.D.
Cal., January 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members
received unsolicited marketing text messages from the Defendant on
their cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone
dialing system without their prior express consent. As a result of
the Defendant's illegal conduct, the privacy of the Plaintiff and
Class members was invaded and they incurred certain cellular
telephone charges or reduced telephone time.

Lakeside Medical Group, Inc. is a healthcare provider based in
California. [BN]

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

LASIK VISION: Extension of Class Cert. Related Deadlines Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA WILLIAMS, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, v. THE LASIK VISION INSTITUTE, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02402-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadlines presently in place related
to class certification, as set forth in the Amended Scheduling
Order, which was entered on September 2, 2020.

The parties request that the Court enter an order modifying the
Amended Scheduling Order and setting the following deadlines:

    1. Completing All Discovery Relating        May 12, 2021
       to Class Action Issues:

    2. Motion for Class Certification:          June 11, 2021

    3. Response to Motion for                   July 9, 2021
       Class Certification:

    4. Reply in Support of Class:               July 23, 2021
       Certification:

Specifically, because of delays associated with class-related
discovery, the parties request that the Court enter an order moving
the current deadlines of February 12, 2021, for completing all
discovery relating to class action issues, and of March 12, 2021,
for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, as
well as corresponding deadlines to respond to and file a reply in
support of that forthcoming motion.

The parties state that, despite the diligent and ongoing work of
the the Defendants and the collective cooperation of the parties,
there have been numerous delays and issues related to the
Defendants' obtaining documents and information relevant to class
certification issues for production to the Plaintiff's counsel.
These delays have been caused almost exclusively by difficulties
and logistical issues relating to the bankruptcy and subsequent
Asset Purchase Agreement through which Kismet New Vision Holdings,
LLC, purchased the records and other documents relevant to the
Tennessee centers at issue in this lawsuit.

The Defendants have been unable to gain access to the medical
records and billing or payment information of a portion of the
putative class members. The parties have scheduled one deposition
for January 29, 2021; however, they anticipate taking several
additional depositions in order to have the information necessary
to file and defend against, respectively, a class certification
motion. These additional depositions cannot reasonably go forward
until further written discovery is completed, the Parties contend.

A copy of the joint motion to modify the amended scheduling order
dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3odu1f1 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
          William F. Burns, Esq.
          William E. Routt, Esq.
          WATSON BURNS, PLLC
          253 Adams Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 529-7996
          Facsimile: (901) 529-7998
          E-mail: fwatson@watsonburns.com
                  bbums@watsonburns.com
                  wroutt@watsonburns.com

               - and -

          John Timothy Edwards, Esq.
          BALLIN BALLIN & FISHMAN, P.C.
          Suite 1250
          200 Jefferson Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 525-6278
          Facsimile: (901) 525-6294
          E-mail: tedwards@bbfpc.com

Attorneys for the Defendants The Lasik Vision Institute, LLC, LVI
Intermediate Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Vision Group Holdings, LLC, LVI
Super Intermediate Holdings, Inc., Mark Jamie Cohen, Avi
Wallerstein, Lisa Ann Melamed, Raymond R. Monteleone, Ben L. Cook,
Mark A. Hockenson, William Wolz, Chris Folsom, and Erika Jackson,
are:

          Wells Trompeter, Esq.
          W. David Bridgers, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone (615) 244-6380
          Facsimile (615) 244-6804
          E-mail: David.Bridgers@wallerlaw.com
                  Wells.Trompeter@wallerlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants James M. Rynerson, M.D. and James M.
Rynerson, M.D., PSC, are:

          Craig C. Conley, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          Zachary A. Kisber, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 577-2290
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0830
          E-mail: CConley@bakerdonelson.com
                  RTom@bakerdonelson.com
                  ZKisber@bakerdonelson.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL: California Court Refuses to Remand Marano Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court his lawsuit
titled STEPHEN MARANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 to 50,
Case No. SACV 20-02215-CJC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Marano filed the putative wage-and-hour class action
against Defendant Liberty Mutual and unnamed Does in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. The
Defendant removed the action to the Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.

The Plaintiff, a non-exempt Sales Representative employed by the
Defendant, alleges that it failed to pay him for all hours worked,
including overtime and missed meal periods or rest breaks. In the
case, he asserts eight claims under California's Labor Code,
including failure to pay all wages due and failure to pay overtime
wages. He asserts these claims on behalf of a proposed class of
"all individuals who are or were employed by Defendant in
California as Sales Representatives and equivalent positions from
four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of trial."

The Defendant removed the case to the Court, contending that the
Court has CAFA jurisdiction because minimum diversity is met, there
are over 100 class members, and the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million. The Court now considers the Plaintiff's motion to
remand to state court, in which he argues that the Defendant has
failed to meet its burden to show the amount in controversy.

The Plaintiff contends that the case must be remanded because the
Defendant has not properly established that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. The Defendant contends the amount
in controversy exceeds $7 million. Based on the Plaintiff's
allegations, the Defendant assumes a violation rate of four hours
of uncompensated overtime per workweek and three missed meal breaks
and three missed rest breaks per week. The Defendant also assumes
that 100% of pay periods resulted in a wage statement penalty or
penalties for failure to pay wages timely and $70 in unreimbursed
expenses per month.

In support of its calculations, the Defendant submits declarations
from Serena Wannemacher, a business analyst for the Defendant, and
Shannon Labadie, a payroll project manager for the Defendant.
Wannemacher offers the following facts based on her review of
Company records: (1) as of September 30, 2020, 175 individuals were
within the scope of the class definition in the complaint, (2) all
of these employees were full-time employees, (3) these employees
had an average pay rate of $15.35 an hour, (4) based on her
calculation, these employees worked a total of 16,666.17 workweeks.
After her review of company records, Labadie estimates that if the
putative class members worked an additional four hours a week, they
would have earned an average of $89.11 in overtime on commissions
and bonuses per workweek, in addition to overtime earned on their
base salary.

Based on Wannemacher's analysis, the Defendant estimates an alleged
$1,535,287.58 in unpaid overtime on base hour wages, an alleged
$1,485,122.41 in unpaid overtime on commissions and bonuses, and an
alleged $1,534,954.26 in unpaid meal and rest period premiums. It
also estimates an alleged $314,370 in unreimbursed expenses, an
alleged $225,950.00 in Section 266 penalties, and an alleged
$451,900.00 in Section 210 penalties. Taken together, this suggests
an amount in controversy of over $5 million before considering
potential attorneys' fees.

The Court finds the Defendant's calculations are based on
reasonable assumptions grounded in the allegations of the
Complaint. The amount in controversy considers the amount in
dispute, not the amount that a plaintiff is likely to recover,
citing Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir.
2010).

District Judge Cormac J. Carney opines that the Defendant's assumed
violation rates are grounded in the broad allegation that these
violations as part of its "consistent policy" and the specific
allegations involving its various schemes to underpay employees.
Furthermore, the Defendant's assumption of a wage statement penalty
on 100% of pay periods is supported by the Plaintiff's allegation
that the Defendant failed to ever pay him and the Class Members all
wages due. The Defendant's showing is sufficient to satisfy CAFA's
amount-in-controversy requirement, the Judge holds.s

The Plaintiff also argues that the Notice of Removal must fail
because it "relies entirely on a patchwork of guesses and
generalizations" and the Defendant's calculations are based on
self-serving assumptions lacking adequate evidentiary support. The
Court disagrees.

As Judge Carney explained, the Defendant has provided evidence:
declarations from knowledgeable employees based on their analysis
of regularly kept and created business records, and the Defendant
properly estimated violation rates based on reasonable assumptions
grounded in the Complaint. As such, the declarations submitted and
the Defendant's reasonable assumptions are sufficient to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

For these reasons, the Defendant has carried its burden to show
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action
under CAFA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ycqtn5 from Leagle.com.


LLOYD'S LONDON: E.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses IRG Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled
INDEPENDENCE RESTAURANT GROUP D/B/A/INDEPENDENCE BEER GARDEN on
behalf of itself and All others similarly situated v. CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Case No. 20-2365 (E.D. Pa.).

Aside from its devastating impact on the health and lives of people
across the globe, the COVID-19 pandemic has also wreaked havoc on
the livelihoods of business owners and employees. Plaintiff
Independence Restaurant Group brings the putative class action
suit, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, seeking a
declaratory judgment that its continuing business losses caused by
COVID-19 and related government orders are covered under its
insurance policy with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London.

Plaintiff IRG owns and operates Independence Beer Garden, a
restaurant/beer garden on Independence Mall in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. IRG alleges that it has been unable to operate its
business as a result of governmental orders and/or the COVID-19
pandemic. Because of the virus and related government orders, its
business has remained closed for an extended period of time and,
since reopening, IRG has been required to comply with income-losing
restrictions and capacity limitations.

IRG had an insurance policy with Lloyd's from August 14, 2019,
until August 14, 2020, and has faithfully paid its premiums. IRG's
insurance policy is an "all risk" policy, which provides coverage
for all covered causes of loss unless a cause of loss is
specifically excluded or limited in the policy. The general
insuring clause of the policy provides that Lloyd's "will pay for
direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the
Premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from
any Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss," in turn, is
defined as "Risks of Direct Physical Loss unless the Loss is"
otherwise excluded or limited.

The Policy also provides for business income coverage. Separately,
the Policy provides for "Civil Authority Coverage." As potentially
relevant here, the Policy also contains a microorganism exclusion
and two pollution exclusions that exclude coverage for otherwise
covered losses.

IRG timely submitted a claim for business income and related losses
under its insurance policy on March 31, alleging losses arising
from the COVID-19 pandemic and government orders. Six weeks later,
IRG filed the instant action. The complaint alleges that Lloyd's
has failed to provide coverage under the Policy and has told the
Plaintiff's counsel that coverage does not exist.

IRG seeks declaratory relief on behalf of itself and other
businesses in Pennsylvania that are insured by Lloyd's under
similar policies and that have also suffered business losses from
the COVID-19 pandemic or the government orders. It sks the Court to
declare that the COVID-19 pandemic and the government orders
trigger coverage under the Policy and that the Policy provides
coverage to IRG and the class members for any current, future and
continued business interruptions stemming from the COVID-19
pandemic.

In its motion to dismiss, Lloyd's argues that IRG has not and
cannot show its claim falls within the Policy's grant of coverage.
IRG responds that it has sufficiently alleged facts that, under its
reasonable interpretation of the Policy, trigger coverage or at
minimum allow it to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage.

IRG alleges that it suffered "a complete deprivation of use,
access, presence and operation" of its property, that it was
"physically restrained and prohibited from operating the property,"
and that it has been limited in its use of its property and unable
to use it for its intended purpose. Its losses are allegedly caused
by the government orders and the COVID-19 pandemic.

District Judge Chad F. Kenney opines that these are not covered
losses within the meaning of the Policy. With respect to the
government orders, even assuming they had rendered IRG's property
uninhabitable or nearly eliminated or destroyed its function, loss
of use caused by government orders cannot constitute "direct
physical loss of property."

IRG also alleges that its property is at imminent threat of being
contaminated by the virus. But those allegations also do not meet
the requisite threshold, Judge Kenney holds. While IRG alleges that
it has suffered a complete loss of its property's functionality and
use, other allegations show that neither the virus itself nor any
imminent threat of its presence has "nearly eliminated or
destroyed" its functionality or rendered it "useless or
uninhabitable." Rather, IRG's business reopened (albeit with
restrictions and limited capacity) once the government orders
lifted showing that the government orders addressing the virus
rather than the virus itself was the source seriously affecting the
property's functionality.

IRG also argues that its losses are covered because the Policy does
not include a virus exclusion present in some other property
insurance policies. But "a loss which does not properly fall within
the coverage clause cannot be regarded as covered thereby merely
because it is not within any of the specific exceptions." And it is
at least plausible that the physical manifestation of some type of
virus could cause covered losses. That situation is just not
present in the case, Judge Kenney points out.

The Court recognizes that some courts in other jurisdictions over
the last few months have either found coverage under similar
policies or allowed cases to survive motions to dismiss. But upon
review of those non-binding cases, the Policy itself, and relevant
Third Circuit caselaw, the Court believes the course it adopts
today is the correct one. Accordingly, IRG has not met its burden
to show prima facie coverage under the Business Income Coverage
provision.

IRG also alleges that its business losses are covered under the
Policy's Civil Authority Coverage provision. Lloyd's argues that
IRG's complaint does not allege such loss or damage and that access
to its property was not prohibited because of such loss or damage.
IRG argues the government prohibited the public from the premises
of its restaurant, that the primary purpose of the government
orders was to "mitigate and ultimately stop the spread of property
loss already caused by COVID-19," and that it sufficiently alleged
damage to property in and around IRG's property.

The Court agrees with Lloyd's that there is no coverage under the
Civil Authority Coverage provision. Judge Kenney holds that the
government orders did not prohibit access to the described
premises. IRG alleges that it meets this requirement because the
public was barred from its premises. But neither IRG, its
employees, nor the public was barred from the premises.

For these reasons, IRG has failed to meet its burden to show prima
facie coverage under its insurance policy. Therefore, the Court
will not shift the burden to Lloyd's to determine whether an
exclusion precludes coverage where it otherwise exists.

The Court will not grant IRG leave to amend its complaint because
IRG can allege no facts related to its Policy, its losses, or the
reasons for its losses that could bring its claim within the
coverage of its insurance policy.

Hence, IRG is not entitled to coverage for the losses it suffered.
Its claim for declaratory relief will, accordingly, be dismissed
with prejudice as to IRG and without prejudice as to the putative
class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3tkfj68 from Leagle.com.


LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez FCCPA & FDUTPA Class Status Bid Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA ALVAREZ v. LOANCARE
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21837-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia
M. Altonaga entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification:

   -- Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) Class:

      "all persons who are borrowers or co-borrowers on a
      residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare on
      property located in Florida who, since May 1, 2018,
      LoanCare charged, collected, or attempted to collect a
      processing fee for making a mortgage payment over the
      phone or online"; and

   -- Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA)
      Class:

      "all persons who are borrowers or co-borrowers on a
      residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare on
      property located in Florida who, since May 1, 2016,
      LoanCare charged, collected, or attempted to collect a
      processing fee for making a mortgage payment over the
      phone or online."

The Court says that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the commonality
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) and does
not show certification is appropriate under either Rule 23(b)(2) or
(b)(3).

The Plaintiff brought this putative class action challenging the
collection of processing fees for making mortgage payments by phone
or online, as practiced by the Defendant, a mortgage sub-servicer.

Previously, the Court partially granted a Motion to Dismiss,
narrowing the Plaintiff’s claims to two: violations of the FCCPA;
and violations of the FDUTPA).

The Defendant is a Virginia limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The
Defendant is a mortgage sub-servicer, performing loan servicing for
a master servicer under a sub-servicer agreement.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oaPa9E at no extra charge.[CC]

LOS PRADOS: Meza FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium for Bakers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN MEZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOS PRADOS, INC. d/b/a CARNICERIA LOS PRADOS
and RODOLFO PRADO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00278-CAP (N.D.
Ga., January 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and Class members overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a baker at
Carniceria Los Prados in Mableton, Georgia from December 1, 2018 to
October 15, 2020.

Los Prados, Inc. is an owner and operator of a grocery store called
Carniceria Los Prados located at 7017 Mableton Parkway, S.E.,
Mableton, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
         1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
         Atlanta, GA 30328
         Telephone: (678) 330-2909
         Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
         E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

LOUISVILLE, KY: Faces Inmates' Class Suit Over Release System
-------------------------------------------------------------
WLKY reports that an attorney expects "thousands" will join a
lawsuit aimed at Louisville Metro Corrections after a federal judge
cleared the way for a class action on Jan. 15.

The lawsuit alleges one plaintiff was kept in jail for six days
after charges against her were dismissed. Another plaintiff says he
was not set free until three days after a judge ordered him
released on his own recognizance.

"They want the system changed," said attorney Jim Ballinger, who
first filed the lawsuit on behalf of his clients in 2017. "They
want it changed to where people get out of jail when they're
supposed to."

Ballinger expects "thousands" to join the class action lawsuit
because his review of just four months of LMDC records, including
8,437 releases, found 3,435 late releases.

A spokesperson for Louisville Metro Corrections said they cannot
comment on pending lawsuits. [GN]



MARATHON OIL: Objection to Magistrate's Order in Kunneman Overruled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as KUNNEMAN PROPERTIES LLC, DJM FAMILY,
LLC, ROYSE FAMILY, L.L.C., and JAMES CANON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY, Case No.
17-CV-00456-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order:

   -- overruling the Defendant's Objection to Magistrate Judge's
      Order;

   -- denying Marathon's request that the Court overturn the
      Magistrate Judge's ruling on the Second Motion to Compel as
      to the "Mittelstaedt Reviews."

The matter is a dispute regarding the alleged underpayment or
non-payment of royalties and oil-and-gas production proceeds from
gas-producing wells operated by Defendant Marathon Oil Company. The
Plaintiffs own royalty interests in Marathon-operated wells and
purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated. The Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint, the operative pleading in this matter, includes
allegations with respect to a single class, defined to include all
persons, who own or owned minerals in Oklahoma subject to an oil
and gas lease from September 1, 2011, to present wherein Marathon
improperly reduced royalty payments by charging the owners for the
cost of marketing, gathering, compressing, dehydrating, treating,
processing, or transporting hydrocarbons produced. The Plaintiffs
assert a single claim for breach of lease.

On November 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Motion to
Compel seeking three categories of documents and information: (1)
complete class pay detail, including pay detail from PayRock Energy
Holdings, LLC; (2) Marathon's "Mittelstaedt Reviews"; and (3)
Marathon's categorization of the oil-and-gas leases by royalty
clause.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court referred the
Plaintiffs' motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jodi F. Jayne, who held
a telephonic hearing on December 9, 2020. During the hearing,
Magistrate Judge Jayne issued an order from the bench granting the
motion as to the PayRock pay detail and "Mittelstaedt Reviews," but
denying the motion as to the categorization of the oil-and-gas
leases by royalty clause.

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Marathon now seeks review of Magistrate Judge Jayne's Order, but
only as to the portion of the ruling relating to its "Mittelstaedt
Review" documents.

Marathon objects to the portion of the Magistrate Judge's ruling
related to the "Mittelstaedt Review" documents because it contends
those documents are subject to attorney-client privilege. In her
December 9 bench ruling, Magistrate Judge Jayne concluded that
Marathon had failed to meet its burden of showing the "Mittelstaedt
Review" documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege
for two reasons: (1) the "Mittelstaedt Reviews" do not qualify for
the privilege because it was not shown that the documents were for
the purpose of securing legal advice, and (2) the reviews are
factual documents that Marathon contractually agreed to produce to
royalty owners in Paragraph 2.8(B)(ii) of the Settlement Agreement
executed in another class action, Hill v. Marathon Oil Company,
No-CIV-08-37-R (W.D. Okla. Sept. 1, 2011). Marathon raises
objections to both conclusions.

