/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210204.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 4, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 20

                            Headlines

AARGON AGENCY: Nelson Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
AARGON COLLECTION: Katz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Myers Challenges Proposed $5-B Sale to Lockheed
ALEX AND ANI: Howard Sues Over Failure to Pay Store Manager's OT
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Motion Filing Due August 11

AMERICAN RETAIL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Faces Zhukov Suit Over Decline in Share Price
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Pearlstein Suit Wins Class Certification
BLUESTONE PERENNIALS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BNSF RAILWAY: Briefing on Class Status Bid Stayed Pending Mediation

BOSTON FOUNDRY: Faces Mekrami Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
BRENTON BURNS: Riskin Asks Court to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
BRICK PLUS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUDSGUNSHOP.COM LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANON U.S.A.: Faces Rouse Class Action Suit Over Data Breach

CANTON FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Torres Claims
CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES: Class of Call-Center Employees Certified
CARENET INFOMEDIA: Gabel Seeks to Certify Class of FLSA TeleNurses
CARESAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Diggs Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Wages
CARNIVAL CORP: Approval of Request for Private Mediation Pending

CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Former Guests' Class Action Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Former Guests' Suit Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Junk Lindsay & Zehner Class Suit Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: Turner Appeal in Dismissal of Class Suit Pending
CARRIZO OIL: Chisum Bid for Conditional Cert. Nixed w/o Prejudice

CHW GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Claims
CREDIT CONTROL: Einhorn Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING: Proserv Removal Files Suit in D. Minnesota
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DCM SERVICES: Madlinger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Children Sexually Abused by Staff, Suit Says
FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Faces Williams Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Package Handlers, Chiu Says
FIELDWORKS LLC: Response to Mathews' Class Status Bid Due Feb. 25
FIRE STATION: Rison Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York

FLAVORGOD LLC: Faces Hinesley Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FLORIDA SOUTHERN: April 2 Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought
FRESH FARMS: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filling Set for March 26
FRIENDS HEALTH: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Jang et al. Claim
GABRIEL BROTHERS: Skaggs Bid for Conditional Certification Nixed

GC SERVICES: Reply to Class Status Opposition Set for February 16
GENERALI U.S.: Dziagwa Files Insurance Suit in D. Colorado
GOLDEN BOLT: Underpays Warehouse Workers, De Gonzalez Suit Claims
GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement Wins Final OK in Profile Litigation
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Meredith Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages

GREEN GENIE: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
HARLAY HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
HEIDI KLEIN: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIGH SPEED: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IBM CORP: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by March 8

ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Luecking BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
INTERSTATE MUSIC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ITALIANTOUCH USA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
J.B. HUNT: Wilson Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Floyd Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky

KRAFT MUSIC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KRS GLOBAL: Kumar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Certifies Settlement Class & Subclass
LHC GROUP: Class Certification Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 28, 2022
LURKING CLASS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MAGICAL BEAUNI: Xu Must File Class Status Bid by May 28
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Deadline Extension for Class Status Bid Nixed
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Says
MATTHEWS SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Berglund Suit Says
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: County Commission Files Suit in S.D. West Va.

MEDICREDIT INC: Court Decertifies Class in Kwasniewski Suit
MEDNAX SERVICES: Fails to Secure Patients' Health Info, Cohen Says
MERCK & CO: Taylor Sues Over Zostavax Vaccine's Undisclosed Risks
MICROSOFT CORP: Ten-Month Claims Period Closes Sept. 23
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pinkesz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

MOD SUPER: Rocio BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NALU KAI INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEVADA: Kerkorian Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed
NGM INSURANCE: Class Status Bid Filing Due March 29 in MSP Suit
NOVARTIS AG: Average Wholesale Price Related Suit vs. NPC Underway

NOVARTIS AG: Consolidated Exforge-Related Class Suit Ongoing
NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz and Fougera Continue to Defend Class Suits
NOVARTIS AG: Valsartan and Valsartan/HCT-Related Suits Ongoing
OC RAMPS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OOGIE'S SNACKS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

P & Z FOODS: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for June 30
PACIFICA HOTEL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Corvarrubias Claims
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Fredricks FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Rumely Files Suit in S.D. California
PHENIXFIN CORPORATION: Kahn Sues Over Removal Provision in Bylaws

PLANT DELIGHTS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PORCH.COM INC: Preston Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
REHABMART LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RIPPLE LABS: Sale of XRP Tokens Violates FDUTPA, Toomey Alleges
ROANOKE AIRPORT: Pinon FLSA Suit Gets Collective Action Status

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniels Suit Alleges Stock Market Manipulation
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Fray Suit Over GME Stock Trading Control
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Ng Suit Over Open Market Manipulation
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Illegally Restraint Stock Trade, Nelson Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Stock Trading, Courtney Suit Says

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Stock Trading, Kayali Suit Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Nabi Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Campaign
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ross Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Simpson Sues Over Manipulation of Open-Market
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Perry Sues Over Imposed Trading Restrictions

ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Dalton Sues Over Removal of Stocks From App
ROYAL PALACE: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
SAMSON TECHNOLOGIES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SANCHEZ OIL: Seeks to Stay Class Status Proceedings in "Hutchins"

SHOE SHOW INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges
SIGUE CORPORATION: Babare Consumer Suit Goes to W.D. Washington
SIMMONS BANK: Class Status of Checking Account Holders Sought
SKYLINE RESTORATION: Magaliel Suit Seeks Proper Minimum & OT Wages
SOUTHERN VALLEY: Bejines-Gonzalez Seeks Initial OK of Settlement

SPIRIT MANUFACTURING: Faces Quinn Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPRING HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cockrell Suit Claims
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Brekke Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
STATE FARM: Court Reimburses Vogt Class Counsel $245K
STL INTERNATIONAL: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

STRIVECTIN OPERATING: Slowinski Sues Over Mislabelled Neck Cream
SUMMERHAYS MUSIC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNRISE SENIOR: Altamirano Suit Removed to C.D. California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Says Class Cert. Has No Effect in Proceedings
SYBARITIC CONSULTING: Hindi Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages

TARGET CORPORATION: Bowen Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
TAX RISE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due June 1
TENAFLY IMPORTS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TENNESSEE: Prisoners Seeks to Certify Class Action
THIRTY THREE THREADS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

TRADITIONS MANAGEMENT: Toney-Marcum Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
TYCO FIRE: Settlement Agreement Wins Initial Approval in AFFF Suit
U.S. TAPE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: James Bid to Certify Drivers Class Partly OK'd
UNITED AMERICAN: Bailey Seeks Security Guards' Unpaid OT Wages

UNITED SERVICES: Marchek Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VERTAFORE INC: Mulvey Alleges Unlawful Use of Customers' Records
VILLA MONTES: Hotel Online Booking Violates ADA, Whitaker Alleges
VIRGINIA MOTEL: Faces Garcia ADA Suit Over Online Booking System

VISTA EQUITY: Faces Solak Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Stipulation to Extend Class Status Bid Date Nixed
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hernandez Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Nelson FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
WAREHOUSE SKATEBOARDS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WLLC II: Easley Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
XPO LOGISTICS: Faces Hall Suit Over Workplace Racial Discrimination
YCI METHANOL: Faces Strawn Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas
ZAGG INC: Rosa Sues Over Misleading SEC Registration Statements

                            *********

AARGON AGENCY: Nelson Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AARGON AGENCY, INC. d/b/a AARGON COLLECTION
AGENCY, Defendant, Case 4:21-cv-00041-REB (D. Idaho, Jan. 28, 2021)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Aargon Agency, Inc. provides mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services. The Company offers national debt recovery, as
well as first party, early out collection, and billing services.
Aargon Agency serves customers worldwide. [BN[

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leland K. Faux, Esq.
          Leland Faux, Esq. PLLC
          381 Shoup Ave, Ste 214
          Idaho Falls, ID 83402
          Telephone: (208) 497-2214
          E-mail: Leland@LelandFaux.com


AARGON COLLECTION: Katz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Collection
Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Esty Katz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aargon Collection
Agency, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00520 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2021).