Marathon argues that the Magistrate Judge "erred as a matter of law
in relying on a legal presumption that communications to or from
in-house counsel are not privileged." Marathon has submitted the
Declaration of James Robert Bowden, Manager -- Commercial Services,
Natural Gas Marketing for Marathon. Mr. Bowden states that, in
2012, Karen Lukin, one of Marathon's former in-house counsel,
requested that he compile information about certain of Marathon's
gas-producing Oklahoma wells into a form spreadsheet.

Marathon's legal department supplied the form spreadsheet, and the
spreadsheets included the words "Mittelstaedt Review" in the title.
He declares it was his understanding Marathon's in-house legal
department would then access those spreadsheets to use for legal
analyses. Additionally, in its privilege log, Marathon identifies
the documents as being prepared at the direction of counsel for
legal analysis. Based on this evidence, Marathon asserts it has
satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the "Mittelstaedt Review"
documents are privileged.

Assuming that the "Mittelstaedt Reviews" qualify as
"communications," the Bowden Declaration and privilege log offer no
facts upon which the Court can conclude that the "Mittelstaedt
Reviews" were made for the purpose of providing legal advice or
services, rather than for any other business purpose, District
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell opines. He notes that it is
well-established that merely providing a business document to an
attorney does not impart privileged status to that document, citing
Hayes v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., No. 07-CV-682-CVE-SAJ, 2008 WL
11381397 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 19, 2008). Although Mr. Bowden states it
was "his understanding" that Marathon's in-house counsel used the
spreadsheets for legal analysis and "the sole purpose of the
Mittelstaedt Review spreadsheets was to compile information for
legal analysis," these conclusory assertions of a legal purpose are
insufficient.

As recognized by Magistrate Judge Jayne, Marathon offers no
affidavits or evidence of what legal analysis took place or what
the purpose of the analysis would be. Thus, Judge Frizzell holds,
Marathon fails to offer facts or evidence to satisfy its burden to
demonstrate the "Mittelstaedt Review" documents fall within the
scope of Oklahoma's statutory attorney-client privilege. Regardless
of whether the Magistrate Judge relied on a presumption not
recognized by Oklahoma law, it is clear to the Court that Marathon
failed to satisfy its burden to establish the privileged nature of
the "Mittelstaedt Review" documents. For this reason, based on the
Court's independent review, the "Mittelstaedt Reviews" are not
privileged, and must be produced.

Marathon also asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in the
analysis of Paragraph 2.8(B) of the Hill settlement agreement.
Paragraph 2.8(B) of that Settlement Agreement states that beginning
on January 1, 2012, and for a period of 10 years from and after
that date (subject to certain provision), Marathon will do the
certain determinations with regard to new Marathon-operated wells
in Oklahoma that are completed after January 1, 2012. These
determinations relate to royalty payments and deductions for costs
of gathering, transportation and/or compression.

As previously stated, the Magistrate Judge found that the
"Mittelstaedt Reviews" are factual documents that Marathon
contractually agreed to produce to royalty owners in Paragraph
2.8(B)(ii). Having independently interpreted the Settlement
Agreement and conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's
interpretation of it, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge
Jayne's conclusions.

As recognized by Magistrate Judge Jayne, the provision creates
contractual obligations related to new Marathon-operated wells in
Oklahoma for the ten-year period from January 1, 2012, to January
1, 2022.

Applying the clear language of the Settlement Agreement to the
facts, no clear error exists, Judge Frizzell finds. Moreover, it is
clear from the evidence that the "Mittelstaedt Review" forms
themselves do not qualify as "legal analysis by attorneys." First,
there is no evidence that Mr. Bowden is an attorney. Further, Mr.
Bowden indicates that Marathon's in-house legal department the
spreadsheets for subsequent legal analysis.

The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that
"the dots connect themselves" and the "Mittelstaedt Reviews" are,
therefore, the non-privileged documents created to comply with Hill
Settlement Agreement to be produced upon request. For this
additional reason, the "Mittelstaedt Review" documents must be
produced, Judge Frizzell holds.

Wherefore, the Defendant's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order is
overruled and Marathon's request that the Court overturns the
Magistrate Judge's ruling on the Second Motion to Compel as to the
"Mittelstaedt Reviews" is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 14,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5m2ka9x from
Leagle.com.


MCKENNA & DUPONT: Phillips Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trecia Phillips, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. McKenna,DuPont,
Higgins & Stone, PC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12429-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval
to the parties Class Action Settlement Agreement:

   -- The Defendant will create a fund of $30 per class member
      for a total of $3,660. As a result, each participating
      Settlement Class member will receive $30 -- an amount
      well in line with analogous class settlements under the
      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

   -- No Settlement Class member has objected to the Plaintiff's
      requested $500 Incentive Award.

   -- This $500 requested Incentive Award for the Plaintiff
      along with her $1,000 statutory damage award is not being
      paid from the Settlement Fund.

   -- MDH&S will pay this $1,500 amount separate and apart from
      the Settlement Fund so as to not dilute the recovery for
      any members of the Settlement Class.

   -- All Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs are to be
      paid by MDH&S to Class Counsel separate from the
      Settlement Fund.

   -- In the November 4, 2020 Order, the Court certified the
      following class:

      "(a) all individuals (b) with a New Jersey address (c) who
      were sent a letter from Defendant (d) which was not
      returned as undeliverable (e) between May 10, 2018 through
      and including May 30, 2019 (f) where the letter stated:
      "Our client advises that your account is presently
      outstanding in the amount of $[BALANCE INSERTED HERE],
      plus reasonably attorney fees" and/or "However, if you
      fail to contact this office, [NAME OF CREDITOR] may
      consider the debt to be valid and may pursue remedies to
      recover the balance due"."

The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into and finalized the
Settlement Agreement on October 7, 2020. On November 4, 2020, this
Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and directed
that notice of the settlement of this Action be served upon the
members of the Settlement Class. The Court is advised that on
November 24, 2020, notice of the settlement of this Action was
mailed to 122 Settlement Class members by the Class Administrator,
First Class Inc.

The Plaintiff filed the action alleging that MDH&S violated the
FDCPA. The Plaintiff alleged in the Action that MDH&S violated the
FDCPA by sending initial debt collection letters that did not
comply with Sections 1692g(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the FDCPA in that
they failed to include the proper disclosures required by those
sections. The Defendant denies any liability or that its practices
violated the FDCPA. MDH&S filed an answer to the Plaintiff's
complaint in which they denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing set forth in the complaint and set forth several
affirmative defenses.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion granting final approval to the
parties Class Action Settlement Agreement dated Jan. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LXh0c6 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, Trecia Phillips and the Class, are:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC
          HELP@LAWGMF.COM
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          E-Mail: rlg@lawgmf.com

MDL 2323: Atty. Lien Dispute in NFL Concussion Injury Suit Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
resolves the disputes on attorney fees and costs between Locks Law
Firm and Langfitt Garner PLLC in the multidistrict litigation
captioned as IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-interest to
NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Locks
Law Firm v. Billy Ray Smith, Jr. Attorney Lien Dispute (Doc. No.
10704).

Presently before the Court in the Litigation is the assertion of
Attorney Lien by Locks Law against the Award granted to their
former client, Settlement Class Member ("SCM") Billy Ray Smith,
Jr., in the litigation that became part of the class action, In re:
National Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, No.
12-md-2323 (E.D. Pa.).

By its lien, Locks Law seeks reimbursement of its costs and payment
of attorneys' fees of up to as much as 22% of the Award that has
been authorized for Mr. Smith, although it has modified its demand
in the course of the lien dispute process.

Locks Law also seeks reimbursement of the $12,475.75 it incurred in
costs for the neuropsychological testing performed in 2016, the
examination and report in 2016, and postage and delivery costs
between 2016 and 2019.  It advanced costs for Mr. Smith to undergo
neuropsychological testing with Dr. Marc Norman in 2016 and for him
to be examined on June 18, 2016, by Shauna H. Yuan, M.D., who was
then affiliated with the Neurology Department at the University of
California, San Diego. She identified a condition that would
qualify Mr. Smith under the Monetary Award Fund.

On October 31, 2018, the Claims Administrator issued a Notice of
Monetary Award of $1,449,395 based upon Dr. Yuan's diagnosis of Mr.
Smith's condition as of June 18, 2016.

The Court has determined that an Individually Retained Plaintiff's
Attorney ("IRPA") is presumptively due no more than 22% of a
Monetary Award in fees ("Fee Cap") given the benefits received by
the SCMs from the work of counsel engaged for the common benefit of
all SCMs. That presumptive cap has not been challenged in the
case.

By his current counsel, Langfitt Garner, Mr. Smith challenges the
Lien given that Langfitt Garner also seeks a contingent fee for its
work in representing him. That work, which Mr. Smith agreed would
be compensated with a contingent fee of 20% of any monetary award
he received, ultimately involved Langfitt Garner's filing an appeal
of a partially favorable monetary award such that Mr. Smith
received a larger award after he terminated Locks Law and proceeded
with former Locks Law personnel working at Langfitt Garner. The
parties consented to the Court's resolution of this lien dispute.

As it set out in past opinions, the Court's evaluation of these
positions involves a consideration of the conditional fee
agreements, or CFAs, between Mr. Smith and his counsel and an
assessment of the reasonableness of the requested fees of both law
firms in light of the analysis set out by the Third Circuit's
decision in McKenzie Constr., Inc. v. Maynard, 758 F.2d 97, 100 (3d
Cir. 1985) and McKenzie Constr., Inc. v. Maynard, 823 F.2d 43, 45
(3d Cir. 1987). The approach obligates the Court to scrutinize the
reasonableness of the CFA at the time of the signing and then
determine whether the circumstances compel a different evaluation
of the agreement at the time the lienholder seeks enforcement.

The Court will then examine the results Mr. Smith obtained, the
quality of the representation provided by each firm, and most
importantly the extent to which the efforts of the lienholder firm
substantially contributed to the result obtained while the client
was represented by current counsel. Ultimately, the Court concludes
that both firms are entitled to recoup attorney's fees, with the
much larger portion allocated to Locks Law for its work securing
the diagnosis of the qualifying condition and obtaining the
evidence from which Langfitt Garner was later able to procure a
more favorable date of diagnosis for that condition.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, Locks Law is
entitled to all of the fee attributable to the initial award
approved for Mr. Smith in 2018, which was based upon the diagnosis
of his qualifying condition as of June 18, 2016. The discussion,
thus, focuses on the relative contribution of each firm to the
enhanced award approved in 2020, which increased the gross award
authorized for Mr. Smith by an additional $401,993 based upon the
earlier diagnosis date of February 6, 2013, for that same
condition.

Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge finds that during the period
in which Locks Law represented Mr. Smith, the risk inherent in the
litigation decreased significantly. The reduction in risk was
ultimately accomplished through the efforts of Class Counsel and
those other firms, including Locks Law, whose attorneys served on
various MDL committees and performed work for the common benefit of
the class, for which many firms including theirs were awarded
compensation. This does not alter the fact, however, that Locks Law
undertook the representation at a time of significant risk.

When Mr. Smith switched to Langfitt Garner in June 2019, it can
reasonably be assumed that something more was expected to be done;
otherwise, there would have been no reason to delay the
finalization of his award and its payment. Thus, when Langfitt
Garner assumed representation of Mr. Smith, it could anticipate
work to appeal as to the diagnosis date. Judge Strawbridge notes
that it would also have known that any enhanced award it might
achieve could be subject to appeal by the NFL or to audit. The fact
that it would have had to engage in significant efforts and advance
costs to achieve any additional award for Mr. Smith was a clear and
present risk. There were no changes in the circumstances as to risk
factors during the time between when Langfitt Garner agreed to
represent Mr. Smith and when it sought to enforce its contingent
fee agreement upon the approval of his enhanced award.

The work performed by Locks Law during the claim development and
filing stages played the most significant part in ensuring that Mr.
Smith would qualify for an award that recognized his neurocognitive
disorder, according to the Memorandum Opinion. Through its appeal,
Langfitt Garner could present both further information from
existing sources and information from a new expert. This benefitted
Mr. Smith in that, while it delayed receipt of his award by almost
two years, it achieved for him an award that was 28% larger than
the original award, based on the earlier diagnosis date.

The Court concludes that a fair resolution of the dispute is to
award IRPA fees to be apportioned between Locks Law and Langfitt
Garner such that all of the fees attributable to the initial 2018
award go to Locks Law and that the two firms equally share in the
fees attributable to the additional incremental award secured in
2020. The remaining funds withheld for counsel fee, based on the
Claims Administrator having withheld counsel fee based upon the 22%
presumptive cap, and which have not been authorized for either
firm, may be refunded to Mr. Smith.

The Claims Administrator will reduce the disbursements in light of
the 5% holdback and will apportion the holdback funds between Locks
Law, Langfitt Garner, and Mr. Smith in the proportions set forth.

Finally, Locks Law may be reimbursed for the expenses it sought.
Langfitt Garner may be reimbursed $12,500 for costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Jan. 14,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxue24hy from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2873: AFFF Products Contaminate Groundwater, Jackson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR
CORPORATION, ANGUS INTERNATIONAL SAFETY GROUP, LTD., ARKEMA FRANCE,
S.A., ARKEMA INC., ARCHROMA U.S., INC., BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD INC. CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB FIRE LTD.,
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., individually and as successor in
interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX
CORPORATION, DYNEON, LLC, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, FIRE SERVICES PLUS, INC., KIDDE, P.L.C.,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., NARCHEM CORPORATION, NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., RAYTHEON TECHONOLOGIES
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to United
Technologies Corporation, SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, THE ELE CORPORATION, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP,
individually and as successor in interest to The Ansul Company, and
UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00162-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 15, 2021) arises from the
foreseeable contamination of groundwater by the use of aqueous
film-forming foam (AFFF) products that contained per- and
poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including but not limited to
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA).

According to the complaint, Defendants designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF/Component Products with the
knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the
environment during fire protection, training, and response
activities, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants.
Due to this contamination, the Plaintiff and the Class have
allegedly suffered real personal injuries, bioaccumulation of PFOA
in their bodies, property damage and the diminution in value of
their properties as a result of the release of PFOA to their
private wells and water supplies.

The Plaintiff and the Class seek recovery from Defendants for
injuries, damages, and losses suffered as a result of exposure to
the introduction of PFOA and other toxic substance into their
private wells in the Lubbock area, and then into their properties
and bodies, in an amount to be determined at trial, exclusive of
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, the suit says.

The Jackson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation.

The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          270 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 201
          Hato Rey, PR 00918
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
          Patrick J. Lanciotti,Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC  
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: acroner@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com

MDL 2873: Fenner Sues Over Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH FENNER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00161-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 15,
2021) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated seeking damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These 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' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. 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 the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.

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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Fenner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MENARD INC: Earls, et al. Seek to Certify Five Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRY EARLS, THOMAS
FETSCH, DAVID KIEL, TRENT SHORES, STEVE SCHUSSLER, CASSIE LIETAERT,
and CHRIS JESSE individually and, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, v. MENARD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-00107-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following classes:

      -- Nationwide Mail-In Rebate Class (Represented by All
         Representative Plaintiffs):

         "all customers nationwide who purchased a product from
         Menards during one of its 11% Off Everything promotions
         and submitted a claim in accordance with the 11% Off
         Everything Rebate Program's stated terms and conditions
         that was received by Menards as reflected in Menards'
         Rebate Databases, but did not receive the full 11%
         rebate which was promised under Menards' 11% Off
         Everything promotion during the Relevant Time Period;"

      -- Wisconsin Mail-In Rebate Class (Represented by the
         Plaintiff Chris Jesse):

         "all Wisconsin residents who purchased a product from
         Menards during one of its 11% Off Everything promotions
         and submitted a claim in accordance with the 11% Off
         Everything Rebate Program's stated terms and conditions
         that was received by Menards as reflected by Menards'
         Rebate Databases, but did not receive the full 11%
         rebate which was promised under Menards' 11% Off
         Everything promotion during the Relevant Time Period;"

      -- Illinois Mail-In Rebate Class (Represented by the
         Plaintiffs Steve Schussler and Trent Shores):

         "all Illinois residents who purchased a product from
         Menards during one of its 11% Off Everything promotions
         and submitted a claim in accordance with the 11% Off
         Everything Rebate Program's stated terms and conditions
         that was received by Menards as reflected by Menards'
         Rebate Databases, but did not receive the full 11%
         rebate which was promised under Menards' 11% Off
         Everything promotion during the Relevant Time Period;"

      -- Michigan Mail-In Rebate Class (Represented by the
         Plaintiffs Barry Earls and Cassie Lietaert):

         "all Michigan residents who purchased a product from
         Menards during one of its 11% Off Everything promotions
         and submitted a claim in accordance with the 11% Off
         Everything Rebate Program's stated terms and conditions
         that was received by Menards as reflected by Menards'
         Rebate Databases, but did not receive the full 11%
         rebate which was promised under Menards' 11% Off
         Everything promotion during the Relevant Time Period;"
         and

      -- North Dakota Mail-In Rebate Class (Represented by the
         Plaintiff Tom Fetsch):

         "all North Dakota residents who purchased a product
         from Menards during one of its 11% Off Everything
         promotions and submitted a claim in accordance with the
         11% Off Everything Rebate Program's stated terms and
         conditions that was received by Menards as reflected by
         Menards' Rebate Databases, but did not receive the full
         11% rebate which was promised under Menards' 11% Off
         Everything promotion during the Relevant Time Period;"

   2. appointing themselves as the class representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firm Tycko & Zavareei LLP as class
      counsel.

Menards is a chain of home improvement stores located in the
Midwestern United States, owned by founder John Menard Jr.

A copy of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Jan.
19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Yal4rW at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Haag, Esq.
          ATTERBURY, KAMMER & HAAG, S.C.
          8500 Greenway Blvd., Suite 103
          Middleton, WI 53562
          Telephone: (608) 821-4600
          Facsimile: (608) 821-4610
          E-mail: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com

MEWBOURNE OIL: Underpays Gas Royalties, Buckles Estate Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCKLES ESTATE PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; MIKE R. RICHARDS, as Trustee of
the Mike R. Richards Oklahoma Trust; and MARY ANN WILLIAMSON, as
Trustee of the Mary Ann Williamson 1988 Trust, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY; MEWBOURNE HOLDINGS, INC.; AND MEWBOURNE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00040-PRW
(W.D. Okla., January 19, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of lease and for fraud, deceit, and
constructive fraud.

The case arises from the Defendants' willful underpayment or
non-payment of royalties on gas produced from Oklahoma wells to
royalty owners, including the Plaintiffs, through improper
accounting methods. These methods include, but not limited to,
paying royalty based on a net price after deducting processing fees
and expenses; failing to pay royalty based on starting price paid
for residue gas or the gross competitive price; and failing to pay
royalty for drip condensate and helium products. As a result of
Mewbourne's breaches, the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class
have been damaged through underpayment of the actual amounts due,
the suit alleges.