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

Aargon Collection Agency -- https://www.aargon.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed debt collection agency headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada with four offices in Hawaii, Colorado, Florida and
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Myers Challenges Proposed $5-B Sale to Lockheed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Myers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AEROJET ROCKETDYNE HOLDINGS, INC., EILEEN P. DRAKE,
KEVIN P. CHILTON, THOMAS A. CORCORAN, JAMES R. HENDERSON, WARREN G.
LICHTENSTEIN, LANCE W. LORD, AUDREY McNIFF and MARTIN TURCHIN, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00844 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2021) is brought on behalf
of all other public stockholders of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings,
Inc., against Aerojet Rocketdyne, the Company's Board of Directors
for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for
breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Individual
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Lockheed Martin
Corporation, and Mizar Sub, Inc., as a result of an unfair process
for an unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on
a proposed all cash transaction valued at approximately $5 billion
(the "Proposed Transaction").

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
December 20, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Lockheed Martin acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Aerojet Rocketdyne's common stock at a price of $56 per
share in cash. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Aerojet
Rocketdyne stockholders will be allegedly frozen out of any
interest in the surviving entity. Thereafter, on January 25, 2021,
Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Form
PREM14A (the "Preliminary Proxy") with the SEC in support of the
Proposed Transaction.

According to the complaint, the Proposed Transaction is unfair and
undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the Preliminary
Proxy describes an insufficient process in which the Board
acquiesced to Lockheed Martin's low price bid without fielding
indications of interest from other potentially interested third
parties. In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual
Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good
faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell
Aerojet Rocketdyne without first taking steps to ensure that
Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the
Proposed Transaction to benefit themselves and/or Lockheed Martin
without regard for Aerojet Rocketdyne public stockholders.
Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction
and compel the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their
fiduciary duties to Aerojet Rocketdyne stockholders.

Allegedly, in violation of the Exchange Act and in further
violation of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants caused to be
filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on January 25,
2021 with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote
their Aerojet Rocketdyne shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient,
deprives Aerojet Rocketdyne's stockholders of the information they
need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary duties. the
Preliminary Proxy omits and/or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process and in
particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b) the
financial projections for Aerojet Rocketdyne, provided by Aerojet
Rocketdyne to the Company's financial advisors, Citi Global
Markets, Inc. and Evercore Group L.L.C.; and (c) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses, if any, that
purport to support the fairness opinions created by Citi and
Evercore and provided to the Company and the Board.

Absent judicial intervention, the Proposed Transaction will be
consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the
Class. This action seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in
the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from violation of law by Defendants, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has been an Aerojet Rocketdyne stockholder.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is an aerospace and defense company that
provides propulsion systems and energetics to the space, missile
defense and strategic systems, and tactical systems areas, in
support of domestic and international customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com


ALEX AND ANI: Howard Sues Over Failure to Pay Store Manager's OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME HOWARD, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. ALEX AND ANI, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:21-cv-60196-WPD (S.D. Fla., January 26, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pattern
and practice of depriving workers of overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in or around November
2018 as a store manager.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he customarily and regularly
worked 40 hours a week for the Defendant, he was deprived of
overtime compensation when he worked over 40 hours a week at one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay. In addition, the
Defendant improperly deducted his compensation if he has worked
less than 40 hours a week, specifically for alleged "sick time"
used, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for the unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, all recoverable interest, and
any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Alex and Ani, LLC is a retailer and producer of jewelry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq.
          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
          12401 Orange Drive, Suite 123
          Davie, FL 33330
          Tel: (786) 485-5232
          E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com
                  bayardo@pba-law.com
                  valerie@pba-law.com
                  brody@pba-law.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Motion Filing Due August 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA KOUCHI, as an
individual, and on behalf all similarly situated employees, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-07802-PSG-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez entered an order granting stipulation to continue
deadline for class certification motion and alter briefing schedule
as follows:

                Event                         Deadline

   1. Class Certification Motion filing:     August 11, 2021

   2. Opposition to Class Certification:     September 8, 2021
      Motion

   3. Reply in Support of Class              September 22, 2021
      Certification Motion:

   4. Hearing on Motion for Class            October 25, 2021
      Certification:

   5. Trial                                  May 10, 2022

   6. All Dates and Deadlines                Continued in
      Related Trial Date:                    accordance with
                                             the Trial Date

   7. Final Pretrial Conference              April 25, 2022

American Airlines, Inc. is a major American airline headquartered
in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas -- Fort Worth metroplex. It
is the world's largest airline when measured by fleet size,
scheduled passengers carried, and revenue passenger mile.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YBifAy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael G. McGuinness, Esq.
          Kelly Wood, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: mmeguinness@omm com
                  kwood@omm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          George B. Singer, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blivd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: Kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  Kogenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  psinger@mahoney-law.net

AMERICAN RETAIL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Retail
Supply Corp. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. American Retail Supply
Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-00733 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2021).

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

American Retail Supply Corp. --
https://www.americanretailsupply.com/ -- operates as a retail store
and offers various products which includes store fixtures, retail
displays, wholesale packaging, security products, back room
supplies, computer systems, store signage, merchant services, gift
cards, and marketing materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Faces Zhukov Suit Over Decline in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Zhukov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ASTRAZENECA PLC, PASCAL SORIOT, MARC DUNOYER, and
MENELAS PANGALOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00825 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021)
is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired AstraZeneca securities between May 21, 2020 and November
20, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of
its top officials, with regard to the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.

In April 2020, the Company partnered with Oxford University to
develop a potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine for COVID-19,
later dubbed AZD1222. Oxford University's work on developing a
COVID-19 vaccine began in January 2020, almost as soon as the virus
was recognized globally. Volunteers for the first clinical trial
were recruited and screened in March 2020, and a Phase 1 clinical
trial was launched the following month.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) initial clinical trials for AZD1222 had suffered from a
critical manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of
trial participants receiving half the designed dosage; (ii)
clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate
patient subgroups, each with subtly different treatments,
undermining the validity and import of the conclusions that could
be drawn from the clinical data across these disparate patient
populations; (iii) certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222
had not received a second dose at the designated time points, but
rather received the second dose up to several weeks after the dose
had been scheduled to be delivered according to the original trial
design; (iv) AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number
of patients over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for
AZD1222, despite this patient population being particularly
vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority
target market for the drug; (v) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for
AZD1222 had been hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in
execution, and a failure to properly coordinate and communicate
with regulatory authorities and the general public; (vi) as a
result of all the foregoing, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had
not been conducted in accordance with industry best practices and
acceptable standards and the data and conclusions that could be
derived from the clinical trials was of limited utility; (vii) as a
result of all the foregoing, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved
for commercial use in the U.S. in the short term, one of the
largest potential markets for the drug; and (viii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the
results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222.
Although the release claimed that the drug candidate had met its
primary efficacy endpoints, the announcement immediately began to
raise questions among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca
disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale
trials in disparate locales -- the United Kingdom and Brazil --
that, for unexplained reasons, employed two different dosing
regimens.

On this news, AstraZeneca's American Depository Share price fell
nearly $2.00 per share during the trading day on November 23, 2020,
on extremely high trading volume of over 13 million ADSs traded. As
negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed
problems and flaws in AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222,
AstraZeneca's ADS price allegedly fell to $52.60 per share by
market close on November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading
days in response to adverse news on abnormally high trading volume.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired AstraZeneca securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

AstraZeneca PLC is a British–Swedish multinational pharmaceutical
and biopharmaceutical company with its headquarters in Cambridge,
England.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Phone: (972) 521-6868
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 jlopiano@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Pearlstein Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN PEARLSTEIN,
Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BLACKBERRY LIMITED (F/K/A RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED), THORSTEN
HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA, and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN, Case No.
1:13-cv-07060-CM-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge C.J. McMahon
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of

      "all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
      stock of BlackBerry Limited on the NASDAQ during the
      period from March 28, 2013 through and including September
      20, 2013 (the 'Class Period'), excluding the Defendants,
      officers, and directors of BlackBerry Limited, 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 class
      is modified to exclude true in-and-out traders.;

    2. appointing class representatives; and

    3. appoint class counsel.