Buckles Estate Properties, L.L.C. is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of Oklahoma and has its principal place of
business at 64 Myers Drive, Alva, Oklahoma.

Mewbourne Oil Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mewbourne
Holdings, Inc., with its principal place of business in Texas.

Mewbourne Holdings, Inc. is a company that produces oil and natural
gas based in Texas.

Mewbourne Development Corporation is an oil and natural gas
company, with its principal place of business in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
         SHARP LAW, LLP
         5301 W. 75th Street
         Prairie Village, KS 66208
         Telephone: (913)901-0505
         Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
         E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

                - and –

         Barbara C. Frankland, Esq.
         SHARP LAW, LLP
         11990 Grant Street, Suite 550
         Northglenn, CO 80233
         Telephone: (720) 932-0700
         E-mail: bfrankland@midwest-law.com

                - and –

         Cody J. McPherson, Esq.
         Arthur W. Schmidt, Esq.
         MAHAFFEY & GORE, P.C.
         300 N.E. 1st Street
         Oklahoma City, OK 73104-4004
         Telephone: (405) 236-0478
         Facsimile: (405) 236-1840
         E-mail: cmcpherson@mahaffeygore.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Sandel Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SIMCHE SANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00343 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 14, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged abusive,
deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an obligation that
was allegedly incurred to creditor Comenity Capital Bank, who
purportedly sold the alleged debt to the Defendant. Subsequently on
or about September 23, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. In its
collection letter, the Defendant provided 3 payment options, but
the 3rd option confused the Plaintiff whether it is a settlement
option or a full pay option because the Defendant allegedly failed
to provide explanation, thereby damaging the Plaintiff.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated Section 1692e as
the letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, and
by making false and misleading representation.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other
relief that the Court may deem just and proper, the suit says.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDWESTERN PET: Dog Foods Contain Mold & Toxins, Simmons Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy and Britany Simmons Individually and on behalf of a class Of
similarly situated individuals v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case
No. 6:21-cv-03012-MDH (W.D. Mo., Jan. 20, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant inappropriately manufactured, sold, and distributed pet
food with mold, toxins, and/or aflatoxins that caused injury and
harm to their animals and pets.

Defendant Midwestern manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells Pet and Dog Food under the brand names
Sportmix (Sportmix Energy Plus, Sportmix Premium High Energy,
Sportmix Original Cat, Sportmix Maintenance, Sportmix High Protein,
Sportmix Stamina, Sportmix Bite Size, Sportmix High Energy,
Sportmix Premium Puppy), Pro Pac Adult Mini Chunk, Pro Pac
Performance Puppy, Splash Fat Cat, and Nunn Better Maintenance
(collectively "Dog Foods"). The Defendant sells these products
throughout the United States (Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Washington).

The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief
individually and on behalf of the proposed Class including: (i)
requiring full disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in
Defendant's pet foods, including marketing, advertising, and
labeling; (ii) requiring testing of all ingredients and pet foods
for such substances; (iii) prohibiting the sale of any adulterated
pet food in the future and (iv) compensating all damages
experienced by the members of the proposed Class.

As a result of the Defendant's negligent, reckless, and/or
knowingly deceptive conduct and representations, the Plaintiffs
suffered injury, harm, damages, veterinary care/expenses,
consequential damages, incidental damages, and loss of business
income, among other costs and expenses, the suit says.

Plaintiffs Jeremy and Britany Simmons reside in Falcon, Missouri.
The Plaintiffs are pet owners and licensed dog breeders and own and
operate Gladerock Farms.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Schloegel, Esq.
          Bert Braud, Esq.
          THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C.
          712 Broadway, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 512-2626
          Facsimile: (816) 221-3999
          E-mail: mschloegel@pophamlaw.com
                  bbraud@pophamlaw.com

NACHURS ALPINE: Gray Sues Over Race Discrimination, FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS GRAY v. NACHURS ALPINE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00125 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 15, 2021) is an employment
discrimination case brought by the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated persons with a class action component for
systemic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act resulting in
invasions of privacy.

Mr. Gray started working for Defendant Nachurs Alpine Solutions,
LLC as a materials handler in March of 2019. This was a temporary
worker position he obtained through a staffing agency named Arbet
Staffing. By September of 2019, Mr. Gray's job performance was so
strong that his supervisor recommended he be hired on as a
full-time employee.

According to the complaint, after Mr. Gray's application for
full-time employment, the Defendant snuck in an authorization to
conduct a background check along with a prospective release of
liability. Both the authorization and release were allegedly
invalid because they violated, among other things, the FCRA.
Additionally, the complaint asserts that Mr. Gray is an African
American man with a prior criminal history, but who, by all
accounts, was an exceptional worker for Defendant. If he were
assessed on the merits, rather than stereotyped based upon his skin
color, he should have been hired, the suit says.

Nachurs Alpine Solutions, LLC is a specialty liquids chemical
manufacturer operating in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason E. Starling, Esq.
          Kevin R. Kelleher, Esq.
          WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING
          4635 Trueman Boulevard, Suite 100
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Telephone: (614) 586-7915
          Facsimile: (614) 586-7901
          E-mail: jstarling@willisattorneys.com
                  kkelleher@willisattorneys.com

               - and -

          John C. Camillus, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
          P.O. Box 141410 Columbus, OH 43214
          Telephone: (614) 558-7254
          Facsimile: (614) 559-6731
          E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com

NEW MOOSEJAW: Class Certification Hearing Rescheduled to Feb. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH REVITCH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW
MOOSEJAW, LLC and NAVISTONE, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06827-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order:

   1. rescheduling the class certification hearing currently
      schedule for January 28, 2021 to February 25, 2021 at 2:00
      p.m.; and

   2. setting a case management conference for Wednesday,
      February 3 at 2:00 p.m.

New Moosejaw LLC designs, manufactures, and distributes apparels.
The Company offers jackets, jeans, sweaters, shoes, backpacks,
first aid kits, and snowboards. NaviStone helps advertisers turn
their website visitors into direct mail customers.

A copy of the Court's order granting joint administrative motion
regarding scheduling extension dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iIo9Jt at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW YORK CITY: EMS Officers Union Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS
UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Individually and on behalf of its
members, RENAE MASCOL, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, v. CITY
OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; and John and Jane Does 1-20, the identity
of such persons being unknown to Plaintiffs but intended to
describe those persons responsible for the promotional policies of
the City of New York, Case No. e 1:18-cv-04476-LJL-SLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the classes pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) and FRCP
      23(b)(3):

      -- the Equitable Class:

         "all Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Officers in the
         Supervising Emergency Medical Service Specialist  
         (SEMSS) title from 1996 to present who are non-white,  
         female, have received a reasonable accommodation and/or  
         taken a leave of absence because of a disability, as  
         defined in the New York State Human Rights Law  
         (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYSHRL),  
         and/or have taken a leave of absence pursuant to FDNY  
         time and leave policies including for Family and  
         Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), LODI, military  
         service, pregnancy, child care and/or caregiver time;"

      -- the Race/Sex/Gender Class:

         "all non-white and/or female EMS Officers in the SEMSS  
         title from 1996 to present"

      -- the Non-Full Duty Status Class:

         "all EMS Officers in the SEMSS title from 1996 to  
         present who (1) have received a reasonable  
         accommodation and/or taken a leave of absence because  
         of a disability, as defined in NYSHRL and/or NYCHRL,  
         and/or (2) have taken a leave of absence pursuant to  
         New York City Fire Department (FDNY) time and leave
         policies including FMLA, LODI, military service,
         pregnancy, child care and/or caregiver time;"

   2. appointing Representative Plaintiffs Renae Mascol and Luis
      Rodriguez as Class Representatives, and

   3. appointing The Kurland Group as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL related to the Defendants'
promotional policies and practices in the EMS Bureau of the FDNY
for EMS officers in the SEMSS civil service title (EMS Officers).

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion to certify classes dated
Jan. 18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/3bY0KSYat no extra charge.[CC]

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
          E-mail: kurland@kurlandgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donna A. Canfield, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          E-mail: dcanfiel@law.nyc.gov

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Gallo Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK GALLO v. NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC, JAMES A. ATTWOOD, JR., DAVID
KENNY, THOMAS H. CASTRO, GUERRINO DE LUCA, KAREN M. HOGUET, HARISH
MANWANI, JANICE MARINELLI MAZZA, JONATHAN MILLER, ROBERT C. POZEN,
DAVID RAWLINSON, NANCY TELLEM, JAVIER G. TERUEL, and LAUREN
ZALAZNICK, Case No. 2:21-cv-00433 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2021) is an
action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated against Nielsen Holdings and the members of Nielsen's
Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Nielsen's Global Connect business by newly formed entities which
are controlled by investment funds advised by affiliates of Advent
International Corporation.

According to the complaint, on November 1, 2020, Nielsen issued a
press release announcing that it had entered into a Stock Purchase
Agreement dated October 31, 2020 to sell Connect business to newly
formed entities. Under the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement,
Nielsen will sell the equity interests of certain subsidiaries
which contain Connect to newly formed entities in exchange for: (i)
$2,700,000,000 in cash, and (ii) a warrant to purchase equity
interests in the company that will own Connect following the
closing of the proposed transaction, exercisable in certain
circumstances.

The complaint further states that the Proxy Statement, filed by
Nielsen on December 23, 2020 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission which recommends that Nielsen stockholders vote in favor
of the proposed transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) the background of
the proposed transaction; (ii) the financial projections and the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial
advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; and (iii) Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. The Defendants allegedly
authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Nielsen Holdings PLC is an American information, data and market
measurement firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348  

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Suit Seeks Collective Status
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYLEE LAWRENCE, COURTNEY
BRACCIA, BRIA WARNER, and WENDY ROSADO Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C.
d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery and SERGEY VOSKIN, M.D,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08649-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying their proposed class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to their New
      York Labor Law (NYLL) claims;

   2. certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective
      consisting of:

      "all current and former receptionists and patient
      coordinators employed by GOALS during the period of
      September 2015 to present, were not paid overtime
      compensation for all hours in a workweek in excess of 40";

   3. authorizing themselves to provide judicial notice to all
      collective and class members; and

   4. requiring GOALS to produce an electronic list of all class
      and collective members and their contact information in
      order to facilitate service of the collective notice.

The Plaintiffs contend that GOALS did pay them and putative
collective/class members some overtime compensation, it never paid
overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of
pay, for all hours worked each week, in excess of 40 hours.

Goals is an industry-leader in aesthetic medicine and cosmetic
surgery.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oel7xA
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
          BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          23 Green Street, Suite 105
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458-1010
          E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com

O.J. SMITH: Notice Content & Distribution Method in Gonzalez Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ, ISAAC GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ,
VICTORINO FELIX ANTONIO, JUAN JAVIER VARELA CUELLAR, RUBEN
DOMINGUEZ ANTONIO, RIGOBERTO CARTERAS JARDON, JORGE BAUTISTA
SABINO, EMMANUEL CRUZ RIVERA, CELSO GONZALEZ TREJO, ERIC JACINTO
WENCES VASQUEZ, MARTIN NELSON WENCES VASQUEZ, PORFIRIO BAUTISTA
CRUZ, ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, JOSE ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ CRUZ,
SIXTO HERNANDEZ BUENO, VIRGINIO ANGELES GONZALEZ, TIBURCIO ANTONIO
MANUEL, and HUMBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. O.J. SMITH
FARMS, INC., BOSEMAN FARMS, INC., GREENLEAF NURSERY CO., SBHLP,
INC., JOEL M. BOSEMAN, JEAN J. BOSEMAN, PEYTON G. McDANIEL, SANDRA
W. McDANIEL, and SALVADOR BARAJAS, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00086-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of the North Carolina,
Western Division, grants the Joint Motion by the named Plaintiffs
and Defendants O. J. Smith, Peyton G. McDaniel, and Sandra W.
McDaniel to Approve Notice to Class Action Members and to Approve
Method for Distributing Notice.

In support of their Joint Motion, the Plaintiffs and Smith Farms
have filed a stipulated Notice to Class Action Members of Proposed
Settlement with Smith Farms, Deadline for Objections, and
Opportunity to Withdraw, and method of distribution.

Judge Flanagan finds that the proposed content and method of
distribution for that notice are consistent with that previously
approved for use in other similar wage actions before the federal
courts of the state and other states.  They also appear to be
reasonably calculated to provide the best notice practicable under
the circumstances of the case.  The Judge, therefore, formally
approves the content of the Notice attached to the Joint Motion, as
well as the method of distribution for the Notices to class action
members set out in the Joint Motion.

Consistent with the safety and health of those involved in giving
notice to the members of the Smith Farms FLSA/NCWHA class the Court
has certified, by separate Order, a copy of the Court-approved
Notice which will be distributed to the members of that class in
the following manner within the following time deadlines: The
parties stipulate and agree that based on currently available
records there may be up to an estimated 117 additional members of
the proposed class (other than the named Plaintiffs minus Plaintiff
Humberto Antonio Hernandez who is not a member of the class).

Within 30 days after the Court gives its final approval of the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, Smith Farms agrees to pay to the
Plaintiffs' counsel for the costs of administering the class fund
portion of the settlement by remitting the sum of a maximum of $130
per person in the class upon the delivery of reasonably detailed
written invoice(s) by the Plaintiffs' counsel to Smith Farms'
counsel of record in the action.  These costs are not to be
included in the Settlement Fund and any unused monies will be
returned to Smith Farms subject to the billing procedure whereby
the Plaintiffs' counsel will provide Smith Farms with an invoice
from a third party entity or entities for the amount of any monies
used by the Plaintiffs' counsel to pay for class notice.

The Law Offices of Robert J. Willis, P.A. will give the best notice
that is practicable under the circumstances to the members of the
class certified by the Court under Rule 23(b)(3).  It is the
parties' expectation that the respective amount spent on giving
notice to each member of the class will vary but in no event will
the cost exceed $130 per person in the class.

The following methods will be utilized in the attempt to
successfully provide individual notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in accordance with the
interests of the class pursuant to Rule 23(g)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:

   A. One mailing by USPS (with undeliverable re-processing by
      the USPS for an anticipated 40% of the class members) to
      the last known mailing address in Mexico of each NCHWA
      class member with Smith Farms to provide the Class Counsel
      with a copy of any I-9 forms or other document(s) it
      received from SBHLP, Inc./Salvador Barajas containing that
      last known address for each NCWHA class member;

   B. A DHL mailing (with undeliverable re-processing by DHL for
      an anticipated 40% of the class members).  The parties
      understand that depending upon the postal code in Mexico,
      each mailing would cost $50 to $60 (assuming mailings are
      mostly in central Mexico);

   C. Text and WhatsApp delivery of an agreed upon summary of
      that Notice to the last known text and/or WhatsApp number
      of all class members at the last known, if any, cellphone
      or WhatsApp number for each NCHWA class member provided by
      or through Smith Farms and/or Pablo Arriaga Zacarias;

   D. Ten trips by contracted representative(s) of the Class
      Counsel to labor camp(s) in Edgecombe or Nash County
      identified by the Class Counsel and/or Smith Farms as the
      present or likely NC domicile of any significant number of
      NCWHA class member(s) to distribute the Class Notice
      packets and the claim forms; and

   E. The printing costs for the class notice packets.

The parties agree that the methods described to be used to complete
reasonable notice to individual class members may vary as, for
example, no mailing is possible without a complete mailing address,
and, because of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic
of Mexico, DHL may not be delivering mail to the addresses of
certain class members even if such addresses are complete.

They also agree that it is in the interests of the Class under Rule
23(g)(4) for the Class Counsel to undertake reasonable best efforts
to both deliver notice to each potential class member and to
distribute relief to the class in the most efficient and
cost-effective manner that is reasonably possible.

Complete Notice to the class will be provided within 180 days after
the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

No claim for compensation from the Class Fund will be considered to
be timely if the class member making it does not do so within 240
days of the date on which the Court grants its preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement, and support that claim with a legible
copy of that class member's Mexican passport or other
government-issued photo identification card.

The Class Counsel will also provide Smith Farms with a reasonably
detailed invoice(s) showing how funds were spent delivering
notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5fot6xl from Leagle.com.


OHIO BUREAU: Unlawfully Collects Premium Payments, Parma Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PARMA, OHIO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated public employers v. ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU
OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Case No. CV-21-943131 (Ohio Com. Pleas,
Cohayoga Cty., Jan. 20, 2021), is a class action lawsuit arising
from the Bureau's unlawful collection and retention of premiums
payments, in violation of the Ohio Workers' Compensation Act and
potentially other Ohio constitutional restrictions, laws, and
regulations.

Parma's claims are typical of the claims of the Class because, like
all class members, the municipality has been over-billed by the
Bureau's systematic and mandatory excess premium assessment
practices and resulting premium charges made to and paid by
non-group-rated public employers under circumstances involving
common facts and issues, says the complaint.

City of Pharma is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Ohio and pursuant to a municipal
charter.

Ohio Bureau is an instrumentality of the State of Ohio that is
charged with administering the Ohio Workers' Compensation system in
accordance with law. The funds that the Bureau is responsible for
managing presently exceed 28 billion dollars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
          John P. Hurst, Esq.
          BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO , L.P.A.
          Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
          50 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 771-3239
          E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com
                  jhurst@basheinlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul W. Flowers, Esq.
          Louis E. Grube, Esq.
          PAUL W. FLOWERS, C O ., L.P.A.
          Terminal Tower, 40th Floor
          50 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH  44113
          Telephone: (216) 344-9393
          E-mail: pwf@pwfco.com
                  leg@pwfco.com

               - and -

          Frank Gallucci, Esq.
          PLEVIN & GALLUCCI
          55 Public Square, Suite 2222
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 861-0804
          E-mail: fgallucci@pglawyer.com

               - and -

          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
          WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
          1600 Midland Building
          101 Prospect Avenue West
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 781-1111
          E-mail: dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

OLD DOMINION: Seeks Mediation in Rizk Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EILEEN RIZK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SITUATED, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01865-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. allowing for an additional 14 days, through and including
      February 15, 2021, to submit its Brief in Opposition to
      the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the Collective Action
      Class; and

   2. referring this matter to mediation before Magistrate Judge
      Thomas M. Parker.

The Defendant requests the two-week extension in order to permit it
time to consider including deposition testimony in its motion.
Counsel for Plaintiff has advised that she will not stipulate to
this motion. However, the Plaintiff has not cited any prejudice
that she would suffer due to a two-week delay. The Plaintiff would
not be prejudiced by the brief extension that the Defendant
requests.

The Plaintiff's deposition is scheduled for January 22, 2021. The
parties have stipulated that the deposition will address issues
relative to the Plaintiff's pending motion for conditional
certification, with the Defendant reserving the right to continue
the remainder of the Plaintiff's deposition at a later date, if
necessary. The Defendant believes that Plaintiff's deposition
testimony, which the Defendant anticipates will be fully
transcribed up to two-weeks thereafter, will bear on the merits of
Plaintiff's motion.