On September 29, 2017, the Lead Plaintiffs Todd Cox and Mary Dinzik
and additional Plaintiffs Yong M. Cho and Batuhan Ulug filed the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, the operative
complaint in this action, against the Defendants BlackBerry
Limited, its former Chief Executive Officer Thorsten Heins, its
former Chief Financial Officer Brian Bidulka, and its Chief Legal
Officer Steve Zipperstein for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs bring this federal securities class action on behalf
of the purchasers of BlackBerry common stock between March 28, 2013
and September 20, 2013. They allege that the Defendants made a
series of materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the Company's new BlackBerry smartphones (BB10s) during
the Class Period. Cho and Ulug were dismissed from this case. They
appealed their dismissal to the Second Circuit, where their appeal
is currently pending.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' misstatements and
omissions maintained the price of BlackBerry's stock or otherwise
prevented it from falling over the course of the Class Period.
Thus, when the Plaintiffs bought BlackBerry common stock during the
Class Period, they did so at an artificially inflated price. They
were harmed when the stock price dropped as these
misrepresentations were revealed throughout the Class Period.

A copy of the Court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tluq2D at no extra charge.[CC]

BLUESTONE PERENNIALS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluestone Perennials,
Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Bluestone Perennials,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00855 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Bluestone Perennials -- https://www.bluestoneperennials.com/ -- is
a plant nursery in Ohio enduring 5-acre plant nursery with 1,000+
varieties of shrubs, flowers & grasses, plus supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BNSF RAILWAY: Briefing on Class Status Bid Stayed Pending Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Macias, et al., v. BNSF
Railway Company, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02305 (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Toby Crouse entered an order stating that:

   1. The briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is
      stayed pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Mediation and Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended
      Complaint; and

   2. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Mediation and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
      File Fifth Amended Complaint is extended up to and
      including Feb. 3, 2021:

     -- a hearing before Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on to
        these motions is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2021; and

     -- a Zoom invitation will be sent to counsel a week prior
        to the hearing. Following the resolution of these
        motions, District Judge Toby Crouse will set a status
        conference to set the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's
        Motion to Certify Class.

The nature of suit states Real Property - Torts to Land.

District Judge Toby Crouse and Magistrate Judge Gwynne Birzer held
a telephone conference to discuss pending motions. The Plaintiffs
appeared through counsel, Gerald Lee Cross, Jr. Defendant, BNSF
Railway Company, appeared through counsel, Jennifer B. Wieland.
Defendant, Miles Leasing, LLC, appeared through counsel, Donald M.
McLean. Defendant, Unified Government of Wyandotte County and
Kansas City, Kansas, appeared through counsel, Daniel E. Kuhn and
Susan Alig.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company is the largest
freight railroad network in North America. One of seven North
American Class I railroads, BNSF has 41,000 employees, 32,500 miles
of track in 28 states, and more than 8,000 locomotives.[CC]

BOSTON FOUNDRY: Faces Mekrami Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMIR MEKRAMI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON FOUNDRY, INC., dba MADE IN COOKWARE,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-001722 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct.,
January 26, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection ACT.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly engages in
unsolicited text messaging to promote its products with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. To further its marketing strategy,
the Defendant produced and/or created an advertisement on
television wherein it directed the Plaintiff and other consumers to
text the word "COOK" to 88209 to be able to access its "Black
Friday Deals". The Plaintiff texted the word "COOK" without
intending to make any purchase and solely to gain access to the
catalog of goods, and within moments of texting, the Plaintiff
received an automated text-message response from the Defendant on
November 27, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that he never requested or otherwise
consented to receive any automated marketing text messages from the
Defendant using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS).
However, the Defendant began sending unsolicited marketing text
messages to the Plaintiff after the conclusion of the Defendant's
purported "Black Friday Deals", specifically in the month of
December 2020 and as recently as January 22, 2021. The Defendant
allegedly used a messaging platform that permitted the Defendant to
transmit thousands of text messages automatically and without any
human involvement.

The Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled
statutory damages, as well as an injunction prohibiting the
Defendant from using an ATDS to call and text message telephone
numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the prior express
consent of the called party, the suit says.

Boston Foundry, Inc. sells pots, pans, and other cooking utensils.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


BRENTON BURNS: Riskin Asks Court to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled DANIEL J. RISKIN, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BRENTON BURNS; MARY BETH JENKINS; RAYMOND SCOTT; JOHN STEPHEN
WHITEHURST; SCOTT HUEBNER; JOHN KUZMISHIN; FRED SCHWARZER; CRAIG
GOMULKA; CHARLES TALBOT HEPPENSTALL, JR.; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
MEDICAL CENTER; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE; UPMC HEALTH PLAN,
INC.; CHARTER LIFE SCIENCES (OHIO) II, L.P.; and CHARTER LIFE
SCIENCES II, L.P.; CLS PARTNERS II (OHIO), LLC; CLS PARTNERS II,
L.P.; and CLS MANAGEMENT II, LLC; and HEALTH FIDELITY, INC., Case
No. 2019-0570-KSJM, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on January 29, 2021 to certify an
interlocutory appeal concerning its December 31, 2020 decision to
dismiss Count I of the case's operative complaint.

The Plaintiff believes the Delaware Supreme Court should determine
the substantial legal issue of whether a company's issuance of
underpriced convertible preferred stock to a controlling
stockholder, pre-conversion, can constitute a transfer of economic
value sufficient to support a direct claim under Gentile v.
Rossette, 906 A.2d 91 (Del. 2006).

Count I pleads a direct claim because it alleges: (i) UPMC was a
controlling stockholder; (ii) Health Fidelity consummated the 2017
Series B Financing at an unfair price; (iii) the 2017 Series B
Financing increased UPMC's economic stake and voting power through
the issuance of Series B Preferred Stock with liquidation
preferences, conversion rights, and the right to vote generally
with the common stockholders; and (iv) the 2017 Series B Financing
effected a corresponding decrease in the economic value and voting
power of Health Fidelity’s minority stockholders.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is a global nonprofit
health enterprise located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside is a tertiary care hospital based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

UPMC Health Plan, Inc. is a provider of health plans headquartered
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Charter Life Sciences (Ohio) II, L.P. is a venture capital fund
operated by Charter Venture Capital in Ohio.

Charter Life Sciences II, L.P. is a venture capital fund operated
by Charter Venture Capital.

CLS Partners II (Ohio), LLC is a provider of employee benefits
based in Ohio.

CLS Partners II, L.P. is a provider of employee benefits, risk
management, and retirement services.

CLS Management II, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.

Health Fidelity, Inc. is a healthcare technology company based in
San Mateo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                           
         Richard P. Rollo, Esq.
         Travis S. Hunter, Esq.
         Sarah A. Clark, Esq.
         Robert B. Greco, Esq.
         Angela Lam, Esq.
         RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
         920 N. King Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 651-7700

BRICK PLUS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brick Plus Mortar
LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Brick Plus Mortar LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00844 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Brick + Mortar -- https://thisisbrickandmortar.com/ -- produces
southern inspired scented candles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BUDSGUNSHOP.COM LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BudsGunShop.Com, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. BudsGunShop.Com, LLC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00739 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2021).

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

Budsgunshop.com, LLC -- https://www.budsgunshop.com/ -- offers for
shotguns, pistols, revolvers, rifles, and muzzleloaders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CANON U.S.A.: Faces Rouse Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA ROUSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. CANON U.S.A., INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00414 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25,
2021) alleges that Canon failed to properly protect its employees'
highly sensitive personal and financial information, including
employees' names, social security numbers, dates of birth, numbers
for driver's licenses or government-issued IDs, bank account
numbers utilized for direct deposits from Canon, and electronic
signatures.

Canon is a provider of consumer, business-to-business, and
industrial digital imaging solutions to the United States, Latin
America, and the Caribbean markets. A significant portion of
Canon's business products are geared towards the protection of
sensitive data and documents. According to Defendant Canon's own
product literature, "[f]rom identity theft and intellectual
property loss to infection by viruses and malware, IT
administrators are tasked with adequately protecting information
and assets from threats from the outside as well as within."

According to the complaint, the Company failed to adequately
protect itself and highly confidential and sensitive private
information of its own current and former employees and their
dependents and beneficiaries from outside cyberattack.

On August 4, 2020, Canon became aware of a serious ransomware
attack that occurred between July 20, 2020 and August 6, 2020 on
its own networks and systems. This attack resulted in an
unauthorized third-party gaining access to files on Canon's servers
containing fifteen years' worth of personal, sensitive and
confidential information about Canon's current and former
employees, and their beneficiaries and dependents, dating back to
2005.

To make matters worse, despite learning of the Canon Data Breach in
August 2020, Canon allegedly did not publicly announce the Canon
Data Breach until more than three months later, on or around
November 25, 2020. In this long delayed announcement, Canon
disclosed that the data accessed by the attacker included
employees' personal identifying information ("PII"), the suit
says.

The Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to execute
the Canon Data Breach and steal Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information. The Canon Data Breach was caused and enabled
by Defendant's violation of its obligations to abide by best
practices and industry standards concerning the security of Private
Information, added the suit.

Plaintiff Diana Rouse was employed by Canon for several years until
she left the Company in 2005. As a condition of her employment, Ms.
Rouse was required to and did provide her personal identifying and
financial information to Canon, including the very type of Private
Information stolen by the criminals during the Canon Data Breach.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, seeking monetary damages,
statutory damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief as
authorized in equity or by law. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Telephone: (917) 983-9321
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite No. 302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Telephone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com

CANTON FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Torres Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO TORRES v. CANTON FOOD CO., INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV02988 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 25, 2021)
is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees alleging that the Defendants
failed to compensate for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum
wages, and failed to pay overtime in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that Canton violated Labor Code section
1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 because it failed to pay him and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked,
including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for
"off the clock" work. The Plaintiff further asserts that he and
others were not paid for all hours worked in violation of Labor
Code Section 1194 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order due to Canton's company policy of rounding of the actual
hours worked as a part of their business practice, which
disproportionately affected the employees and resulted in less
working hours and less pay.

The Plaintiff started working for Canton on August 21, 2020 as a
stocker.

Canton Food wholesales and distributes food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES: Class of Call-Center Employees Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN ENGER, SARAH
INFANTE, and RAMON LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THOMAS L. CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00078-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the class of:

      "all hourly call-center employees who were employed by
      [defendant], anywhere in the United States, at any time
      from August 12, 2017 through the final disposition of this
      matter;"

   2. amending the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to reflect the
      appropriate class description, adding language clarifying
      that certification is conditional, amending the
      eligibility requirement to concern start-up/shut-down time
      around lunch breaks (not clocking out for short rest
      breaks), correctng the relevant time period, and adding
      the language requested by defendant on depositions and
      trial testimony;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notice via mail and
      email as requested;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send reminder notices via
      email as requested and to allow putative class members to
      complete their consent forms electronically;

   5. directing the Defendant to post the notice and consent
      forms at its call centers in plain view; and

   6. directing the Defendant to send plaintiffs' the requested
      information on putative class members in the requested
      format within 14 days of this order.

The Plaintiff Megan Enger was employed by the defendant in Keokuk,
Iowa. The Plaintiff Sarah Infante was employed by the defendant in
El Paso, Texas. The Plaintiff Ramon Lopez was employed by defendant
in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Plaintiffs allege that they and
other similarly situated persons "have not been paid for all hours
worked nor the proper amount of overtime."

The Defendant is an employer who operates call centers in various
states.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cxqbet at no extra charge.[CC]

CARENET INFOMEDIA: Gabel Seeks to Certify Class of FLSA TeleNurses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE GABEL,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CARENET -- INFOMEDIA GROUP, INC., d/b/a CARENET HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, Case No. 5:20-cv-01420-JKP-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      overtime wages under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on
      behalf of:

      "all current and former hourly Tele Nurses who worked for
      Carenet -- Infomedia Group, Inc. in the United States at
      any time in the past three years";

   2. requiring the Defendant to identify all putative members
      of the FLSA Collective by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, dates and location of employment,
      phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and
      importable format within days of the entry of the order;

   3. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved
      Notice of this action to putative members of the FLSA
      Collective via U.S. Mail, email and text message; and

   4. approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court-
      approved Notice is sent during which putative FLSA
      Collective members may join this case by returning their
      written consents, with one reminder email sent 30 days
      into the opt-in period to anyone who at that point has not
      yet opted into the action.

The Plaintiff contends that the Court should grant her requested
relief because she has identified that she and all other TeleNurses
are similarly situated insofar as being required to use the same
centrally implemented computer timekeeping system, which does not
accurately capture hours worked with respect to certain work
activities -- such as loading and logging into computer programs --
that necessarily occurs at the start of every shift and after every
lunch period for TeleNurses. She has also identified that the same
attendance and schedule adherence policies applied to all
TeleNurses.

Carenet is an American provider of healthcare support services,
healthcare navigation services, care management programs and
consumer engagement solutions to private and public institutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3czq2qG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CARESAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Diggs Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL DIGGS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CARESAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (d/b/a "HomeCare.com"),
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00205-GJH (D. Md., January 25, 2021)
brings this complaint as a class and collective action complaint
against the Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2016
until approximately April 2018 as a live-in caregiver that resided
at the client's home.

The Plaintiff claims that although she and other similarly situated
caregivers regularly work over 40 hours per week, the Defendant did
not compensate them with the required minimum hourly wage rate for
all hours they worked as well as any extra overtime premium for all
the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek at the applicable
overtime rate in accordance with the law.

Caresave Technologies, Inc. owns and operates the Internet platform
HomeCare.com which is "the leading mobile and web platform designed
to connect care providers to clients seeking in-home care services
for themselves or their loved ones." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Tel: (301) 220-2200
          E-mail: bmarkovitz@igllaw.com

                - and –

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


CARNIVAL CORP: Approval of Request for Private Mediation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that the parties' request
for private mediation in the purported class action suit initiated
by former guests from Grand Princess is pending.

On April 8, 2020, numerous former guests from Grand Princess filed
a purported class action against Carnival Corporation and Carnival
plc and two of its subsidiaries, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. and
Fairline Shipping International Corporation, Ltd. The plaintiffs
ultimately removed Fairline Shipping from the case.

On September 22, 2020, the court granted our motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint in part. The court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence-based claims
without prejudice and with leave to amend and granted our motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief without
prejudice. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

On October 2, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
On October 20, 2020, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to
appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
November 3, 2020.

The petition for leave to appeal is pending.

On November 25, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss, allowing the negligence claims of
those individual plaintiffs who claim to have contracted COVID-19
or to have experienced COVID-19 symptoms to proceed against
Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Princess Cruises and
dismissing the claims of those plaintiffs who did not allege
contracting COVID-19 with prejudice.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
relief with prejudice. On December 9, 2020, we filed an answer to
the plaintiffs' third amended complaint.

On December 28, 2020, the parties filed a request for private
mediation.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.

CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Former Guests' Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the purported class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, is pending.

On June 4, 2020, another group of former guests from Grand Princess
filed a purported class action against Carnival Corporation,
Carnival plc, and Princess Cruises in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, seeking compensation based on
severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to COVID-19
onboard, contracting COVID-19 onboard, and/or contracting COVID-19
while onboard and subsequently passing away as a result of
COVID-19.

The action asserts claims for negligence, gross negligence,
negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

On November 23, 2020, a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended
action was filed and the briefing is now complete.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Former Guests' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the purported class action suit filed against Princess
Cruises, Carnival Corporation, and Carnival plc, is pending.

On July 13, 2020, another group of former guests from Grand
Princess filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Princess Cruises,
Carnival Corporation, and Carnival plc.

On November 23, 2020, a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended
action was filed and the briefing is now complete.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Junk Lindsay & Zehner Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the purported class action suit initiated by Leonard C. Lindsay and
Carl E.W. Zehner, is pending.