In connection with her FLSA and related state claim, the Plaintiff
alleges that in her position of OS&D Supervisor with freight
carrier Old Dominion, she was misclassified as an exempt employee,
and is therefore due overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week during the period she held that position. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of OS&D Supervisors
who worked for Old Dominion during the three-year period preceding
the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff, a current employee of Old Dominion, filed her
Complaint alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Ohio state wage and hour law, and violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, on August 21, 2020.

Old Dominion is an American less than truckload shipping company.
It offers regional, inter-regional and national LTL service.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/36oRpjFat no extra
charge.[CC]

OPA-LOCKA, FL: Cert. of Water Deposit Class in Suarez Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, City of Opa-Locka, Florida, etc., Appellant v. George
Suarez, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D19-1323 (Fla. Dist. App.),
the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District
affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court's non-final
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
denying the City's motion to strike class allegations.

The appeal from a class action certification arises out of the
City's decade-long policy and practice of estimating customer water
usage and its decision to use customer water deposits to satisfy
budget shortfalls during the City's ongoing financial crisis.  At
issue is whether the trial court properly granted class
certification on two counts of the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residential and commercial consumers of the
City's water services.  They alleged that the City breached its
obligation to provide water for a reasonable cost to them and all
other water customers under the terms of the water utility
agreement by failing to provide working water meters, overcharging
for water use, and unlawfully using customer water deposits to pay
for the City's general operational expenses.  The Plaintiffs sought
specific performance, compensatory damages, customer refunds, and
injunctive relief.

The City responded with a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint based on sovereign immunity and arguing that the
Plaintiffs failed to properly state a claim for breach of contract
or conversion, and that the counts are barred by the statute of
limitations.  At the conclusion of a three-day hearing, and after
reviewing documents and memoranda from both parties, the court
determined that the class met the criteria for class certification
pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a).

In a lengthy order, the court certified two classes--a water
deposit class and an overbilled class--as follows:

   a. Class I: All City of Opa-Locka residents and businesses,
      commencing as of the period of the statutes of limitations,
      required to place water deposits with the City, who are
      entitled to have those deposits safeguarded in segregated
      accounts, who are entitled to the return of those deposits,
      and who have not received the return of deposits from the
      City; and

   b. Class II: All City of Opa-Locka water utility customers,
      commencing as of the period of the applicable statutes of
      limitations, who paid for water utility services in excess
      of the amounts they were liable to pay as calculated based
      on reasonable rates and functioning and accurate water
      meters and readings.

In addition, that order denied the City's motion to strike the
class allegations.  The City has appealed.

Before the Appellate Court can reach the class certification issue,
it must first determine whether the Plaintiffs have standing to
maintain the proposed classes.  As to Class I, the City argues that
the water deposit class should not be certified because the
evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs have no standing, no cause
of action, and have not suffered any injury by the City's use of
the water deposits.

The Appellate Court agrees holding that the language of the deposit
slip agreement clearly indicates that the City may use the deposit
funds as if the City "were the absolute owner thereof," until a
customer discontinues City water services.  Only upon the
customer's discontinuance of water services is the City obligated
to refund the deposit minus any amounts still owed by the customer.
The Court finds that none of the Plaintiffs have discontinued
their water service, none are yet entitled to receive a return of
their deposits, and as a result have not suffered any injury.  By
the explicit terms of the deposit slip, the City can use deposit
funds toward its general budget.

The uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that the Plaintiffs
seeking to represent a water deposit class have suffered no damages
and, therefore, have no standing to proceed in the case.  The
Appellate Court, therefore, reverses the determination of class
certification of the water deposit class, and does not reach the
remaining arguments as to the water deposit class.

As to Class II, the Appellate Court opines that the Plaintiffs
seeking to represent the overbilled class have--in contrast to the
proposed water deposit class--demonstrated their standing to
maintain class certification by showing that a case or controversy
exists between the Plaintiffs and the City regarding alleged
overbilling for water services.  It concludes that the Plaintiffs
have demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome of the
litigation to proceed.

The City next challenges the trial court's typicality and
commonality finding as to the class of customers overcharged for
water.  The City argues that it will be logistically and
analytically difficult to calculate each individual class member's
putative overcharges over the last several years, thus overwhelming
the required typicality and commonality elements of class
certification.

The Court is unpersuaded by the argument.  It explains that the
focus of a class certification hearing is on "whether a litigant's
claim is suited for class certification" and whether the proposed
class provides "a superior method for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy."  With that in mind, it turns to
the primary concern in the consideration of the commonality
element, which is whether the representative's claim arises from
the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the
remaining claims and whether the claims are based on the same legal
theory.  The commonality element only requires that resolution of a
class action affect all or a substantial number of the class
members, and that the subject of the class action presents a
question of common or general interest.

The Appellate Court holds that the record facts are sufficient to
support finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
commonality determination.  Further, the test for typicality is not
demanding and focuses generally on the similarities between the
class representative and the putative class members.  Mere factual
differences between the class representative's claims and the
claims of the class members will not defeat typicality.

The Appellate Court concludes that the Plaintiffs seeking to
represent the overbilled class carried their burden of pleading and
proving the elements required by Rule 1.220, and the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in certifying the overbilled class
pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.  The City
suggests that the Court should independently assess class
certification, but the Court cannot do that, or reach the merits.
It accordingly affirms certification of the overbilled class, and
reverses certification of the water deposit class.

The Opinion is not final until disposition of timely filed motion
for rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y37j7n9x from Leagle.com.

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, and Detra Shaw-Wilder --
dps@kttlaw.com -- Dwayne A. Robinson -- drobinson@kttlaw.com -- and
Mindy Y. Kubs -- myk@kttlaw.com -- for Appellant.

Kuehne Davis Law, P.A., and Benedict P. Kuehne and Michael T. Davis
; Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., P.A., and Michael A. Pizzi, Jr. --
mpizzi@pizzilaw.com; Reiner & Reiner, P.A., and David P. Reiner II
-- dpr@reinerslaw.com -- for Appellees.


ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of OrthoPediatrics Corp. (NASDAQ: KIDS) resulting from allegations
that OrthoPediatrics may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On December 2, 2020, Culper Research published a report entitled
"OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Even Channel Stuffing Can't Save
This Company[.]" The report alleged that OrthoPediatrics has
"engaged in a channel stuffing scheme that has systematically and
significantly overstated revenues." On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $5.40 per share, or 12%, to close at $39.35 per
share on December 3, 2020.

Then on December 14, 2020, Culper Research published a second
report entitled "OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Pleading the Fifth"
in which it concluded that the Company "is a structurally broken
business which has relied on nefarious tactics to inflate its
reported revenues."

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a securities lawsuit on behalf of
OrthoPediatrics shareholders. If you purchased securities of
OrthoPediatrics please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2015.htmlto join the
securities action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

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


PARADISE AWNINGS: Underpays Construction Workers, Martinez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUAN U. MISA MARTINEZ and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. PARADISE AWNINGS CORPORATION,
a Florida Corporation, and MANUEL ALCIBAR, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20181-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 15,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
construction worker from on or about April 4, 2020 through on or
about September 23, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has a practice of
modifying his time records to reflect that he worked fewer hours
than he actually worked and paid him based on those underreported
time records. As a result, although he worked an average
approximation of 47.5 hours per week, the Defendant did not
accurately pay his overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half
times his regular rat of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a
workweek., the suit says.

Paradise Awnings Corporation provides construction services. Manuel
Alcibar had operational control over the company and is directly
involved in decisions affecting employee compensation and hours
worked by employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Tel: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

                - and –

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
          Miami, FL 33161
          Tel: (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


PARTY CITY: McInnis BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLEY MCINNIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION, Case No.
2020L001103, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of DuPage
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on January 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00309 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the
fingerprints of the Plaintiff and Class members without first: (a)
obtaining their consent to use their biometrics; (b) providing
written notice of the Defendant's use of biometrics; and (c) making
a written biometrics policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric data available to
the Plaintiff and Class members, and actually adhering to that
retention schedule with respect to the deletion of their biometric
data.

Party City Corporation is an operator of chain of discount stores
based in Rockaway, New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                    
         
         Andrew Schrag, Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 776-2521
         Facsimile: (312) 264-2461
         E-mail: ASchrag@BlankRome.com

                 - and –

         Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         One Logan Square
         130 North 18th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 569-5553
         Facsimile: (215) 832-5533
         E-mail: Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com

                 - and –

         David J. Oberly, Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         1700 PNC Center
         201 E. Fifth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 362-8711
         Facsimile: (513) 362-8702
         E-mail: DOberly@BlankRome.com

PERRIGO COMPANY: March 22 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE PERRIGO COMPANY PLC SECURITIES
LITIGATION

19-cv-70 (DLC)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To:

All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock of Perrigo Company plc ("Perrigo") in
the United States, from November 8, 2018, to December 20, 2018,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the lawsuit that is now
pending in that court under the caption In re Perrigo Company PLC
Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-0070-DLC (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the
Class, except for certain persons and entities that are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice").

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to
known Class Members. If you have not yet received the Notice, you
may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Notice
Administrator at:

Perrigo Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173013
Milwaukee, WI 53217
877-884-4197
www.perrigosecuritiesclassaction.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:

Joseph E. White, III
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
(561) 394-3399

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Perrigo common stock. You will automatically be included in the
Class. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from
the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action,
including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the
Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than
Monday, March 22, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the full printed Notice. Please note, if you decide to
exclude yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from
asserting the claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
it is within the Court's discretion as to whether a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if
there is a settlement or judgment in the Action.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York
http://www.perrigosecuritiesclassaction.com[GN]


PK MANAGEMENT: Bid to Reconsider Court Order Tossed in Riley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEORA RILEY, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PK
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Teresa J. James entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendants Aspen Companies Management, LLC and
      Central Park Holdings, LLC's Motion to Reconsider the
      Court's Memorandum and Order; and

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' and Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Motion
      to Strike or, in the Alternative, for Hearing or Leave to
      File Surreply.

The Court said, "Aspen and Holdings ask the Court to reconsider its
order allowing other tenants to intervene on the ground that they
did not establish a right to intervene by showing common issues of
fact or law between the claims asserted by the original the
Plaintiffs and the Intervenor- Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought
and were granted permissive intervention. It cannot reasonably be
disputed that Intervenor-Plaintiffs' claims concerning the
habitability of Central Park Towers, the only building ever at
issue in this case, do not have issues of fact in common with the
claims Plaintiffs have long asserted. Finally, Aspen and Holdings
ask the Court to issue an additional order that includes specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The basis of the request
is Kansas Supreme Court Rule 165, which requires Kansas state
courts to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in orders
ruling on contested matters heard without a jury and summary
judgment motions. The Kansas rule does not apply to this Court's
ruling on a motion to intervene. The Court denies the motion
insofar as it seeks reconsideration of the order allowing
permissive intervention."

Founded in 2008, PK Management, LLC, is a nationwide property
management company based in Cleveland, Ohio. Aspen Companies are
part of the Real Estate Industry. Central Park Holdings is located
in Kansas City, and is part of the Residential Real Estate
Brokerage & Management Industry.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36a18Kt at no
extra charge.[CC]

PRIME FUNDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME FUNDING GROUP INC. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00406
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant a call on the Plaintiff's
cellular number ending in -1083 beginning in or around October 2019
in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly used
an "automatic telephone dialing system" in placing its calls
without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive such calls using ATDS.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were harmed due
to the Defendant's alleged unsolicited calls which caused them to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid, and invaded their privacy. Thus, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful
conduct in the future, statutory damages, and any relief that the
Court deems just and proper, the suit added.

Prime Funding Group Inc. is a business financing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Certification Opposition Due on Feb. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMEENJOHN STANIKZY v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00118-BJR
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an
order that the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is amended as follows:

   1. Progressive's class certification opposition and any
      expert disclosures/Rule 26 reports and/or declarations
      relating to any class certification opposition and related
      motions are due on February 26, 2021.

   2. The Plaintiff's rebuttal expert disclosures/Rule 26
      reports and/or declarations relating to any class
      certification reply and/or opposition to any defense
      motions are due on May 19, 2021.

   3. Reply on any Motion filed by Progressive shall be due June
      28, 2021.

Progressive Direct operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order granting stipulated motion to amend
briefing schedule dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2YbzKY5at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company,
are:

          Robert L. Christie, Esq.
          CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2100 Westlake Avenue N., Suite 206
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Telephone: 206-957-9669
          Facsimile: 206-352-7875
          E-mail: bob@christielawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          James Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Allison Hill White, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S.
          1821 Dock Street, Suite 103
          Tacoma Washington 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          Facsimile: (253) 301-1147
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Nealey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY
          71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400,
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 231-5311
          Facsimile: (415) 231-5313
          E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com

RNMG INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Baugh Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARINA BAUGH, for herself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RNMG, INC. d/b/a SUBWAY, a Florida
Corporation, RAMZY GIRGIS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-00125-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla., January 15, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant for their alleged failure to
properly pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about
October 2006 until May 23, 2020 as a non-exempt sandwich maker at
the Defendant's restaurant in Sarasota, Florida.

The Plaintiff claims that although she routinely worked 55 hours or
more in a workweek, the Defendant did not compensate her at one and
one-half times her regular rates of pay for all hours she worked
over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed
to maintain and keep accurate time records.

On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, an additional and
equal amount of liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest
at the highest allowable rate, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and any relief that the Court determines to be just and
appropriate, the suit says.

RNMG, Inc. d/b/a Subway operates a restaurant owned by Ramzy
Girgis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey N. Del Rio, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: (813) 983-2959
          E-mail: JDelRio@forthepeople.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Luparello Balks at Misleading Trading Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD LUPARELLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware corporation;
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and ROBINHOOD
MARKETS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00415 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 15, 2021) alleges Defendants' material omissions,
misrepresentations, and concealment of its payment for order flow
(PFOF) arrangements and inferior execution prices resulted to a
breach of Robinhood's fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and the Class and
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the California's
Corporations Code, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
the California's Unfair Competition Law.

Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company.

According to the complaint, the Defendants target young adults,
including the Plaintiff, who are new to investing through
youth-forward marketing and a video game-like interface and
misleads them into using Robinhood Website and mobile applications
by promising "commission-free" and "discounted" trading services
and assuring them in its Customer Agreements that all of
Robinhood's transactions will be subject to federal and state
securities laws.

Unbeknownst to Robinhood's unsuspecting and largely unsophisticated
customers, from September 1, 2016 to June 16, 2020, Robinhood
breached its duty of best execution, accepted less price
improvement for its customers' trades than what the principal
trading firms were offering in exchange for a higher rate of
payment for order flow (PFOF) for itself, misrepresented its
receipt of such payments and the execution quality of its trades,
omitted material revenue information from its Website and other
communications with its customers, and covered up its order flow
payments and poor execution quality, the suit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
          Phoenix, AR 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
          208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 685-0969  
          E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com

SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Fox GPTA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, by its BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-11887 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fox filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against Defendants
Gratiot County, Gratiot County Treasurer Michelle Thomas, and other
Michigan counties ("County Defendants") and county officials
("Individual Defendants").  The Plaintiff seeks damages based on
the Defendants' retention of surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure
sales.

The Plaintiff was the owner of real property in Gratiot County,
Michigan.  As of 2017, the Property had accrued a Tax Delinquency
of approximately $3,091.23.  He claims that in February 2017,
Defendant Thomas seized ownership of the Property on behalf of
Gratiot County as its duly elected treasurer.  He represents that
on the date of seizure, the Property had a State Equalized Value of
$25,200.

The Plaintiff reasons that because the fair market value of a
property is at least twice the amount of its State Equalized Value,
this means that the government would have known or should have
known that said property had a fair market value of at least
$50,400.  Accordingly, he claims that he had $47,308.77 in equity
in the Property (the difference between the fair market value of
$50,400 and the tax delinquency of $3,091.23).  The Plaintiff
contends that by retaining the funds, Defendants Thomas and Gratiot
County "took or destroyed" his equity in the Property.

On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against numerous Michigan
counties and county treasurers in their individual and official
capacities.  He argues that the Defendants are unlawfully retaining
the equity in foreclosed property sold pursuant to Michigan's
General Property Tax Act ("GPTA"), M.C.L. Section 211.78m.

The Complaint sought damages from the Defendants for a taking
without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution (Counts I and II),
inverse condemnation (Count III), violation of article X, section 2
of the Michigan Constitution (Count IV), and an excessive fine in
violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
(Count V).

On Aug. 14, 2019, 25 Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint naming additional counties and treasurers as Defendants.
The Amended Complaint also added three additional counts:
procedural due process (Count VI), substantive due process (Count
VII), and unjust enrichment (Count VIII).

Following the Amended Complaint, the County Defendants now include
Counties Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee,
Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee,
Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle,
Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St. Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw. The
Individual Defendants include Cheryl Franks, Kimberly Ludlow,
Dennis Stawowy, Richard F. Brzezinkski, Jenny Beemer-Fritzinger,
Kate M. Wagner, Joseph V. Wakeley, Deborah Cherry, Christy Van
Tiem, Michelle Thomas, Debra McCollum, Steven W. Pickens, Karen
Coffman, Dana M. Miller, Marilyn J. Woods, Lawrence Rocca, Cathy
Lunsford, Jean M. Klein, Dwight McIntyre, William Kendall, Diann
Axford, Bridget Lalonde, Rebecca Ragan, Timothy M. Novak, Trudy
Nicol, Kelly Roberts-Burnett, Patricia Donovan-Gray, Catherine
McClary, and Shawna S. Walraven.

On Sept. 25, 2020, Defendants Dwight McIntyre and the County of
Ogemaw moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Forty-three more
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the following day.  On
Nov. 19, 2019, Defendants Lawrence Rocca and Macomb County also
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Each of the motions were
fully briefed by the parties.  The Defendants argued that the Tax
Injunction Act and principles of comity precluded subject matter
jurisdiction.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the August 14 motion to dismiss was denied as
moot and the case was stayed pending a decision in Freed v. Thomas,
No. 18-2312 (6th Cir.), a case which presented nearly identical
facts, substantive arguments, and jurisdictional questions.  On
Sept. 30, 2020, the Sixth Circuit decided Freed.  On Oct. 16, 2020,
the stay was lifted, the class was certified, and the class counsel
was appointed.

The certified class is as follows: All persons and entities that
owned real property in the following counties, whose real property,
during the relevant time period, was seized through a real property
tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at tax
auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not
refunded the value of the property in excess of the delinquent
taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee,
Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee,
Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle,
Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw.

Several motions to dismiss remain pending.  The Defendants raise
many independent arguments for dismissing the Amended Complaint.

Judge Ludington granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  He dismissed (i) the Individual Defendants;
and (ii) Counts II, IV, V, and VII against the County Defendants.