On June 24, 2020, Leonard C. Lindsay and Carl E.W. Zehner, former
guests from Zaandam, filed a purported class action against
Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Holland America Line N.V.

On September 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who were guests from Zaandam
who embarked on March 8, 2020.

Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc and Holland America Line N.V
have filed a motion to dismiss on November 20, 2020.

On December 11, 2020, plaintiffs filed their response, to which the
company filed its reply on December 24, 2020.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Turner Appeal in Dismissal of Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that the appeal made in
the purported class action suit initiated by Paul Turner, is
pending.

On April 7, 2020, Paul Turner, a former guest from Costa Luminosa,
filed a purported class action against Costa Crociere, S.p.A. and
Costa Cruise Line, Inc. in the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of Florida.

On September 10, 2020, the court granted Costa's motion to dismiss
based upon forum non conveniens, and directed that the action be
filed in Italy.

The plaintiff has appealed the order, and the appeal is pending in
the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARRIZO OIL: Chisum Bid for Conditional Cert. Nixed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON CHISUM, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CARRIZO OIL &
GAS, INC., CALLON PETROLEUM COMPANY, and CALLON PETROLEUM OPERATING
COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00051-DC-DF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
David B. Fannin entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for
      Conditional Certification, so as to allow refiling when
      appropriate; and

   2. setting a status conference in conformity with Swales
      under a forthcoming, separate order.

This case is before the U.S. Magistrate Judge David B. Fannin by a
standing order of referral from the District Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 636 and Appendix C of the Local Rules for the
Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long
employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Both the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification and the Defendant's Response are premised
on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional
certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM
Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of
Lusardi. Case No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021).
The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth
Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to:

"[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal
considerations will be material to determining whether a group of
"employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize
preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery
necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but
the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible.
In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi,
should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and
when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs."

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oGvQkQ at no extra charge.[CC]

CHW GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHW GROUP, INC. d/b/a CHOICE HOME WARRANTY,
Defendant, Case 2:21-cv-01308 (D.N.J., Jan. 28, 2021) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

CHW Group, Inc. provides home repair and maintenance warranties. It
offers home protection, buyers and sellers, and real estate
warranty. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Ananstasia Avenue, Office 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: richardbennett27@gmail.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Einhorn Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Aryeh Einhorn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control
Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Case No.
1:21-cv-00534 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2021).

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

Credit Control Services, Inc. -- https://www.ccsusa.com/ -- was
founded in 1966. The Company's line of business includes collection
and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related
issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING: Proserv Removal Files Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crysteel
Manufacturing, Inc. The case is styled as Proserv Removal, Inc., on
behalf of itself individually and all others similarly situated v.
Crysteel Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-00200-SRN-ECW (D.
Minn., Jan. 27, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over personal injury claims.

Crysteel Manufacturing Inc., -- https://www.crysteel.com/ -- is a
dump body, hoist, and platform manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
          Mpls, MN 55401-2179
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
                 kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Salone, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD,
INC., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-00414-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, Jan. 29, 2021) is brought against the Defendants for
the Defendants' failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours
in at least one workweek. During the Plaintiff's employment with
the Defendants, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to take an
unpaid meal break, generally 30 minutes in length. To deduct the
30-minute meal break from the maintenance employees' compensable
hours worked, the Defendants either (1) automatically deducted 30
minutes from their daily hours worked for a meal break; (2) had
maintenance employees clock in and out for a meal break; or (3) had
maintenance employees submit their time worked into a computer,
thereafter manually deducting the 30-minute meal break from their
hours worked, the suit says.

Regardless of the manner in which the unpaid meal break was
deducted, the Plaintiff often was unable to actually take a full
30-minute meal break, or their meal break was interrupted by having
to perform work duties. This work time resulted in the Plaintiff
not being fully and properly paid for all of their hours worked in
violation of the FLSA and Ohio Acts, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly maintenance technician at
the Defendants' operations located in Columbus, Ohio.

The Defendants provide facility maintenance, cleaning, and related
services for businesses and organizations throughout the Unites
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: (614) 949-1181
          Fax: (614) 386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com


DCM SERVICES: Madlinger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM SERVICES, LLC.
The case is styled as Patricia Madlinger, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. DCM SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-01546-BRM-DEA (D.N.J., Jan. 31, 2021).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

DCM Services, LLC -- https://www.dcmservices.com/ -- is a
third-party collection agency with a primary focus on estate
recoveries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Children Sexually Abused by Staff, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE JINES, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JOHN DOE 1 (a
minor by and through his parent), and JOHN DOE 2 (a minor by and
through his parent), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The DEVEREUX FOUNDATION (d/b/a DEVEREUX
ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH) and QUALITYHEALTH STAFFING, LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00346-AB (E.D. Pa., Jan. 26, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit seeking to hold Devereux accountable for the harm it caused
and to prevent devastating abuse from happening to any other child
in Devereux's care.

Each year, the Devereux Foundation, along with its staffing company
QualityHealth Staffing, through 21 facilities in 13 states, takes
on responsibility for protecting more than 25,000 of our country's
most vulnerable members: children with autism, intellectual and
developmental disabilities, and specialty mental health needs,
including youth in the child welfare system.

The Plaintiff contends that instead of fulfilling its promise and
solemn responsibility to protect these vulnerable youth, they were
exposed to predators and abusers. Devereux failed to enact safety
measures and other policies to protect the children, failed to
adequately screen, hire, train, and supervise staff, and failed to
fulfill its duties under state and federal law.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Katherine Jines, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2,
Jane Doe 3, John Doe 1 (a minor by and through his parent), and
John Doe 2 (a minor by and through his parent) make individual
claims for the abuse they suffered and bring on behalf of others
similarly situated a class action for injunctive relief to enjoin
the Defendant from continuing conduct that threatens imminent harm
to the proposed class.

The Devereux Foundation is a nonprofit behavioral health
organization that operates programs and services in 13 U.S. states,
working with children and adults with developmental disabilities,
emotional and behavioral disorders, and mental illnesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Lori G. Kier, Esq.
          Davina C. Okonkwo, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  lgk@sstriallawyers.com
                  dco@sstrialllawyers.com

               - and -

          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mark Chalos, Esq.
          Hannah Lazarz, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Ave, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
                  hlazarz@lchb.com

FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Faces Williams Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CAROLYN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY SOLUTIONS OF OHIO, INC.,
PROSTAR MANAGEMENT, INC., JOHN HOPKINS, and DAWN SMITH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00196 (N.D. Ohio, January 25, 2021) challenges the
Defendants' alleged unlawful wage-and-hour practices that willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio laws.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Family Solutions as a Qualified
Mental Health Specialist from June 2017 through December 2018 at
its Cleveland location, and then from December 2018 through
December 2019 at its Columbus location.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and
other similarly situated employees the required minimum wage for
some or all of their workweeks, as well as their overtime
compensation at one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class and collective
action complaint on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees against the Defendants seeking compensatory damages in
the amount of their unpaid wages and commissions, as well as
liquidated damages in an equal amount, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc. provides community behavioral
healthcare services. Prostar Management, Inc. was the parent
company of Family Solutions. John Hopkins was the owner of Prostar
and the President and chief executive of Family Solutions. Dawn
Smith was the Chief Operating Officer of Family Solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITLE LAW FIRM
          4106 Bridge Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 308-1522
          Fax: (888) 604-9299
          E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

                 - and –

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Tel: (440) 973-9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Package Handlers, Chiu Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
J. CHIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01181 (D.N.J., Jan. 26, 2021) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Chiu was employed by the Defendant as package handler.

Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides package delivery
services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and
business addresses throughout North America. [BN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Tel: (856) 685-7420
          Fax: (856) 685-7417


FIELDWORKS LLC: Response to Mathews' Class Status Bid Due Feb. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MATHEWS v.
FIELDWORKS, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-06057-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order:

   1. directing the parties to submit briefing regarding whether
      the Court has subject matter jurisdiction on or before
      Feb. 3, 2021;

   2. holding an oral argument regarding subject matter via
      teleconference on Feb. 10, 2021; and

   3. scheduling the Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification is now due on or before Feb. 25,
      2021.