Accordingly, Defendants Cheryl Franks, Kimberly Ludlow, Dennis
Stawowy, Richard F. Brzezinkski, Jenny Beemer-Fritzinger, Kate M.
Wagner, Joseph V. Wakeley, Deborah Cherry, Christy Van Tiem,
Michelle Thomas, Debra McCollum, Steven W. Pickens, Karen Coffman,
Dana M. Miller, Marilyn J. Woods, Lawrence Rocca, Cathy Lunsford,
Jean M. Klein, Dwight McIntyre, William Kendall, Diann Axford,
Bridget Lalonde, Rebecca Ragan, Timothy M. Novak, Trudy Nicol,
Kelly Roberts-Burnett, Patricia Donovan-Gray, Catherine McClary,
and Shawna S. Walraven are dismissed.

Counts I, III, VI, and VIII may proceed against the County
Defendants.

Count I alleges a taking without just compensation in violation of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  The Defendants deny that the
Plaintiff had a cognizable property interest in the foreclosed
property at the time it was sold because, under the GPTA, "title to
foreclosed property vests in the county treasurer when the
redemption period expires -- i.e., 21 days after the judgment of
foreclosure.  Therefore, by the time of the sale, the Plaintiff no
longer had any `property interest' in the foreclosed premises under
state law.

Judge Ludington holds that Count I plausibly alleges a taking
without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  To
hold otherwise would mean that the Takings Clause offers no remedy
to a person whom the government has stripped of a vested interest
in personal property.  Absent binding authority to the contrary,
the Judge declines to give the Takings Clause such a hollow
reading.

Count III is an inverse condemnation claim based on the Defendants'
retention of the equity in the foreclosed properties.  The Judge
finds that the Plaintiff has clearly stated an inverse condemnation
claim.  The Plaintiff plausibly alleges the taking of a cognizable
property interest without just compensation in violation of the
Fifth Amendment and Michigan's Taking Clause.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff had no cognizable property
interest and that the GPTA supersedes the need for condemnation
procedures has no merit.

Count VI alleges that the Defendants' failure to provide
post-foreclosure procedures to refund the Plaintiff's equity
violated his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.  The Plaintiff challenges the post-foreclosure process;
specifically, the Defendants' failure to furnish adequate
procedures before retaining the surplus proceeds.  The Defendants'
response that the Plaintiff knew he would be denied any refund at
best raises a question of fact that cannot be reached on a motion
to dismiss.

Insofar as the Defendants argue that an adequate process for
certain property before foreclosure should enable them to seize
different property after foreclosure, the Judge finds that they
offer no authority in support.

Finally, Count VIII states that the County Defendants were unjustly
enriched by seizing the Plaintiff's equity and are therefore liable
for restitution.  The Defendants argue that the GPTA precludes an
unjust enrichment claim because it vests the FGU with fee simple
title in the foreclosed property prior to the foreclosure sale.  It
also contends that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is
precluded by the doctrine of unclean hands.  They allege that
Plaintiff lacks clean hands because the Amended Complaint "only
refers to the 2014 taxes," even though "by the time the foreclosed
property was sold, the 2015 and 2016 taxes were owing.

The Judge finds that the Defendants raise questions of fact that
are not properly considered on a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4bgx8ef from Leagle.com.


SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS: Initial OK of Class Settlement Bid Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDIDO ZAYAS, et al., v.
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-06155-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero
entered an order denying renewed joint motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement without prejudice.

The Court said, "This is the parties' second request for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement in this case. The
Court denied the first such motion on the basis that the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors had not approved the settlement
agreement and therefore the motion was premature. At the May 29,
2020 motion hearing, the Court also identified a number of
deficiencies in the settlement agreement, one of which was that its
terms were not fully set forth in a single document. Instead, the
parties pointed to the Full and Final Release that had been signed
by the named Plaintiffs, agreeing to release their claims against
the City and County of San Francisco in return for a payment to the
class of $2.1 million, with other terms of the agreement contained
only in the parties' motion papers. The Court is unable, however,
to grant preliminary approval to the settlement agreement that has
been presented with the Renewed Motion for Approval."

The San Francisco Sheriff's Office, officially the City and County
of San Francisco Sheriff's Office, is the sheriff's office for the
City and County of San Francisco. The department has 850 deputized
personnel, and support staff.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bY9PLy at no extra charge.[CC]


SANMEDICA INT'L: Pizana's Bid to Resume Deposition Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAUL PIZANA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Resumption of the Deposition of SanMedica International 30(b)(6)
(Gina Daines).

The Plaintiff and Defendant SanMedica, filed their joint statement
directed to the Motion to Compel, as required by the Court's Local
Rule 251, on December 16, 2020.

Plaintiff Pizana filed the putative class action on May 9, 2018,
challenging the advertising and efficacy of SeroVital-hgh, a
purported Human Growth Hormone ("HGH") supplement produced by the
Defendant that was purchased by the Plaintiff in early 2017. The
Second Amended Complaint, filed on November 13, 2019, asserts three
causes of action: (1) a violation of California Civil Code Section
1750, et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) a
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500,
et seq., the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) a violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

The crux of the Plaintiff's suit is that the Defendant's Product,
despite being marketed as an HGH supplement that can make users
look and feel decades -- not years, but decades -- younger," is "no
more effective for its advertised purposes than a placebo and is
therefore worthless to California consumers."

The Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class
defined as: All persons residing in California who purchased the
Product for personal use and not for resale during the time period
May 9, 2014, through the present. Excluded from the Class are
Defendant's officers, directors, and employees, and any individual
who received remuneration from Defendant in connection with that
individual's use or endorsement of the Product.

On March 6, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order that
bifurcated merits from class certification discovery and set a
deadline of December 18, 2020, for class discovery only.

On November 19, 2020, the parties commenced a remote deposition by
videoconference of Gina Daines, one of the Defendant's corporate
designees pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Volume I of Deposition Transcript of Gina Daines at 6
was filed under seal. The deposition began at 10:17 a.m. and
concluded at 5:50 p.m. after reported difficulties with the
document sharing program the parties used to display exhibits. The
parties agreed to resume the deposition of Daines on a later date.

On November 30, 2020, the deposition of Daines recommenced at 8:12
a.m. Volume II of Deposition Transcript of Gina Daines at 218 was
filed under seal. The questioning of Daines concluded at 9:43 a.m.
after counsel for the Defendant stated that Daines had given seven
hours of testimony on the record, as allotted by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Counsel for the Plaintiff responded that at
least an hour during the first deposition had been committed to
dealing with technological difficulties "and/or argument against
counsel," so additional time was warranted.

The parties subsequently conferred telephonically and via email
regarding more time for the Plaintiff to question Daines. The
Defendant offered the Plaintiff an additional hour to depose
Daines, which the Plaintiff refused. On December 2, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

The Plaintiff moves to compel the resumption of the deposition of
Daines, contending that he requires more time to question Daines
regarding the advertising, labeling, and packing of the Product,
due to technological difficulties and "Defendant's counsel's
incessant argument and obstruction" during the first deposition.

The Court has reviewed the transcript of the deposition and finds
that defense counsel's objections were generally in accordance with
Rule 30(c)(2)3, so no additional time is warranted on that basis.
Both parties agree, however, that there were technological
difficulties impeding the initial examination of Daines, and the
Court finds this to be good cause to grant the Plaintiff additional
time.

The Plaintiff does not specify how much more time he needs to
complete the deposition, but based on the cases to which the
Plaintiff cites, he appears to suggest five additional hours,
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto notes.

The Court finds five additional hours to be excessive and will
instead grant the Plaintiff an additional one-and-a-half hours to
complete his deposition of Daines due to time lost to technical
difficulties. In addition to the issue with displaying exhibits
that ultimately led to the termination of the first deposition, the
Court notes 10 instances where a party's video/audio either froze
or cut out, thus, requiring questions and statements to be
repeated. As the parties' window for class certification discovery
closed on December 18, 2020, the Court will reopen discovery for
the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Daines.

Accordingly, the Court ruled as follows:

   1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted in part;

   2. Class certification discovery is reopened to February 12,
      2021, for the limited purpose of allowing the Plaintiff
      one-and-a-half hours to resume and complete the deposition
      of Gina Daines; and

   3. The parties are directed to meet and confer, and agree on a
      date for Daines' deposition, to be taken on or before
      February 12, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y244ngns from Leagle.com.


SCIENCE OF LAB: Discards All Data, AI Algorithms Amid Criticism
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Computer reports that the South Korean developer of a
controversial female chatbot said on Friday that it will discard
all data and learning algorithms used in training the artificial
intelligence (AI) platform amid mounting criticism over its data
collection process and hate speech.

Scatter Lab, a Seoul-based startup, said it has decided to pull the
plug on its 20-year-old female chatbot persona called Lee Luda and
dispose of its database and deep learning algorithms to address
concerns among its users.

The company on Jan. 18 temporarily suspended the Facebook-based
chatbot, 20 days after beginning its service, in response to
complaints over its discriminatory and offensive language against
sexual minorities. Some male users were even able to manipulate the
bot into engaging in sexual conversations.

The company also came under fire for using personal information of
its users without proper consent and not making enough efforts to
protect it.

Scatter Lab said it used data collected from 10 billion
conversations on KakaoTalk, the nation's number one messenger app.
They were retrieved from the firm's Science of Love app launched in
2016, which analyzes the degree of affection between partners based
on actual messenger chats.

Users of Science of Lab claimed the company used their personal
information without prior consent, and some even warned of a class
action suit against the company. Luda attracted more than 750,000
users after its debut on December 23. [GN]


SCOTIABANK: Class Action Mulled Against Former Officer Over Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monte Sonnenberg, writing for Brantford Expositor, reports that
Scotiabank in Simcoe has been ordered to hand over financial
records related to an alleged investment fraud involving a retired
member of the Norfolk OPP.

On Sept. 8, Justice Richard Lococo ordered Scotiabank to produce
all transaction records from three known accounts registered in the
name of Lawrence Wayne Renton, a detective-sergeant who retired in
2016.

Lococo was responding to a petition from Jim Millson, a retired
staff sergeant with the Norfolk OPP, who was hired by Norfolk
County last year as the municipality's supervisor of bylaw
enforcement.

"The applicant James Millson alleges he is one of at least 30 known
victims of a fraudulent scheme operated by Lawrence Wayne Renton,"
says an application dated Aug. 14 from Toronto lawyer Norman Groot
to the Superior Court of Justice in Simcoe.

"The applicant is a proposed representative plaintiff for a class
proceeding. If a class proceeding is not certified or otherwise
viable, the proposed class members may proceed with group or
individual actions."

The application alleges the parties involved lost "approximately
$3.5 million" in "the fraudulent scheme operated by Renton," which
the application says "appears to be a typical Ponzi scheme."

"A Ponzi scheme is defined as a scam carried out on the public
whereby the rogue makes promises of high returns in a short period
of time and uses funds obtained by early investors to pay off
latter investors."

Renton's activities are the subject of an OPP fraud investigation.
Renton has not been charged and the allegations in the proceeding
before Lococo have not been proven in court.

The purpose of the Millson action is to preserve all relevant
financial records in advance of further legal action.

"Scotiabank is the only practicable source of information regarding
what has happened to the applicant's and class members' funds
provided to Renton. The orders sought will allow the applicant and
class members to trace their funds, identify additional bank and/or
brokerages and trading accounts, preserve assets, and to identify
and prosecute the wrongdoings of Renton."

The application says Renton presented himself to investors as an
uncertified investment manager who had devised day-trading
techniques and computer algorithms that produced extraordinary
returns on the stock market.

The application alleges Renton brought family members, friends,
colleagues, associates and their family members into the scheme
with promises of returns in the range of 20 per cent and more.     


The application suggests Millson was one of those "early
investors."

"Between 2013 and March 2020, the applicant transferred $310,000 to
Renton," the application says. "The applicant's funds were sourced
from a home-equity line of credit, which the applicant paid
interest on. Between 2013 and March 2020, Renton transferred
approximately $294,000 back to the applicant in what he
characterized as a return of principal.

"Over time, the applicant referred his stepmother, his stepbrother
and his adult daughters to Renton. These are some of the
individuals who form the class members."

The application says Renton received investor cash as "loans" so
that returns would not have to be declared to the Canada Revenue
Agency as "income." Renton also insisted on loan terminology, the
application says, in response to regulations under the Ontario
Securities Act.

"Renton represented that - since his agreement with those from whom
he received funds was a loan, and since he specifically did not
show his lenders his daily profit and loss trading records or any
other records relating to how he operated his day-trading business
- that he was not required to seek registration for trading in
securities.

"It was for such reasons that Renton represented to the applicant
and his lenders that their agreement was based on a 'handshake' and
'trust.'"

The application says the Ontario Securities Commission began making
inquiries into Renton's activities last February. Soon after, the
COVID-19 pandemic struck and Renton's relationship with his
investors deteriorated amid global stock market turmoil, according
to the application.

The application says Renton asked all involved for a 30-day delay
on monthly payments, following that on May 20 with a request for an
additional extension.

"Later in May 2020, however, the applicant learned that Renton had
again been subject to OSC inquiries and that he had attempted
suicide."

The application alleges the 30 parties to the Millson filing
transferred $4.75 million to Renton, while receiving $1.25 million
in payments.

"Other class members have contacted our firm but have not yet
disclosed the quantums of their losses," the application says.

Millson and parties to his application allege Renton has acquired
considerable assets over the years.

"Renton receives a pension from the OPP," the application says.
"Renton has had various boats over the years. Renton is known to
have invested in one or possibly more time-share agreements in
Florida.

"Renton has purchased luxury vehicles and is known to have an
interest in expensive jewelry.

"Renton's outward spending and registered assets are not
commensurate with $3.5 million in missing class members' funds.
Therefore, there is urgency to trace the class members' funds
through this application."

The court file at the Norfolk County court house in Simcoe does not
include a response from Renton or his representatives. [GN]


SETERUS INC: Morandi & Mercado Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEN MORANDI and BLANCA
MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SETERUS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06334-MCS-MAA (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on April 5, 2021 to enter
an order certifying the following class:

   "all individuals in the state of California, who, during the
   applicable limitations period, paid a convenience fee to Mr.
   Cooper for paying over the phone in connection with any
   residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by Mr. Cooper."

   All employees of the Court and the Plaintiff's counsel are
   excluded from this class.

Seterus Inc. operates as a loan servicing company. It operates as a
subsidiary of International Business Machines Incorporated.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 18,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3qIxbcgat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           John E. Norris, Esq.
           Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
           Andrew Wheeler-Berliner, Esq.
           Robert B. Salgado, Esq.
           DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
           2154 Highland Ave. S.
           Birmingham, AL 35205
           Telephone: (205) 930-9900
           Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
           E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com
                    dware@davisnorris.com
                    andrew@davisnorris.com
                    rsalgado@davisnorris.com

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: 4th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Doe 4 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOE 4, by and through his next friend,
NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE CENTER
COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee. CURRENT AND FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL; ELECTED PROSECUTORS; CORRECTIONS LEADERS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE
LEADERS; DISABILITY RIGHTS LEADERS, Amici Supporting Appellant,
Case No. 19-1910 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit reverses the district court's grant of summary
judgment.

The matter was argued on October 28, 2020, and decided on January
12, 2021. The amended opinion was issued on January 14, 2021.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Roger L.
Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
joined. Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III wrote a dissenting
opinion.

The Appellants are a class of unaccompanied immigrant children
detained at Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center, who challenge the
adequacy of their medical care. They are immigrant children, who
fled their native countries -- mainly Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico,
and El Salvador -- after experiencing appalling horrors. After
fleeing their native countries due to harrowing traumas, many of
these children struggle with severe mental illnesses, resulting in
frequent self-harm and attempted suicide.

Under federal law, the Appellants are unaccompanied alien children:
children under the age of 18, who have no lawful immigration status
and no parent or legal guardian in the United States available to
care for them (6 U.S.C. Section 279(g)(2). Upon arrival in the
United States, they fall under the custody of the Department of
Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR").

The Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center ("SVJC") is a secure juvenile
detention facility in Staunton, Virginia, and is run by the
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission, a governmental entity
formed under Virginia law.  It provides education, housing, and
medical care to unaccompanied immigrant children who, in the
discretion of ORR, require a secure placement due to safety
concerns. SVJC also houses youth from surrounding jurisdictions,
who have been charged with a crime but have not yet had their cases
adjudicated.

The Appellants filed a class action suit alleging, among other
things, that the Commission fails to provide a constitutionally
adequate level of mental health care due to its punitive practices
and failure to implement trauma-informed care.

The district court granted summary judgment to the Commission after
finding that it provides adequate care by offering access to
counseling and medication.

But the district court incorrectly applied a standard of deliberate
indifference when it should have determined whether the Commission
substantially departed from accepted standards of professional
judgment, Judge Gregory opines. Accordingly, the Appellate Court
reversed and remanded for further proceedings so that the district
court may apply the appropriate standard and consider all evidence
relevant to it.

Discussion

On the issue of Article III standing, the Commission argues that
the Appellants lack standing -- specifically, redressability --
because they did not name ORR as a defendant. According to the
Commission, ORR retains ultimate responsibility for the Appellants'
placement and mental health treatment, and the absence of ORR means
that the suit cannot redress the Appellants' injuries. The
Appellants answer that their injuries result from the actions of
SVJC, not ORR, and that the Appellants seek relief that would
require SVJC to modify how it cares for those within its facility.

The Appellate Court finds that the Appellants meet the requirements
for redressability. Judge Gregory opines that the Appellants'
failure to name ORR as a Defendant does not deprive their claims of
redressability because ORR would have to approve any changes SVJC
proposes to ensure that its unaccompanied children are given a
constitutionally adequate level of mental health care.

The Commission also argues, among other things, that ORR's absence
also means that SVJC could be subject to a court order that
conflicts with its legal obligations under Flores and its
Cooperative Agreement with ORR.

But the Flores Settlement imposes a floor, not a ceiling, for the
services required for children in the government's care, Judge
Gregory holds, citing Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863, 877 (9th
Cir. 2017). SVJC's cooperative agreement likewise exists to ensure
that SVJC meets those minimum requirements. Thus, neither the
Flores Settlement nor SVJC's cooperative agreement prevents the
Appellants from redressing their alleged injuries through the
relief they seek from SVJC.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court holds that a facility caring for
an unaccompanied child fails to provide a constitutionally adequate
level of mental health care if it substantially departs from
accepted professional standards.

The Appellants also urge the Appellate Court to apply Youngberg's
standard of professional judgment. In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S.
307, 320-23 (1982), the Supreme Court considered the Fourteenth
Amendment protections guaranteed to a mentally disabled person
involuntarily committed to a state institution.

Judge Gregory opines that the Youngberg standard is particularly
warranted here, given the unique psychological needs of children
and the state's corresponding duty to care for them. He notes that
to apply Youngberg to a claim of inadequate medical care, then, a
court must do more than determine that some treatment has been
provided -- it must determine whether the treatment provided is
adequate to address a person's needs under a relevant standard of
professional judgment.

The Commission also claims that trauma-informed care represents an
aspirational standard, not an accepted standard of professional
judgment. The district court's order on the Commission's motions in
limine suggests that it thought the same.

According to the Brief of Criminal Justice and Disability Rights
Amici at 12, for children, "trauma-informed care is already in
widespread use in juvenile detention systems and is considered the
accepted standard of professional care."

The Appellate Court leaves it to the trial court to determine in
the first instance to what extent, if any, the trauma-informed
approach should be incorporated into the professional judgment
standard in this particular case. It observes only that
trauma-informed care is part of the landscape of relevant evidence
to be considered by the trial court in making the determination.

Because the Youngberg standard governs the Appellants' claim, the
district court erred by applying the standard of deliberate
indifference, Judge Gregory holds. In doing so, the district court
also excluded evidence relevant under Youngberg, including Dr.
Gregory Lewis' (the Appellants' expert) opinions concerning
trauma-informed care and Dr. Weisman's opinions, which were not
presented as part of the record on appeal.

Moreover, the district court misread the record and failed to
construe it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the
Appellate Court holds. Itt justified summary judgment in part
because it did not consider Doe 4 to be at risk of serious harm. It
reasoned that Doe 4 did not need additional psychiatric care
because he admits that he never thought of committing suicide, that
he had no thoughts of self-harm, and that the only incident where
he harmed himself was when he punched a wall in anger. But SVJC's
own records contradict it. They show that Doe 4 once attempted
suicide when he tied a shirt around his neck, causing staff to
intervene and place him in a suicide vest.

The district court also did not construe the record in the light
most favorable to Appellants when describing the adequacy of
existing services at SVJC, Judge Gregory finds. The district court
stated that Doe 4 "saw a psychiatrist at least every six weeks,"
and that more than 50% of each visit with Dr. Kane is supposed to
be dedicated to one-on-one counseling." But the Commission's
witnesses, including Dr. Kane, testified that he did not provide
counseling or therapy and that he was charged solely with
prescribing and managing medications. Dr. Timothy Kane is a
psychiatrist, who visits the facility every three to six weeks. Dr.
Joseph Gorin is a psychologist retained by SVJC.

The district court did acknowledge that Dr. Gorin had diagnosed Doe
4 with PTSD and recommended that Doe 4 receive treatment in a
residential treatment center. Doe 4's clinicians likewise advocated
on his behalf for placement in such a center.

But the district court satisfied itself with the fact that SVJC had
attempted to transfer Doe 4 to such a facility, without assessing
whether SVJC's services were adequate for Doe 4 once they were
unable to do so, Judge Gregory avers. Consequently, the district
court did not consider testimony by SVJC's staff recognizing that
they lacked the capacity to treat children whom psychologists
recommended for placement in residential treatment.

In light of the Youngberg standard, the district court must
consider this evidence and all other evidence relevant to the
professional standards of care necessary to treat Appellants'
serious mental health needs, Judge Gregory insists.

For all of these reasons, the Appellate Court reverses the district
court's grant of summary judgment and remands for further
proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissent

Judge Wilkinson dissents stating that they -- judges -- should
stick to what they are good at: applying precedent, interpreting
statutes, and exercising traditional equitable powers. He notes
that the case features an invitation to try their hand at
institutional governance and to do something they are utterly
unqualified to do -- determine what constitutes acceptable mental
health care. He respects the majority's sincere and humane
concerns. But it is staring at a host of unintended consequences.
And under what rock is hidden its holding's relationship to law, he
has no idea. By remanding in the face of the record, the majority
urges courts to enter the business of second-guessing mental health
treatment decisions. Because they are not remotely qualified to do
that, he respectfully dissent, Judge Wilkinson states.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxr8fkka from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Theodore A. Howard -- thoward@wileyrein.com -- WILEY REIN,
LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Jason A. Botkins -- jason.botkins@littensipe.com -- LITTEN & SIPE,
LLP, in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Hannah E.M. Lieberman -- Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org --
Mirela Missova -- mirela_missova@washlaw.org -- WASHINGTON LAWYERS'
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, in Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant.

Joshua S. Everard -- josh.everard@littensipe.com -- LITTEN & SIPE,
LLP, in Harrisonburg, Virginia; Harold E. Johnson --
hjohnson@williamsmullen.com -- Meredith M. Haynes --
mhaynes@williamsmullen.com -- WILLIAMS MULLEN, in Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Neil R. Ellis -- nellis@sidley.com -- Mark E. Herzog --
mherzog@sidley.com -- David A. Miller -- dmiller@sidley.com --
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Amici Current and
Former State Attorneys General, Elected Prosecutors, Corrections
Leaders, Criminal Justice Leaders, and Disability Rights Leaders

SIMS GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Employee Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAEA SANFT, v. SIMS GROUP
USA CORPORATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-08154-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting the in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of a collective and approval of court-supervised
notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Court conditionally certifies the following collective:

   "all individuals who are or previously were employed by the
    Defendant on an hourly basis, and who worked over forty 40
    in the same week that they earned shift differential pay, at
    any time during the period beginning January 19, 2018 to the
    date of this order."

The Court agrees with Sims Group, however, that the production of
the other information the Plaintiff seeks would violate collective
members' privacy rights and is unnecessary for the giving of
notice. The balance of the Plaintiff's requests for collective
member information are therefore denied.

The Plaintiff Paea Sanft, a former employee of the Defendant Sims
Group, seeks to represent a collective class of Sims Group
employees and former employees in this FLSA action. His first
amended complaint, alleges five causes of action including an FLSA
claim asserting that Sims Group required employees to work more
than 40 hours per week and failed to pay the mandatory overtime
rate for those overtime hours, in violation of 29 U.S.C. sections
206 et. Seq.

Sanft worked for Sims Group, a global metal recycler, from June
1999 through September 2019, and held several different roles
including Labor, Maintenance, Lead Shift, Heavy Equipment Operator,
and Equipment Operator.

Sanft filed his original complaint in San Mateo Superior Court on
October 31, 2019, and Sims Group subsequently removed the action to
federal court. Sanft filed the FAC on April 3, 2020, which Sims
Group answered on April 17, 2020.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p82g8N at no extra charge.[CC]

SMART ENERGY: Xenes Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL XENES, Plaintiff v. SMART ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-20180-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2021) brings this
complaint on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons
who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the
Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed telemarketing calls
to his cellular telephone number 754-XXX-3773 beginning in February
2020 by using an "automatic telephone dialing system." The
Defendant's telephone calls were for the purpose of encouraging the
Plaintiff to avail its insurance policies. The Plaintiff also
asserts that he never provided his "prior express written consent"
to the Defendant to be contacted on his cellular telephone number
that was listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for more than
31 days prior to the calls.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all members of the
proposed classes have been harmed by the acts of the Defendant in
the form of multiple involuntary telephone and electrical charges,
the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone
calls, and violations of their statutory rights.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent further violations
of the TCPA, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief that is just and equitable under the
circumstances, the suit says.

Smart Energy, Inc. sells insurance policies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel. (Direct): (813) 337-7992
          Tel. (Main): (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


SOLARWINDS INC: Stockholders File Class Action After Cyberattack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that stockholders
of SolarWinds have filed a class action lawsuit against the
company, its CEO, Kevin Thompson, and its CFO, Barton Kalsu, after
a cyberattack on its management software impacted its supply chain.
The class contends, "SolarWinds lied and materially misled" them
about how security was handled leading up to the breach of its
Orion software that "has reverberated throughout the public and
private sector." The class includes buyers who publicly traded
SolarWinds securities last year from February 24 to December 15,
2020.

The complaint alleges each defendant was directly involved in the
company's day-to-day operations, "were privy to confidential
information about business operations and oversight of internal
controls and made false and misleading statements that violated
securities law." Court documents indicate that Thompson and Kalsu,
"because of their senior positions, knew the adverse non-public
information about SolarWinds's corporate governance and business
prospects." The plaintiffs believe they were negligent in providing
sufficient oversight, and actively misled stockholders.

"Defendant knew that the public documents and statements issued or
disseminated in the name of SolarWinds were materially false and
misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued
or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and
substantially participated in such statements or documents as
primary violations of the securities laws," attorneys for the class
wrote. "Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware
that the market price of SolarWinds securities had been
artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading
statements and by the material adverse information which Defendants
did not disclose," the stockholders would not have made their
purchases.

In a December filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission,
SolarWinds said "an investigation concluded that malicious hackers
- which U.S. government officials have attributed to a group with
ties to the Russian government - inserted the corrupted code within
Orion's build system between March and June 2020. The company's
stock price took an immediate tumble, and subsequent news stories
about poor security trickled out in the days after at the same time
SolarWinds stock fell further."

The company disclosed, "Despite our security measures, unauthorized
access to, or security breaches of, our software or systems could
result in the loss, compromise or corruption of data, loss of
business, severe reputational damage adversely affecting customer
or investor confidence, regulatory investigations and orders,
litigation, indemnity obligations, damages for contract breach,
penalties for violation of applicable laws or regulations,
significant costs for remediation and other liabilities. We have
incurred and expect to incur significant expenses to prevent
security breaches, including deploying additional personnel and
protection technologies, training employees, and engaging
third-party experts and consultants. Our errors and omissions
insurance coverage covering certain security and privacy damages
and claim expenses may not be sufficient to compensate for all
liabilities we incur."

The class is requesting "a trial by jury" to determine the extent
of Thomspon and Kalsu's involvement, and the plaintiffs are seeking
damages from both the company and the named individuals,
"reasonable" payment for their court costs, and any other further
relief" allowed by the court. [GN]


SPARKY BOY: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPARKY BOY ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00430-PGG (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

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

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

Sparky Boy Enterprises, Inc. is a company that operates the Planet
Natural online retail store across the United States, with its
principal executive office located at 1612 Gold Avenue, Bozeman,
Montana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

SPY OPTIC: Angeles Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPY OPTIC INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00412 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.spyoptic.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent,
which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a
description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper
label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title
elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links.

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

Spy Optic Inc. is an eyewear manufacturing company based in
Carlsbad, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

ST MARY AND ST MINA: Walden Seeks Unpaid Store Clerks' OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON WALDEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ST MARY AND ST MINA, INC., a Florida Corporation, and
ST. PHILOMENA INC., d/b/a 7-Eleven Store, a Florida Corporation,
and HANY K. MENIAS, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-00129 (M.D. Fla., January 16, 2021) brings this complaint
as a collective action against the Defendant seeking to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a store clerk from
on or about March 2020 until his separation from employment in
October 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not pay him the
federally mandated overtime wage despite he worked more than 40
hours per week during many weeks of his employment and instead, he
was paid only straight time for all hours worked.

The Defendants allegedly implemented a scheme to circumvent the
overtime requirements of the FLSA by sharing employees between
stores such that the employees work less than 40 hours at each
store, but work more than 40 hours combined between the stores, and
by paying them with separate paycheck from each store at the
straight time rate. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated store clerks were not paid for all overtime hours worked
in excess of 40 per week at the applicable one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay, the suit says.

The Corporate Defendants operate as a unified retail store under
the name 7-Eleven retail store that was owned by Hany K. Menias.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Tel: (954) 617-6017
          Fax: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Anderson Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ROMAN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.; SUBARU
CORP.; DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC.; and DENSO CORP., Case No.
2:20-cv-01587, was transferred from the Northern District of
Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on January 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00879-JHR-AMD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Hawaii's Unfair Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of express warranty
by failing to recall all vehicles that are equipped with defective
Denso low-pressure fuel pumps.

Subaru Of America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of automobile
manufacturer Subaru Corporation, with its principal place of
business located at One, Subaru Drive, Camden, New Jersey.

Subaru Corp. is an automobile manufacturer with a principal place
of business in Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Denso International America, Inc. is the North American division of
Denso Corporation, with its principal place of business located at
24777 Denso Drive, Southfield, Michigan.

Denso Corp. is a global supplier of advanced technology and
components for automobiles, with its principal place of business in
Kariya, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         Steven K. S. Chung, Esq.
         Timothy E. Ho, Esq.
         IMANAKA ASATO, LLLC
         745 Fort Street Mall, 17th Floor
         Honolulu, HI 96813
         Telephone: (808) 521-9500
         Facsimile: (808) 541-9050
         E-mail: schung@imanaka-asato.com
                 tho@imanaka-asato.com

                - and –

         Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
         Paula R. Brown, Esq.
         Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
         BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 338-1100
         Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
         E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                 pbrown@bholaw.com
                 jmacpherson@bholaw.com

                - and –

         Courtney L. Davenport, Esq.
         THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC
         18805 Porterfield Way
         Germantown, MD 20874
         Telephone: (703) 901-1660
         E-mail: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com

                - and –

         Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
         THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
         Granite Bay, CA 95746
         Telephone: (888) 557-5115
         Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
         E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Griffin Class Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KATHERINE GRIFFIN, JANET OAKLEY, and ADAM
WHITLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., SUBARU CORPORATION, DENSO
CORPORATION, and DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00563, was transferred from the Northern District of
Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on January 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00873 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and for strict product liability, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent
recall, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment by designing,
manufacturing and selling vehicles with defective Denso
low-pressure fuel pumps and failing to recall all affected
vehicles.

Subaru Of America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of automobile
manufacturer Subaru Corporation, with its principal place of
business located at One, Subaru Drive, Camden, New Jersey.

Subaru Corp. is an automobile manufacturer with a principal place
of business in Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Denso Corp. is a global supplier of advanced technology and
components for automobiles, with its principal place of business in
Kariya, Japan.

Denso International America, Inc. is the North American division of
Denso Corporation, with its principal place of business located at
24777 Denso Drive, Southfield, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
         Demet Basar, Esq.
         H. Clay Barnett, II, Esq.
         J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
         BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
         272 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36104
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                 Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Mitch.williams@Beasleyallen.com

SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Allowed to File 1st Amended Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended
class action complaint in the lawsuit titled KRISTEENA TINNIN v.
SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-NONE-EPG
(E.D. Cal.).

The Court found the matter suitable for decision without the need
for oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and vacated the
hearing on the motion set for January 8, 2021. Having considered
the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendant's response, and the record in
this case, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend.

On October 1, 2020, the Court held a Scheduling Conference and set
a deadline of November 6, 2020, for the Plaintiff to file a motion
to amend the complaint. On November 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed
her motion to amend the complaint seeking to include a rest break
claim and class claims.

On December 23, 2020, the Defendant filed a response to the motion
stating that it does not oppose amendment of the complaint but
objected to a provision in the Plaintiff's proposed order granting
the Defendant only 10 days to file a response to the proposed First
Amended Complaint. The Defendant instead requests 21 days to file a
response because it is contemplating a motion to stay, strike, or
dismiss the class claims due to two earlier-filed class actions
alleging the same set of claims. The Plaintiff did not file a
reply.

The Plaintiff's motion was supported by a declaration of counsel
Juan Gamboa explaining that the motion was not filed before the
November 6, 2020 deadline because the pleading amendment deadline
was inadvertently calendared incorrectly, and counsel promptly
filed the motion upon realizing the mistake. Further, the case is
in the early stages and the Defendant has provided written consent
to amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for amendment
and will grant the motion. It will further grant the Defendant's
request for 21 days to file a response to the First Amended
Complaint.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint is granted. Within seven days of the date of the Order,
the Plaintiff will file her First Amended Complaint.  The
Defendant's response to the First Amended Complaint will be filed
and served within 21 days of service of the First Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2wove6n from Leagle.com.


TARGET CORP: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Greenberg Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD GREENBERG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARGET CORPORATION, a
Minnesota Corporation; INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION, a New
Jersey Corporation; PERRIGO COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-16699 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
grant of summary judgment to the Defendants.

Millions of Americans buy dietary supplements each year.  The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has limited authority under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to regulate dietary
supplements, which include vitamin, botanical, enzyme, and amino
acid products. The FDA does not require pre-approval of labels on
these products, but it insists that the statements be truthful and
not misleading.  The FDA also allows the product labels to feature
so-called "structure/function" claims that describe the role of a
nutrient or ingredient on the structure or function of the human
body.  So, for example, a vitamin product can tout that "calcium
supports strong bones" because scientific evidence backs that
claim, even if not everyone needs or benefits from more calcium.

The case challenges a structure/function claim for a vitamin called
biotin.  The label for the biotin product at issue states that it
"helps support healthy hair and skin."  While the Plaintiff agrees
that biotin can promote hair and skin health, he argues that the
statement is still misleading because most people obtain enough
biotin from their regular diets and thus the product provides no
health benefit for them.  He brought claims under California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et
seq., and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Sections 1750, et seq.

The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants,
ruling that the Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by
federal law that allows the challenged structure/function claim.
It held that the Defendants' biotin statement met the statutory
requirements for a structure/function claim: There was
substantiation for the truthful claim, the product label included
the appropriate disclosures, and it did not suggest that the
product could treat diseases.  It ruled that Greenberg was seeking
to impose an additional disclosure requirement by claiming that the
product label was deceptive, even though it complied with the
federal requirements for a structure/function claim.

The Ninth Circuit concludes that because the structure/function
claim about biotin meets the FDCA's requirements, Greenberg's state
law claims amount to an imposition of different standards from the
FDCA.  Greenberg essentially seeks to impose an additional
requirement that dietary supplement labels can make
structure/function claims only if consumers are likely to benefit
from the product.  But that requirement "is not identical to the
requirement of section 343(r)."  It is, thus, preempted.

To be sure, a structure/function claim may be misleading if it
fails to disclose a harmful aspect of the nutrient.  For example,
in Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc., 913 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2019), the
Ninth Circuit held that the FDCA did not preempt the Plaintiff's
claim that vitamin E increased the risk of all-cause mortality.
There is no such allegation in the case, the Court finds.
Likewise, if a structure/function claim is factually false or lacks
substantiation, then state law claims will not be preempted.  But
that is not the case.  The Court, thus, holds that the FDCA
authorizes the Defendants' structure/function claim about biotin
and preempts Greenberg's state law claims challenging them.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order because the
plain language of the statute makes clear that a structure/function
claim addresses only the nutrient's role in the human body, not the
product's health impact on the general population.  It opines that
the Defendants have met all of the federal requirements for making
a structure/function claim, including having substantiation showing
that the biotin nutrient can promote healthy hair and skin.
Federal law thus allows the Defendants to make this
structure/function claim and preempts the the Plaintiff's state law
causes-of-action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 13, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y69fwvw7 from Leagle.com.

Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- (argued) and Carrie A.
Laliberte -- claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
Balint P.C., Phoenix, Arizona; Patricia N. Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint P.C., in
San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew R. Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- (argued), William P. Cole
-- wcole@calljensen.com -- and Samuel G. Brooks --
sbrooks@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen ACP, in Newport Beach,
California, for Defendants-Appellees.

J. Kathleen Bond, and Jennifer M.S. Adams --
jennifer@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati Wasserman LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, for Amicus Curiae Council for Responsible Nutrition.


TASTEBUD MARKET: Candia Seeks Unpaid OT and Spread-of-Hours Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL CANDIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TASTEBUD MARKET LLC d/b/a MODERN BREAD AND
BAGEL, d/b/a ARBA, JOSHUA BORENSTEIN, and ORLY GOTTESMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00472 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
restaurant workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek and failing to pay them spread-of-hours
premium.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a food preparer at
Modern Bread and Bagel restaurant in New York, New York in January
2019 and was promoted as a cook in January 2020. His employment was
terminated in October 2020.