Fieldworks LLC provides campaigning and event planning services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oCv744 at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRE STATION: Rison Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fire Station
Precinct 1, LLC. The case is styled as Tanya Rison, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Fire Station
Precinct 1, LLC doing business as: The Fire Station Wellness
Center, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-10227-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich., Feb. 1, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.

The Fire Station Precinct 1, LLC --
https://www.thefirestation420.com/ -- is a first-class dispensary
that offers a wide selection of cannabis products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


FLAVORGOD LLC: Faces Hinesley Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN HINESLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAVORGOD, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-21-001766 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., January 26, 2021),
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him unsolicited text
messages on his cellular telephone on or about June 3, 4, and 7,
2019 in attempt to promote its products and goods. The impersonal
and generic nature of the Defendant's text messages demonstrate
that the Defendant utilized an "automatic telephone dialing system"
(ATDS) in transmitting the messages. The Plaintiff contends that he
never provided the Defendant his "prior express written consent" to
be contacted with advertisement using an ATDS.

The complaint further states that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused harm to the Plaintiff, such as invasion of his
privacy and annoyance, inconvenienced and disruption to his daily
life. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the
Defendant from using an ATDS to call and text message telephone
numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the prior consent
of the called party, as well as actual, statutory damages, and/or
trebled statutory damages, and other relief that the Court deems
reasonable and just.

Flavorgod LLC sells cooking and seasoning products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


FLORIDA SOUTHERN: April 2 Extension of Class Cert. Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSAY MURILLO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FLORIDA SOUTHERN
COLLEGE, Case No. 8:20-cv-01494-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order extending her deadline to move for
class certification and accompanying deadline to disclose Rule 23
experts from February 17, 2021 to April 2, 2021.

The Plaintiff requests a six-week extension of the February 17,
2021 class certification deadline. The proposed extension would
extend the class certification deadline to Friday, April 2, 2021.
The Defendant has agreed to the requested extension and has
represented to the Plaintiff that it does not intend to file an
opposition.

Florida Southern College is a private college in Lakeland, Florida.


A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oReDFv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

FRESH FARMS: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filling Set for March 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yarger v. Fresh Farms,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02767 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
James P. O'Hara entered an order granting the plaintiff's third
motion for extension of time to complete discovery and file renewed
motion for class certification as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's new filing deadline is March 26, 2021, and
      this deadline will not be further extended absent a
      showing of extraordinary circumstances.

   2. The Plaintiff may wish to keep this deadline and
      admonition in mind when deciding whether (and when) to
      file a motion to compel discovery.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Fresh Farms provide customers fruits and vegetables.[CC]

FRIENDS HEALTH: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Jang et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAE SUK JANG and SOONKUM PARK, Plaintiffs v. FRIENDS
HEALTH CARE TEAM, INC. d/b/a FRIENDS HEALTH CARE or FRIENDS HEALTH,
and REBECCA T. CHO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00093 (E.D. Va.,
January 25, 2021), arises from the Defendants' alleged intentional
and willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as personal care aide or
personal care assistants (PCAs). Plaintiff Jang was hired from on
or about August 2019 until on or about February 2020, while
Plaintiff Park was from on or about August 26, 2017 until on or
about March 3, 2019.

The Plaintiffs claim that although they regularly worked more than
40 hours a week while employed by the Defendant, they never
received the proper amount of their overtime wages. The Defendant
allegedly manipulated their employees' pay stubs to hide the true
regular rate and hours worked of their employees.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated against the Defendants seeking an amount
equal to the unpaid overtime at the rate of not-les-than one and
one-half ties their regular hourly wage rate, unpaid overtime
penalties/liquidated damages, all other applicable penalties and
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

Friends Health Care Team, Inc. provides an adult day care center
service and adult home care service. Rebecca T. Cho was the
President and CEO of the corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          (Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu
          RYU & RYU, PLC
          301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
          Vienna VA 22180
          Tel: (703) 319-0001
          Fax: (703) 562-0787


GABRIEL BROTHERS: Skaggs Bid for Conditional Certification Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH SKAGGS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GABRIEL BROTHERS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02032-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

According to the memorandum, the court finds that denial of
conditional certification is appropriate in this case in light of
the significant differences in job duties presented by the
relatively small sample of the potential collective members under
current consideration. The court would need to conduct
individualized inquiries into each Plaintiff's job duties -- a task
ill-suited for collective resolution. Therefore, on these
additional grounds, the court will deny Skaggs' motion for
conditional certification.

This action was brought on behalf of a putative collective
comprised of:

   "all current and former assistant managers, including
   merchandise managers and customer support/experience managers,
   employed by Defendant Gabriel Brothers, Inc. ("Gabe's")
   from November 26, 2016 to the present. Plaintiff Skaggs,
   is a former AM who alleges that she was misclassified as
   exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA since
   she largely performed the work of hourly employees,
   rather than the work listed in Gabe's AM job descriptions.

Skaggs commenced this civil action on November 26, 2019, alleging
FLSA violations for unpaid overtime wages and that she was
misclassified as exempt under the FLSA's overtime provisions.
Skaggs seeks to bring this lawsuit as a collective action on behalf
of all AMs who are or were employed by Gabe's any time on or after
November 26, 2016.

Gabe's stores, formerly Gabriel Brothers stores, are a private
discount fashion retailer owned by Gabriel Brothers, Inc. It was
founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Morgantown, West Virginia.


A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cBoCvS at no extra
charge.[CC]

GC SERVICES: Reply to Class Status Opposition Set for February 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Francis DiDonato v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02154-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna F. Schofield entered an order:

   1. directing the Defendants to file any opposition to the
      Plaintiff's motion for class certification by February 4,   

      2021; and

   2. directing the Plaintiff to file any reply to Defendant's
      opposition to class certification by February 16, 2021

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rfpUAJ at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERALI U.S.: Dziagwa Files Insurance Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generali U.S. Branch,
et al. The case is styled as Val Dziagwa, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Generali U.S. Branch,
Customized Service Administrators, Inc. doing business as: CSA
Travel Protection and Insurance Services, Case No.
1:21-cv-00314-SKC (D. Colo., Feb. 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as breach of insurance contract.

Generali US Branch -- https://www.generaliusa.com/ -- is licensed
as a domestic insurance/reinsurance company in all 50 states and
territories for all major business lines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Charles Wickert, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 5549-078
          Email: bwickert@raiznerlaw.com


GOLDEN BOLT: Underpays Warehouse Workers, De Gonzalez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MEJIA DE GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN BOLT, LLC, a
California limited liability company, GOLDEN HIPPO HOLDCO INC., a
California corporation, WHOLE BODY RESEARCH, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV02962 (Cal. Super., January 25, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants seeking to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants on or around March 29,
2016 as a packer at the Defendants' warehouse in Woodland Hills,
California.

The Plaintiff asserts that during her employment with the
Defendants, she was not provided all legally required meal periods
due to the Defendant's policy and practice of requiring their
employees to clock back in at the end of their meal period at
approximately 12:30pm, which often necessitated waiting in line to
se the timeclock. As a result, the Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees received meal periods of less than 30 minutes. The
Defendants also allegedly failed to provide their employees with
rest periods, and failed to compensate them with the required rest
period premium for each workday.

In addition, the Defendants did not accurately pay their employees'
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek because the
Defendants failed to include all forms of incentive pay when
calculating their regular rate of pay, the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime
wages as well as meal and rest period premium wages, the Defendants
maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued inaccurate wage
statements.

The Corporate Defendants manufactures and distributes nutritional
supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          Romina Tamiry, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 322-4772
          Fax: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
                  rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com

                - and –

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


GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement Wins Final OK in Profile Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE GOOGLE PLUS PROFILE LITIGATION, Case
No. 5:18-cv-06164-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order granting final approval of class settlement,
awarding reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and service awards; and
entering final judgment.

   SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS:

   -- Under the Settlement, Google stipulated to a nationwide
      settlement for the following Class:

      "all persons residing within the United States who (1) had
      a consumer Google+ account for any period of time between
      January 1, 2015 and April 2, 2019; and (2) had their non-
      public Profile Information exposed as a result of the
      software bugs Google announced on October 8, 2018 and
      December 10, 2018."

   -- Google agreed to a non-reversionary $7,500,000.00
      Settlement Fund to cover all costs associated with the
      Notice Program, monetary benefits to members of the
      Settlement Class, incentive awards for the class
      representatives, and Class Counsel's attorneys' fees,
      costs, and expenses.

   -- The Settlement represents a fair resolution of the claims
      asserted on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement
      Class Members in this Action and released by the
      Settlement, and fully and finally resolves all such
      claims.

   -- Google, Plaintiffs, and the Settlement Class Members shall
      be bound by the Settlement.

This case concerns the alleged exposure of Google+ users' Profile
Information as a result of software bugs that Google, LLC announced
on October 8, 2018, and December 10, 2018.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39DGOmE at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Matt Matic and Zak Harris are:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rmcgee@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW
          CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, California 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
          jwatson@justice4you.com

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Charles Olson and Eileen M. Pinkowski,
are:

          Franklin d. Azar, Esq.
          Margeaux R. Azar, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, Colorado 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  azarm@fdazar.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Meredith Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Meredith, Adam Meredith, Bethany Reese, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00106
(E.D. Va., Jan. 29, 2021), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and
other damages owed to the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.

Through the Defendant alleged company-wide policies and business
practices, carried out through intimidation tactics and implied
adverse employment consequences, the Defendant successfully
pressured the Plaintiffs to customarily enter 7.75 hours of
compensable time per day notwithstanding that the Plaintiffs
regularly and customarily worked more than 8 hours per day and, by
extension, more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant perpetrated
an unlawful payroll policy designed to withhold and deny the
Plaintiffs earned compensation and/or overtime wages as required by
the FLSA, the VWPA, and/or as otherwise contractually and/or
equitably guaranteed or owed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by GEICO as Region 7 automobile
damage adjusters.

GEICO operated continuously and substantially as an insurance
company, providing insurance related services to businesses and
individuals in all counties and jurisdictions of Virginia, North
Carolina, and Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 587-9373
          Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


GREEN GENIE: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Genie Inc. The
case is styled as Lucinda Jackson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Green Genie Inc., a Michigan
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-10190-GAD-RSW (E.D.
Mich., Jan. 27, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Green Genie -- https://www.greengenieprovisioningcenter.com/ -- is
a medical marijuana dispensary located in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


HARLAY HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLAY HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 21NWCV00059 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 29, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Motel 6 Norwalk
on its reservation Website,
https://www.motel6.com/content/g6/en/home/motels.ca.norwalk.8683.html,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Harlay Hospitality, Inc. is an owner and operator of the Motel 6
Norwalk located at 11734 Imperial Hwy., Norwalk, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
         Russell Handy, Esq.
         Amanda Seabock, Esq.
         Zachary Best, Esq.
         CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
         8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92111
         Telephone: (858) 375-7385
         Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
         E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

HEIDI KLEIN: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heidi Klein, Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Heidi Klein, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00828 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Heidi Klein -- https://www.heidiklein.com/ -- offers collection of
cut designer beachwear and swimwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HIGH SPEED: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against High Speed
Productions Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. High Speed Productions
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00833 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

High Speed Productions Inc. -- https://www.hsproductions.com/ --
operates as a parent company. The Company through its subsidiaries
produces several Websites, online magazines, and blogs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IBM CORP: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by March 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY W. JANDER, RICHARD
J. WAKSMAN, and all other individuals similarly situated, v.
RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF IBM, RICHARD CARROLL, MARTIN
SCHROETER, and ROBERT WEBER, Case No. 1:15-cv-03781-WHP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge William H. Pauley III entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class
      certification by March 8, 2021;

   2. The Defendants shall file any opposition brief to
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification by April 9,
      2021;

   3. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief in further
      support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification by
      May 7, 2021;

   4. The parties shall appear for a telephonic oral argument on
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 5, 2021
      at 11:00 a.m. The dial-in number is 888-363-4749, passcode
      3070580;

   5. The parties shall substantially complete document
      discovery by March 31, 2021;

   6. The parties shall exchange expert disclosures by April 30,
      2021;

   7. The parties shall complete fact discovery by May 28, 2021;

   8. The Plaintiffs shall serve their expert reports by July 7,
      2021;

   9. The Defendants shall serve their rebuttal expert reports
      by August 6, 2021; and

  10. The parties shall complete expert discovery by September
      8, 2021.

The International Business Machines Corporation is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Armonk, New York,
with operations in over 170 countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MOSEBw at no extra charge.[CC]

ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Luecking BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Rebecca Luecking and Tracey Meyer, on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL
SCHOOL BUS LLC, Case No. 20L1028, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Jan. 29, 2021, and
assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00109.

The Plaintiffs, former employees of Defendant, allege that
Defendant maintained a "fingerprint-scanning machine" and, in using
that machine, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA"), in the following ways: (1) "failing to develop and/or
make public its written policy of how biometric data will be
handled and destroyed to the Plaintiffs and class members"; (2)
"collecting, capturing, storing, and/or sharing Plaintiffs' and
class members' biometrics identifiers and/or information without
informing them in writing and obtaining a written release that: (a)
the biometric data was being recorded, obtained, collected, or
stored; and (b) the specific purpose and length of term for which
the biometric data was being collected, captured, obtained, and/or
stored"; (3) "failing to store class members' biometric data using
the reasonable standard of care within its industry and/or in a
manner that is the same as or more protective than the manner in
which the private entity stores, transmits, and protects other
confidential and sensitive information"; and (4) failing to
"disclose to the Plaintiffs the identities of any third parties
with whom Illinois Central was directly or indirectly sharing,
disclosing, or otherwise disseminating class members' biometric
information."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                 whb@beaumontcostales.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paula M. Ketcham, Esq.
          Michael P. Wissa, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: (312) 258.5500
          Fax: (312) 258.5600
          Email: PKetcham@schiffhardin.com
                 MWissa@schiffhardin.com


INTERSTATE MUSIC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interstate Music LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Interstate Music LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00742 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2021).

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

Interstate Music -- https://interstatemusic.com/ -- is one of the
largest online music stores featuring music technology and
instruments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ITALIANTOUCH USA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Italiantouch USA,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Italiantouch USA,
Inc. doing business as: Tod's, a New York corporation; DOES 1 to
10, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-00154-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 27,
2021).

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

Italiantouch USA, Inc. -- http://www.italiantouch.com/-- is in the
catalog and mail-order houses industry situated in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com



J.B. HUNT: Wilson Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREEM WILSON, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. J.B. HUNT LOGISTICS,
INC., an Arkansas corporation; J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., a
business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03487-SVW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. provisionally certifying the Class for settlement purposes
      only;

   2. preliminarily approving the class action settlement
      embodied  in the Joint Stipulation and Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. approving the Notice of Class Action Settlement and the
      plan for its distribution to Class Members;

   4. appointing ILYM as the Settlement Administrator; and

   5. scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.

      The Class or Class Members means all persons employed by
      the Defendants in California as hourly, non-driver
      Installation Specialists, and in other comparable
      positions, at any time from March 2, 2014 through January
      3, 2020.

J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company based
in Lowell, Arkansas.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cBwtty at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Floyd Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anne Haynie. The case
is styled as Toni Floyd, Cheri Nicholson, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated v. Anne Haynie, in her official
capacity as Chief Judge of the Jefferson County District Court,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-DJH (W.D. Ky., Feb. 1, 2021).

The case is brought over alleged civil rights violations.

Anne Haynie is a judge of the Kentucky 30th District Court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Carter, Esq.
          KENTUCKY EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          222 S. First Street, Suite 305
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 303-4062
          Email: ben@kyequaljustice.org


KRAFT MUSIC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kraft Music Ltd. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kraft Music Ltd., Case No.
1:21-cv-00740 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2021).