Tastebud Market LLC is an owner and operator of the restaurants
called Modern Bread and Bagel and Arba located at 472 Columbus
Avenue, New York, New York. [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) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

TOYOTA MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Set for April 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN RYAN-BLAUFUSS,
CATHLEEN MILLS, and KHEK KUAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No.
8:18-cv-00201-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order granting that the deadlines for the Court's
current Scheduling Order are modified as follows:

      Event                  Current Deadline  Proposed Schedule

   Last Day to File Motion    Jan. 29, 2020     April 9, 2021
   for Class Certification:

   Last Day to File           March 29, 2021    June 8, 2021
   Opposition to Motion
   for Class Certification:

   Last Day to File Reply     April 30, 2021    August 6, 2021
   ISO Motion for
   Class Certification:

   Hearing on Motion for      May 14, 2021      August 20, 2021
   Class Certification
   (10:30 a.m.):

   Fact Discovery Cut Off     Oct. 20, 2021     Jan. 27, 2022

    Last Day to File          Dec. 13, 2021     March 29, 2022
    Motions (excluding
    Daubert Motions and
   all other Motions
   in Limine)

   Last Day to Serve         Dec. 13, 2021     March 29, 2022
   Initial Expert Reports:

   Last Day to Serve         Jan. 14, 2022     April 28, 2022
   Rebuttal Expert Reports:

   Expert Discovery          Feb. 25, 2022     June 15, 2022
   Cut-Off:

   Last Day to Conduct       March 11, 2022    July 15, 2022
   Settlement Proceedings:

   Last Day to               April 15, 2022    August 15, 2022
   file Daubert Motions:

   Last Day to File          May 5, 2022       Sept. 14, 2022
   Motions in Limine
   (excluding Daubert
   motions)

   Final Pretrial            June 6, 2022      Oct. 14, 2022
   Conference (10:30 a.m.):

The Court said, "Applications for ex parte relief are generally
disfavored; however, having fully considered the arguments of the
Application, as well as the evidence presented, the Court finds
this to be the rare instance where the Plaintiffs are without fault
and would be prejudiced if they are required to file their motion
for class certification before the Magistrate Judge has had an
opportunity to resolve discovery disputes regarding evidence that
the Plaintiffs contend is essential to their class certification
motion. Moreover, having reviewed the materials, and being aware of
the stipulated discovery process giving rise to the instant
dispute, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are without fault in
creating the circumstances requiring them to move ex parte rather
than through a regularly noticed motion."

Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan. It was founded by Kiichiro
Toyoda and incorporated on August 28, 1937.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LY3dSN at no extra charge.[CC]

TRITERRAS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
February 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Triterras, Inc.
f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp.securities between August 20, 2020
and December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Triterras investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
It operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform
that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from
lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and
Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd. ("Triterras Fintech"), which closed on
November 11, 2020 (the "Merger").

Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading
business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos
platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were
referred to it by Rhodium.

On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned
a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going
concern.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or 31%, to
close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The Company's warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%, to
close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied
on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the
Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial
liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going
concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer
users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 19,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact Information:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


TSR INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
TSR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 19, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2020, that the final settlement approval
hearing in the class action suit initiated by Susan Paskowitz, is
set for April 21, 2021.

On October 16, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed
on October 11, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Queens County, by Susan Paskowitz, a stockholder of the Company,
against the Company; Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes;
former directors Christopher Hughes, Raymond A. Roel, Brian J.
Mangan, Regina Dowd, James J. Hill, William Kelly, and Eric Stein;
as well as stockholders Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc.
and Fintech Consulting LLC.

The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit asserting
claims on behalf of all minority stockholders of the Company. Ms.
Paskowitz alleges the following: the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes of an aggregate of 819,491 shares of the
Company's common stock ("controlling interest") to Zeff Capital,
L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC was in breach
of Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes' fiduciary duties and
to the detriment of the Company's minority stockholders; the former
members of the Board of Directors of the Company named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to immediately
adopt a rights plan that would have prevented Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes from selling their shares and preserved a higher
premium for all stockholders; Zeff, QAR, and Fintech are "partners"
and constitute a "group."

Ms. Paskowitz also asserts that Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries,
Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC aided and abetted Joseph F. Hughes'
and Winifred M. Hughes' conduct, and ultimately sought to buy out
the remaining shares of the Company at an unfair price.

On June 14, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed an amended complaint in the
Stockholder Litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Queens County against the members of the Board of Directors
and Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting
LLC, which asserts substantially similar allegations to those
contained in the October 11, 2018 complaint, but omits Regina Dowd,
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes as defendants.

In addition to the former members of the Board of Directors named
in the original complaint, the amended complaint names former
directors Ira Cohen, Joseph Pennacchio, and William Kelly as
defendants.

The amended complaint also asserts a derivative claim purportedly
on behalf of the Company against the named former members of the
Board of Directors. The amended complaint seeks declaratory
judgment and unspecified monetary damages. The complaint requests:
(1) a declaration from the court that the former members of the
Board of Directors named in the complaint breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to timely adopt a stockholder rights plan, which
resulted in the loss of the ability to auction the Company off to
the highest bidder without interference from Zeff Capital, L.P.,
QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC; (2) damages
derivatively on behalf of the Company for unspecified harm caused
by the former Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (3)
damages and equitable relief derivatively on behalf of the Company
for the former Directors' alleged failure to adopt proper corporate
governance practices; and (4) damages and injunctive relief against
Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC
based on their knowing dissemination of false or misleading public
statements concerning their status as a group. The complaint has
not assigned any monetary values to alleged damages.

On July 15, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint in the Stockholder Litigation and cross-claims against
Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC
for breaches of their fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duties, and indemnification and contribution
based on their misappropriation of material nonpublic information
and their failure to disclose complete and accurate information in
SEC filings concerning their group actions to attempt a creeping
takeover of the Company, which was thereafter amended on July 26,
2019.

In addition, on December 21, 2018, the Company filed a complaint in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff,
QAR Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC,
and Tajuddin Haslani for violations of the disclosure and
anti-fraud requirements of the federal securities laws under
Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the related rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC, for
failing to disclose to the Company and its stockholders their
formation of a group and the group's intention to seize control of
the Company.

The complaint requests that the court, among other things, declare
that the defendants have solicited proxies without filing timely,
accurate and complete reports on Schedule 13D and Schedule 14A in
violation of Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, direct
the defendants to file with the SEC complete and accurate
disclosures, enjoin the defendants from voting any of their shares
prior to such time as complete and accurate disclosures have been
filed, and enjoin the defendants from further violations of the
Exchange Act with respect to the securities of the Company.

On January 7, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed a related action against
Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff, QAR
Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC, and
Tajuddin Haslani in the Southern District of New York, which
asserts claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and under
federal securities laws similar to those asserted in the Company's
action. Although the Company is not a party to Ms. Paskowitz's
action, the court has determined to treat the Company's and Ms.
Paskowitz's respective actions as related.

On August 7, 2019, following the Company's initial rescheduling of
the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders for September 13, 2019 and
the filing of Preliminary Proxy Statements by the Company and Zeff
Capital, L.P., Zeff Capital, L.P. filed a complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the Company seeking an order requiring
the Company to hold its next annual meeting of stockholders on or
around September 13, 2019, and obligating the Company to elect
Class I and Class III directors at that annual meeting.

On August 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion for preliminary
injunction in the SDNY Action in advance of the Company's 2018
Annual Meeting originally scheduled for September 13, 2019, and
requested leave to file a motion for expedited discovery.

The Court denied the Company's motion for preliminary injunction
but ordered Zeff Capital, L.P. to “make clear that the second set
of directors” described by Zeff Capital, L.P. in its preliminary
proxy statement "is contingent upon the resolution of a proceeding
in Delaware Chancery Court."

On August 30, 2019, the Company entered into the Settlement
Agreement with the Investor Parties with respect to the proxy
contest pertaining to the election of directors at the 2018 Annual
Meeting, which was held on October 22, 2019. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to forever settle and
resolve any and all disputes between the parties, including without
limitation disputes arising out of or relating to the following
litigations:

(i) The complaint relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
filed on November 1, 2018 by Fintech Consulting LLC against the
Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which was previously
dismissed voluntarily;

(ii) The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief for
violations of the federal securities laws filed on December 21,
2018 by the Company against the Investor Parties in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York;

(iii) Cross-claims relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
and for indemnification and contribution filed on July 26, 2019 by
the Company against the Investor Parties in New York Supreme Court,
Queens County; and

(iv) The complaint to compel annual meeting of stockholders filed
on August 7, 2019 by Zeff Capital, L.P. against the Company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

No party admitted any liability by entering into the Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement did not resolve the Stockholder
Litigation filed by Susan Paskowitz against the Company, Joseph F.
Hughes, Winifred M. Hughes and certain former directors of the
Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on October
11, 2018.

Concurrently with the Settlement Agreement, the parties entered
into a share repurchase agreement which provided for the purchase
by the Company and Christopher Hughes, the Company's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, of the shares of the
Company's Common Stock held by the Investor Parties.

The Settlement Agreement also contemplated that, if the Repurchase
was completed, the Company would make a settlement payment to the
Investor Parties at the closing of the Repurchase in an amount of
approximately $1,500,000. However, the Repurchase and Settlement
Payment were not completed by the deadline of December 30, 2019.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (1) the Company agreed to
adopt an amendment to the Company's Amended and Restated By-Laws,
dated April 9, 2015, providing that stockholders of the Company
owning at least forty percent (40%) of the issued and outstanding
Common Stock may request a special meeting of stockholders; (2) the
Investor Parties agreed not to take any action to call or otherwise
cause a special meeting of stockholders to occur prior to December
30, 2019 (unless the Company had failed to hold the 2018 Annual
Meeting); (3) the Company agreed to amend and restate the Company's
Rights Agreement, dated August 29, 2018, to confirm that a
Distribution Date (as defined in the Amended Rights Agreement)
shall not occur as a result of any request by any of the Investor
Parties for a special meeting; (4) the Company agreed that prior to
the earlier of (A) the completion of the Repurchase and the payment
of the Settlement Payment and (B) January 1, 2020, the Board of
Directors shall not consist of more than seven (7) directors.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the two nominees
for director made by Zeff Capital, L.P. were elected as directors
at the Company's 2018 Annual Meeting held on October 22, 2019.
Please see the Company's current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
SEC on October 21, 2019 for more information about the background
of the election of directors at the Company's 2018 Annual Meeting.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, inasmuch as the
Repurchase was not completed and the Settlement Payment was not
made by December 30, 2019, the members of the Board of Directors
(other than the two directors who were nominated by Zeff Capital,
L.P. and elected as directors at the 2018 Annual Meeting) resigned
from the Board effective 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 30,
2019. Immediately thereafter, the two remaining directors appointed
Robert Fitzgerald to the Board of Directors. Please see the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December
31, 2019 for more information about the background and the
appointment of Robert Fitzgerald.

The foregoing is not a complete description of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Share Repurchase Agreement. For a
further description of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
the Share Repurchase Agreement, including copies of the Settlement
Agreement and Share Repurchase Agreement, please see the Company's
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on
September 3, 2019.

On October 21, 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the MOU) with Susan Paskowitz providing for the
settlement of the Stockholder Litigation filed by Ms. Paskowitz on
October 11, 2018. The MOU provides for the settlement of the claims
by Ms. Paskowitz that (1) the former members of the Board named in
the original complaint allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to immediately adopt a rights plan that would have
prevented the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes of an
aggregate of 819,491 shares of the Company's common stock to the
Investor Parties; (2) the former members of the Board named in the
amended complaint allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and
failed to adopt proper corporate governance practices; and (3) the
Investor Parties acted as "partners" and constituted a "group" in
their purchase of shares from Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M.
Hughes and knowingly disseminated false or misleading public
statements concerning their status as a group.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the Company will (1) implement
certain corporate governance reforms described in the MOU within 30
days of a final order and judgment entered by the court, and keep
these corporate governance reforms in place for 5 years from the
time of the final order and judgment; and (2) acknowledge that the
plaintiff, Ms. Paskowitz, and her counsel provided a substantial
benefit to the Company and its stockholders through the prosecution
of the Stockholder Litigation and other related actions filed by
Ms. Paskowitz.

On December 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with Susan Paskowitz in the Stockholder
Litigation. The Stipulation retains the terms and conditions of
settlement of the Stockholder Litigation contained in the MOU
described in the preceding paragraph, with the addition that the
Company will pay to plaintiff's counsel an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $260,000.

The Stockholder Litigation Settlement is intended to fully,
finally, and forever compromise, settle, release, resolve, and
dismiss with prejudice the Stockholder Litigation and all claims
asserted therein directly against all present and former defendants
and derivatively against them on behalf of the Company.

The Stockholder Litigation Settlement does not contain any
admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the
parties, and provides for mutual releases by all parties. Each
stockholder of the Company is a member of the plaintiff class
unless such stockholder opts out of the class. The Company expects
that the full amount of the $260,000 settlement payment will be
covered by insurance proceeds. The Stipulation remains subject to
approval by the court.

The Stipulation is independent of the Settlement Agreement and
Share Repurchase Agreement that the Company had entered into with
the Investor Parties.

On December 24, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz moved for preliminary approval
of the Stockholder Litigation Settlement. On May 21, 2020, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stockholder
Litigation Settlement.

On July 9, 2020, the parties submitted an agreed upon proposed
scheduling order for final approval of the Stockholder Litigation
Settlement and a proposed mailing notice of the Stockholder
Litigation Settlement to the Company's stockholders.

On December 16, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order, which
approved the form of the parties' mailing notice, and provided that
the hearing for final approval of the Stockholder Litigation
Settlement will be held on April 20, 2021.

Among other deadlines, the scheduling order provided that TSR must
provide notice of the Stockholder Litigation Settlement to
applicable stockholders by December 31, 2021, and that any
objections to the Stockholder Litigation Settlement must be filed
by April 5, 2021. Although the Company believes that the
Stockholder Litigation Settlement represents a fair and reasonable
compromise of the matters in dispute in the Stockholder Litigation,
there can be no assurance that the court will approve the
Stockholder Litigation Settlement as proposed, or at all.

TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. TSR, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge,
New York.


TWIN CITY: Pennsylvania Court Dismisses Zagafen Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class
Action Complaint in the lawsuit styled ZAGAFEN BALA, LLC, VK
TAVERN, LLC, VINTAGE KOSHER, LLC, REAL FRESH, INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWIN CITY FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20-3033 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiffs in the case, like many business owners throughout
Pennsylvania, have been forced to close or modify their operations
due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent government closure
orders. Plaintiff Zagafen owns a kosher dairy restaurant, Plaintiff
VK Tavern owns a kosher meat restaurant, Plaintiff Vintage Kosher
operates a kosher wine and spirits shop, and Plaintiff Real Fresh,
doing business as Pagano's Restaurant and Bar, is a "food emporium"
located in Philadelphia. Twin City is a property and casualty
insurance company and a subsidiary of Hartford Financial Group,
Inc.

All the Plaintiffs purchased Business Owner's coverage from the
Defendant. Their Policies are "all risk" policies, which provide
coverage for all covered losses unless explicitly excluded or
limited. Specifically, the Policies cover "direct physical loss of
or direct physical damage to Covered Property caused by or
resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss,"
in turn, is defined as "risks of direct physical loss unless the
loss is" otherwise excluded or limited.

The Policies include identical riders providing coverage for
"Business Income and Extra Expense" and "Business Income for Civil
Authority Actions." They also contain a relevant exclusion clause
("Virus Exclusion"), which states that Twin City "will not pay for
loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by presence, growth,
proliferation, spread or any activity of virus." Any loss or damage
caused directly or indirectly by the presence, proliferation,
spread or any activity of a virus is excluded from coverage.

The Plaintiffs suffered business income losses and sought indemnity
from their insurance provider, Twin City, under their all-risk
commercial property policies. Twin City denied the Plaintiffs'
claims. The Plaintiffs then filed suit on behalf of themselves and
a putative class against Twin City for breach of contract and
seeking a declaratory judgment.

In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs aver they were forced to
"suspend or reduce business" due to orders issued by civil
authorities in Pennsylvania mandating the closure of their on-site
services to protect patrons and employees from exposure to
COVID-19. They claim their businesses are not considered
"essential," and have, therefore, been subject to a variety of
Closure Orders by state and local authorities. The Plaintiffs do
not allege that the coronavirus was present at any of the insured
properties.

The matter currently before the Court is Twin City's 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

District Judge Chad F. Kenney states that the issue before the
Court is one of contract interpretation. The interpretation of an
insurance contract is a question of law. The Court must interpret
the plain language of the contract read in its entirety, giving
effect to all its provisions. The Court gives the words of the
Policies "their natural, plain, and ordinary sense" meaning, citing
Madison Const. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 735 A.2d 100, 108
(Pa. 1999).

The facts pleaded in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint do not
allege losses that bear a causal connection to the physical
condition of the premises or show that the conditions operated to
completely or near completely preclude operation of the premises as
intended, Judge Kenney notes. The Plaintiffs have not pleaded that
their losses were caused directly by the coronavirus, but rather
that the "closure orders operate as a blockade that prevents
employees and patrons from entering the businesses for their
intended purpose."

The Plaintiffs allege that their businesses were not considered
"essential," and were, therefore, subject to a variety of Closure
Orders issues by state and local authorities, preventing them from
operating their businesses or limiting their operations. Judge
Kenney opines that it is not loss of or damage to property within
the meaning of the Policies.

The Plaintiffs' allegations show they were denied some access to
their insured properties or were only able to run their businesses
for limited purposes, which caused them to lose income. However,
Judge Kenney avers, no Closure Order by any authority identified by
the Plaintiffs required restaurants and shops like those run by
them to close completely.

Thus, Judge Kenney also holds, the Plaintiffs' properties remained
inhabitable and usable, albeit in limited ways. To the extent the
Plaintiffs argue that the threatened presence of the virus relates
to the physical condition of the property, they have similarly not
shown that their properties were rendered completely or almost
completely uninhabitable or unusable. Further, the presence or
threatened presence of the coronavirus is a physical condition that
can be largely remediated by mask wearing, social distancing, and
disinfecting surfaces. This does not meet the standard for a
physical loss caused by a source invisible to the naked eye.

The Plaintiffs have pleaded no facts that lead the Court to believe
they reasonably expected business losses not tied to any kind of
actual damage to property would be covered. Further, they have
alleged no change in the policy that they were unaware of that
would give rise to a reason to go against the unambiguous language
here.

The Policies' Civil Authority Coverage, like the Business Income
Coverage, is predicated on physical loss or damage to property. The
Civil Authority Coverage applies only when the insured is
prohibited from accessing their own property due to a government
order, which must itself be the direct result of a Covered Cause of
Loss to a property in the immediate area of the insured property.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Civil Authority Coverage applies
because property in the immediate area around the insured property
faces the same "risks of direct physical loss" the insured
properties do -- the presence of the virus or threatened presence
of the virus.

Judge Kenney finds that it is not reasonably disputed that the
Closure Orders were a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic or
that the Closure Orders limited the Plaintiffs' ability to operate
their businesses. That has no bearing on determining coverage under
the Civil Authority provision. However, the Plaintiffs' claims here
fail for the same reason they do in the Business Income Coverage
issue.

That the Closure Orders themselves caused income loss by depriving
the Plaintiffs of the use of their properties to a certain extent
is unfortunate but of no mind; the Plaintiffs are not covered for
that under a plain language reading of the Civil Authority
Coverage, Judge Kenney opines.

Even if the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged their losses qualified
for Business Income Coverage or Civil Authority Coverage, the Virus
Exclusion precludes coverage, Judge Kenney holds. The Virus
Exclusion provides that Twin City "will not pay for loss or damage
caused directly or indirectly by presence, growth, proliferation,
spread or any activity of virus." The exclusion applies "regardless
of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any
sequence to the loss" and "whether or not the loss event results in
widespread damage or affects a substantial area."

Even if the virus was not the direct cause of the Plaintiffs'
losses, it was at least an indirect cause, which is sufficient to
bar coverage under the Virus Exclusion clause, Judge Kenney
concludes. Hence, the Court will not grant the Plaintiffs leave to
amend their Amended Complaint because they can allege no facts
related to their Policies, their losses, or the reasons for their
losses that could bring their claims within the coverage of the
Policies.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to coverage for
the losses they have suffered. Their claims for breach of contract
and declaratory relief will be dismissed with prejudice as to
Plaintiffs Zagafen, Tavern, Vintage Kosher, and Pagano's, and
without prejudice as to the putative class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2m983h7 from Leagle.com.


UNILEVER PLC: Faces Class Action Over 'Defective' Shampoo Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Nelson, writing for HBW Insight, reports that the presence of
formaldehyde releaser DMDM hydantoin in Unilever's TRESemme Keratin
shampoos pose undisclosed risks of hair loss and/or scalp
irritation, as shown by hundreds of consumer complaints online,
plaintiffs allege in proposed class actions filed in Illinois and
New Jersey federal courts. [GN]



UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Must File Class Status Bid by June 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA VIZCARRA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02777-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order that
the discovery schedule is revised as follows:

   -- Close of Fact Discovery by 6/11/2021.

   -- Class Certification Opening Reports due by 6/18/2021.

   -- Class Certification Rebuttal Reports due by 7/26/2021.

   -- Class Certification Motion filed by 6/25/2021.

   -- Opposition/ Responses due by 7/26/2021.

   -- Replies due by 8/23/2021.

   -- Class Certification Motion Hearing set for 9/14/2021.

The Parties say that they have been assiduously working on
discovery, but need additional time to complete it. The Defendant
has encountered difficulties producing discovery due to COVID-19
restrictions, but expect to be able to produce a greater amount of
discovery in the next several weeks, including, but not limited to
electronically stored information.

On July 20, 2020, this Court entered an order setting the following
schedule:

   -- Close of Fact Discovery by 2/12/2021.

   -- Class Certification Opening Reports due by 2/19/2021.

   -- Class Certification Rebuttal Reports due by 3/26/2021.

   -- Class Certification Motion filed by 2/26/2021.
   -- Opposition/ Responses due by 3/26/2021.

   -- Replies due by 4/23/2021.

   -- Class Certification Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2021.

Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes as
well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces,
tea. Unilever United States serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order granting stipulation extending
discovery schedule and briefing deadlines dated Jan. 19, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oaOelC at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs, are:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  granade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. P
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, New York 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

Counsel for the Defendant, are:

          August T. Horvath, Esq.
          Jennifer Yoo, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          1301 Ave. of the Americas, 25 th floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 927-5544
          E-mail: AHorvath@FoleyHoag.com
                  jyoo@foleyhoag.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Nedeau, Esq.
          THE NEDEAU LAW FIRM
          750 Battery Street, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 516-4010
          E-mail: cnedeau@nedeaulaw.net

UNITED FUND: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED FUND ADVISORS, LLC, and
DOES  1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00345 (C.D. Cal., January 14, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In an attempt to promote its service, the Defendant allegedly
contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number ending in
-0058 beginning in or around September 2020 by using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The Plaintiff asserts that he
never provided his "prior express consent" to the Defendant to be
contacted on his cellular telephone via an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons were harmed by the Defendant's unsolicited
telemarketing calls by causing them to incur certain charges or
reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and
invading their privacy.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action complaint
seeking an injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the
future, as well as statutory damages, and any relief that the Court
deems just and proper.

United Fund Advisors, LLC is a business lending company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



UNITED STATES: Lado Class Suit Gets TRO on "Final Transit Rule"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AL OTRO LADO, et al., v.
PETER T. GAYNOR, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia
Bashant entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order requesting that the Court prohibit the
Defendants from applying yet another regulation -- titled Asylum
Eligibility and Procedural Modification ("Final Transit Rule") --
to members of the provisional class previously certified by this
Court.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for a TRO. The
Defendants are temporarily enjoined from applying 85 Fed. Reg.
82,260 (Dec. 17, 2020) to all non-Mexican asylum seekers who were
unable to make a direct asylum claim at a U.S. Port of Entry (POE)
before July 16, 2019 because of the U.S. government's metering
policy, and who continue to seek access to the U.S. asylum process.
This Order extends to the Defendants and any other federal
officials and personnel involved in 11 the asylum and/or removal
process.

The Court further ordered that a telephonic oral argument on the
issues raised in the Motion is set for February 3, 2021 at 1:30
p.m. This temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until
this date.

The Plaintiffs' underlying claims in this case concern Defendants'
purported "Turnback Policy," which included a "metering" or
"waitlist" system in which asylum-seekers at the southern border
were instructed "to wait on the bridge [at a port of entry], in the
pre-inspection area, or at a shelter" or were simply told that
"they [could not] be processed because the ports of entry [were]
'full' or 'at capacity.'"

The Plaintiffs allege that this policy was intended to deter
individuals from seeking asylum in the United States, in violation
of constitutional, statutory, and international law. The Court has
certified the class in this underlying dispute. The parties have
also filed and briefed cross-motions for summary judgment that
await resolution.

During the pendency of this action, Defendants have promulgated new
asylum eligibility regulations -- including the Final Transit Rule
-- that have threatened the preservation of the underlying class of
metered asylum-seekers. This has led to a morass of litigation
ancillary to the primary case regarding the lawfulness of
Defendants' metering practices.

A copy of the Court's temporary restraining order dated Jan. 18,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NqLuns
at no extra charge.[CC]

VILLAGES TRI-COUNTY: Watson Seeks to Certify Class of Nurses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA WATSON, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VILLAGES TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-00515-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   A. conditionally certifying a Florida class of:

      "current and former registered nurses (RNs), licensed
      practical nurses LPNs, and certified nursing assistant
      (CNAs) who worked for the Defendant at The Villages
      Regional Hospital in The Villages Florida from December
      15, 2017, through December 15, 2020 who believe they were
      not paid minimum wage or overtime for hours spent taking
      Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS) and Basic Life
      Support (BLS) classes required by the Defendant;"

   B. directing the Defendant to produce, in an electronic
      readable format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days
      of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the
      full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and
      e-mail addresses of putative class;

   C. directing the Defendant to send initial notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      Defendant’s counsel by first-class mail;

   D. directing the Defendant to post at all of its business
      locations located a copy of the initial notice;

   E. directing the Defendant to send a follow-up notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the
      close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt
      in to the instant action; and

   F. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days
      from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
      Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.

This is a collective action to enforce the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant
operates a hospital in Sumter County, Florida. Plaintiff Watson,
began working for the Defendant as a registered nurse in 2013 and
is still employed by the Defendant today.

She brings this action on behalf of herself and a group of
similarly-situated RNs, LPNs, and CNAs employed by the Defendant
who were not paid minimum wage or overtime (time-and-a-half) for
hours spent taking ACLS and BLS Classes required by the Defendant.


A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3sULtsjat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com
                  tsoriano@wfclaw.com

WALMART INC: Faces Stanton Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD STANTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART INC., C. DOUGLAS MCMILLON, and M. BRETT BIGGS,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00055-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 20, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Walmart securities between March 30, 2016
and December 22, 2020, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 30, 2016, the Company filed its annual report on Form 10-K
for the year ended January 31, 2016 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "2015 10-K"). The 2015 10-K was signed by
the Defendants McMillon and Biggs. The 2015 10-K contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by the
Defendants McMillon and Biggs attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the
disclosure of all fraud. The Company reported that 11% of its total
merchandise sales from Walmart U.S. were from the "Health and
Wellness" category, which included revenues from its pharmacy
business.

On December 22, 2020, while the market was open, the Department of
Justice announced in a press release that it has filed a lawsuit
against Walmart for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances
Act and the Company's role in the opioid epidemic. On this news,
Walmart's stock price fell $2.75 per share, or 1.88%, over the next
two trading days to close at $144.20 per share on December 23,
2020, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's common shares, he and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased Walmart securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

Walmart engages in the retail and wholesale operations in various
formats worldwide. The Company operates in three segments: Walmart
U.S., Walmart International, and Sam's Club. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Neglects Request of Account Information, Mendoza Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MENDOZA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 5:21-cv-00098 (C.D.
Cal., Jan. 20, 2021) alleges that Wells Fargo has neglected to
fulfill its duty to provide information available to it in the
regular course of business to the Plaintiff upon receipt of
Plaintiff's Qualified Written Request (QWR) and Request for
Information (RFI).

The Plaintiff contends that Wells Fargo has demonstrated a "pattern
or practice" of failing to adequately respond to borrowers'
requests for account information, which makes Wells Fargo liable
for statutory damages in an amount up to $2,000 for each failure to
adequately respond.

Notwithstanding this glaring failure to abide by its statutory
duty, and despite Plaintiff's way to inform Wells Fargo of its
failure, Wells Fargo continues to incorrectly characterize his and
other borrowers' reasonable requests for account information as
"privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information of Wells
Fargo, the suit says.

Under RESPA and Regulation X, loan servicers, including Wells
Fargo, must provide borrowers with specific account information
available to them in the regular course of business upon receiving
a QWR or a RFI from the borrower.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief statutory damages, and actual
damages resulting from Defendant's misconduct.

Wells Fargo is the loan servicer for the Plaintiff's mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Alan Gudino, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  alan@kazlg.com

WEST VIRGINIA: Richards Directed to File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH RICHARDS, v. WEST
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00397 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Thomas E. Johnston
entered an order

   1. scheduling a settlement conference for February 8, 2021,
      at 9:30 a.m.;

      -- Individuals with full authority to settle the case for
         each party shall be present in person;

   2. extending the deadline for filing class certification
      briefing as follows:

      -- the Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class
         certification no later than February 15, 2021.

      -- Responses are due no later than March 15, 2021, and
         replies are due no later than April 1, 2021; and

   3. directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to
      counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources is a
government agency of the U.S. state of West Virginia. The
department administers the state's health, social, and welfare
programs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/367oj7X at no extra charge.[CC]

YOUNG LIVING: Oil Products Have No Therapeutic Benefits, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI MACNAUGHTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC, Case No.
5:21-cv-00071-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2021) is a consumer class
action brought individually by Plaintiff and on behalf of all
persons who purchased essential oil products labeled as
"therapeutic" from the Defendant.

Contrary to the express representations made on its label, the
Products, which claim to be "therapeutic" and provide a number of
health-related benefits, provide no healthy or medicinal benefit
whatsoever, the Plaintiff contends.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct, the
Plaintiff and Members of the Classes have been, and continue to be,
harmed by purchasing a product under false pretenses and paying
more for it than they otherwise would have, if they would have
purchased it at all, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York residing in the
city of Syracuse. She purchased the Products for her own use during
the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint and most
recently on February 2020.

Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi,
Utah. Founded by Donald Gary Young in 1993, it sells essential oils
and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com
                  mbarney@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
                  gmason@masonllp.com

ZILLOW GROUP: Stipulation on Dissemination of Notices Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled IN RE ZILLOW GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. C17-1387-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington signed the parties'
stipulation and proposed order for the dissemination of notices.

By an Order dated October 28, 2020, the Court certified the action
to proceed as a class action on behalf of a Class consisting of:

     All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow
     securities between November 17, 2014 and August 8, 2017,
     both dates inclusive, excluding Defendants herein, the
     officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant
     times, members of their immediate families and their legal
     representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity
     in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

The Parties agree to the use of the form of the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action and the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action.
The proposed form and content of the Notices meet the requirements
of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs select Strategic Claims Services as the Notice
Administrator.

Defendant Zillow will use reasonable efforts to, within 21 calendar
days after entry of the accompanying Order for Approval of Notice
and Summary Notice and at no cost to the Class, have its transfer
agent provide or cause to be provided to the Notice Administrator
security holder records (consisting of the security holder names,
addresses, and email addresses to the extent the transfer agent has
access to them) in electronic form, identifying all persons or
entities who purchased Zillow securities during the period from
November 17, 2014, through August 8, 2017, both dates inclusive.
The Class Counsel will be responsible for all other costs
associated with disseminating the Notices.

The parties also agree that not later than 30 calendar days from
entry of the Order, the Notice Administrator will cause the Summary
Notice to be either (a) emailed to the Class Members for whom the
Notice Administrator is able to obtain email addresses or (b)
mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Class Members
at the addresses set forth in the records provided by Zillow's
transfer agent, if no email address can be obtained, or who may
otherwise be identified with reasonable effort.

The Notice Administrator will use reasonable efforts to give notice
to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other persons and
entities who may have, for the beneficial interest of any person or
entity other than itself or themselves, purchased Zillow securities
during the period from November 17, 2014, through August 8, 2017,
both dates inclusive.

Contemporaneously with the mailing of the Summary Notice, the
Notice Administrator will cause a copy of the Notice to be posted
on the Notice Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net/Zillow, from which the Class Members may
download copies of the Notice.

The Notice Administrator will cause a copy of the Summary Notice to
be published once in Investor's Business Daily and issued over
GlobeNewswire within 10 calendar days of the mailing of the Summary
Notice.

The Class Members will be bound by all determinations and judgments
in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such
persons and entities request exclusion from the Class in a timely
and proper manner, as hereinafter provided.

Any Class Member, who retains separate counsel in connection with
the matter must enter an appearance, as set out in the Notice, no
later than 75 calendar days after the Notice Date. Within 80
calendar days after the Notice Date, the Class Counsel will forward
to counsel for the Defendants any notices of appearance that were
mailed to the Class Counsel but not filed with the Court.

The Class Counsel will file with the Court proof of mailing of the
Summary Notice, proof of publication of the Summary Notice, and
proof of posting of the Notice on the Notice Administrator's
website within 10 business days following Summary Notice
publication date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 14, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyl5sm9e from Leagle.com.

Colin George -- cgeorge@ardentlaw.com -- ARDENT LAW GROUP, PLLC;
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Counsel for Lead
Plaintiffs.

Sean C. Knowles -- sknowles@perkinscoie.com -- PLLC PERKINS COIE
LLP, Matthew D. Ingber -- mingber@mayerbrown.com -- Joseph De
Simone -- jdesimone@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP.


[*] Clayton Utz, ICP Launch Insurance Suit Over COVID-19 Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Zhang, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that investor Claim
Partner and Clayton Utz are starting a collective action on behalf
of thousands of business interruption (BI) insurance policyholders
against insurers that have knocked back claims for losses following
forced COVID-related closures.

The move is aimed to provide a potential lifeline for tens of
thousands of businesses crippled by financial losses incurred
during COVID-19 lockdowns, including restaurants, bars, gyms,
cinemas, retailers and tourism operators.

It follows a NSW Court of Appeal ruling last November in a test
case that insurers could not rely on standard "quarantinable
disease" exclusions when knocking back claims for losses caused by
COVID-19 under business interruption (BI) policies. Insurers had
incorrectly asserted that the exclusion was a "pandemic exclusion"
and the Court found that it did not apply to COVID-19.

Lawyers had previously told Lawyers Weekly that the insurance
industry could be subject to hundreds of millions in COVID-linked
payouts after suffering the loss of the test case that was designed
to solidify their position on rejecting claims.

ICP is asking all businesses that suffered pandemic-related
financial losses to submit their BI insurance policies for review
before registering interest in the joint response to insurers.

Clayton Utz will be engaged to advise individual businesses on
whether they have a basis for pressing their BI claim and should
consider joining in the collective action. The firm had previously
also acted for the successful policyholders in the recent test
case.

"COVID-19 cut a swathe through the livelihoods of thousands of
business owners who, through no fault of their own, were forced to
close for extended periods. If they have valid claims for
business-interruption losses, then insurers need to step up, not
deny and delay payment," ICP managing director, John Walker, said.

"Our message to business owners is do not take your insurer at its
word when it says you're not covered for BI losses - check your
policies closely and get independent advice."

More than 100 small businesses had contacted ICP and Mr Walker said
he expects this to reach "in the tens of thousands", adding failure
to pay could have wider implications for the economy.

ICP also said that the action is bolstered by a decision handed
down recently by Britain's highest court, the Supreme Court, that
upheld earlier UK court rulings affirming the ability of UK
businesses to make BI claims related to COVID-19 closures. UK legal
precedents are relevant to Australian legal proceedings.

"ICP is offering an efficient way for businesses to have policy
wordings reviewed by insurance law experts at Clayton Utz, at no
charge to the business. If their BI claim looks valid, they then
have the option of joining our collective process to have claims
resolved," Mr Walker said.

"We intend to engage constructively with insurers to see if claims
can be resolved without the need for litigation but if that is
necessary, Clayton Utz will act for the lead applicants in those
proceedings."

Uncertainty surrounding the validity of pandemic-related BI claims
centred on exclusion clauses set out in many standard insurance
policies that excluded losses arising from "quarantinable disease"
as defined by the Commonwealth Quarantine Act. However, when this
act was repealed and when its replacement Biosecurity Act 2015
commenced, the "quarantinable disease" wording in those standard
policies was not updated.

In the test case brought by the insurance industry last year to
resolve the issue, the insured businesses, represented by Clayton
Utz, argued successfully that the reference to "quarantinable
disease" under the Quarantine Act in policy wording does not apply
to COVID, as it is not a quarantinable disease. The NSW Court of
Appeal ruled unanimously in favour of insured businesses.

ICP said that a range of other BI policy wordings that were not the
subject of the recent NSW test case could also provide openings for
businesses to make a valid claim for pandemic-related losses.

Mr Walker said the courts have spoken decisively on this issue and
insurers need to respect that.

"For many businesses, the payout of their BI insurance claim is all
that stands between ongoing viability and collapse," he said.

"Insurers have an important role to play in Australia's recovery
from Covid and the public expects them to meet, and not shirk,
their legal obligations. They should be actively assessing claims
and communicating with policyholders, even while their application
to appeal to the High Court is considered." [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 ***