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

Kraft Music -- https://www.kraftmusic.com/ -- began as a Keyboard
and MIDI specialty shop, and since has branched out into digital
pianos, electronic drums, guitars, music software, live sound
equipment, and more recently, consumer electronics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


KRS GLOBAL: Kumar Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
SURESH KUMAR, Individually, and on Behalf of All Employees
Similarly Situated v. KRS GLOBAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., CLEVELAND
DIABETES CARE, INC., Case No. 9:21-cv-80151-DMM (S.D. Fla., Jan.
26, 2021) is a collective action seeking to recover wages and
penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay any wages
to him and the others similarly situated for the period of November
15, 2019 to January 10, 2020. He adds that the Defendants knew that
their refusal to pay the wages due was at all times prohibited by
the FLSA.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were employees of
the Defendants.

KRS Global provides pharmacy services. The Company offers capsules
and tablets, drops, lozenges, injectables, creams, and gels
products. Cleveland Diabetes is an American Bio Pharma, Gene
Therapy and Medical Devices company based in Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine M. Tomasello, Esq.
          TOMASELLO LEGAL, P.A.
          10299 Southern Boulevard, Unit 212451
          Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411
          Telephone: (561) 755-7090

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Certifies Settlement Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELORIS GASTON, et al., v.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-00009-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell
entered an order:

   1. granting motion for preliminary approval of proposed
      settlement;

   2. preliminarily approving class action settlement;

   3. certifying conditional settlement class and subclass;

      -- Settlement Class:

         "all persons who: (i) at any time within the four years
         prior to the date the Complaint was filed through the
         date of Final Judgment, (ii) had his or her personal
         information (including a driver identification number,
         name, address, or telephone number) appear on a Crash
         Report, and (iii) that Crash Report was available for
         purchase via an online solution supported, owned or
         operated by or on behalf of PoliceReports.US, LLC or
         LexisNexis Claims Solutions Inc;"

     --  Settlement Subclass:

         "all persons who: (i) are members of the Rule 23(b)(2)
         Settlement Class, and (ii) whose Crash Report was
         prepared by the CMPD;"

         Excluded from the Settlement Class and Settlement
         Subclass are counsel of record (and their respective
         law firms) for any of the Parties, employees of
         Defendants, and any judge presiding over this action
         and their staff, and all members of their immediate
         families;

   4. designating Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(l):

      -- David M. Wilkerson and Larry S. McDevitt of the Van
         Winkle Law Firm;

      -- Christopher L. Cogdill of Christopher L. Cogdill P.A.;
         and

      -- Eugene Clark Covington, Jr., of Eugene C. Covington,
         P.A.

   5. designating the Plaintiffs Deloris Gaston and Leonard
      Gaston as the Class Representatives:

   6. designating American Legal Claim Services LLC as the
      Settlement Administrator; and

   7. scheduling final fairness hearing on May 24, 2021.

In this action, Plaintiffs Deloris and Leonard Gaston, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, assert claims against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA). The Named Plaintiffs contend that crash
reports contain "personal information" "from a motor vehicle
record" and are thus regulated by the DPPA. The Named Plaintiffs
claim that Defendants violated the DPPA by allegedly disclosing
Plaintiffs' crash reports to third parties on the PRUS eCommerce
web portal for the purposes of marketing and solicitation without
Plaintiffs' express consent.

The Named Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 12, 2016 and
a Class Action Amended Complaint on May 12, 2016. The Class Action
Amended Complaint described a single putative class. It sought
injunctive and equitable relief, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The
Defendants denied each of the claims asserted against them in this
action and any liability to the putative class.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jbAPJ5 at no extra charge.[CC]

LHC GROUP: Class Certification Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 28, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA FARMER, et al., v.
LHC GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03838-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:

   1. The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by
      February 26, 2021.

   2. Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or
      pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than July 30,
      2021.

   3. The motion for class certification must be filed by
      January 28, 2022.

   4. Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced within 60
      days after the resolution of dispositive motions. Rebuttal
      expert reports, if any, must be produced within 5 days
      after service of the primary expert reports.

   5. All discovery shall be completed by January 28, 2022.

   6. Case dispositive motions must be filed by April 29, 2022.
      Responses in opposition must be filed by June 10, 2022.
      Replies, if any, must be filed by July 1, 2022.

   7. The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand within 30
      days after production of payroll and timekeeping records
      and a scope of Opt-Ins to be agreed upon after the close
      of the opt-in period. The Defendants shall respond within
      30 days after receipt of Plaintiffs' demand.

LHC Group is a national provider of in-home healthcare services and
innovations, providing quality, value-based healthcare to patients
primarily within the comfort and privacy of their home or place of
residence.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rh9esD at no extra charge.[CC]

LURKING CLASS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lurking Class, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Lurking Class, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00808 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Lurking Class -- https://www.lurkingclass.com/ -- is a brand based
on the artwork of Sketchy Tank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGICAL BEAUNI: Xu Must File Class Status Bid by May 28
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xu v. Magical Beauni
Nails, Case No. 5:20-cv-01332-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Therese Wiley Dancks entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order
that:

   1. The deadlines set in this scheduling order supersede the
      deadlines set forth in fed. r. civ. p.26(a)(3) and are
      firm and will not be extended, even by stipulation of the
      parties, absent good cause.

   2. Venue motions are to be filed within 60 days of the date
      of this Order following the procedures set forth in Local
      Rule 7.1 (b)2 and are to be made returnable before the
      assigned Magistrate Judge.

   3. Jurisdiction motions are to be filed within 60 days of the
      date of this Order following the procedures set forth in
      Local Rule 7.1 (b)1 (unless a party who is not an attorney
      is appearing pro se, in which case L.R. 7.1 (b)2 should be
      followed) and are to be made returnable before the
      assigned District Judge.

   4. Joinder of Parties: Any application to join any person as
      a party to this action shall be made on or before May 28,
      2021.

   5. Amendment of pleadings: Any application to amend any
      pleading in this action shall be made on or before May 28,
      2021.

   6. Discovery: Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures due Jan.
      29, 2021. Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be served by Feb. 22,
      2021. Class Certification Motion to be filed by May 28,
      2021. All discovery in this matter is to be completed on
      or before June 25, 2021. Discovery motions due July 2,
      2021. Service of discovery requests must be made a
      sufficient number of days before this deadline to allow
      responses to be served before the cut-off.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cFwnkv at no extra charge.[CC]

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Deadline Extension for Class Status Bid Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clement Gray, v. Marathon
Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-07865-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying the plaintiff's ex parte application for an order
continuing the deadline for plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification pursuant to local rule 23-3.

In this case, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the requisite good cause necessary to grant a second
extension of the deadline to file his motion for class
certification. The Plaintiff argues that an extension of the
deadline is necessary because the Defendants have failed to provide
adequate response to the special interrogatories, requests for
production, and requests for admission and the Defendants have
failed to make the person most knowledgeable available for
deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).

The Plaintiff did not propound those discovery requests until
October 6, 2020. On November 16, 2020, Marathon LLC provided
written responses to the Plaintiff's discovery requests. However,
despite concluding that Marathon LLC's discovery responses were
inadequate (and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition still needed to be
scheduled) more than two months before the Plaintiff's deadline to
file a motion for class certification, the Plaintiff chose to wait
until January 12, 2021 -- nearly two months and less than two weeks
before the deadline for filing the motion for class certification
-- to raise the discovery issues with Marathon LLC. In addition,
even though Marathon LLC responded the next day (January 13, 2021)
and offered to meet and confer with respect to the discovery
disputes, the Plaintiff never responded to Marathon LLC's offer.
Instead, the Plaintiff filed his Application. Therefore, any
"crisis" in meeting the deadline is due to Plaintiff's own neglect
and, thus, a crisis of the Plaintiff's own making.

Marathon Petroleum Corporation is an American petroleum refining,
marketing, and transportation company headquartered in Findlay,
Ohio.

A copy of the Court's civil minutes dated Jan. 26, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tn3ijW at no
extra charge.[CC]

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a HOTEL
PASEO; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00140-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. operates as a departmental store. The
Company offers women's and men's apparel, handbags, shoes,
cosmetics, jewelry, and home decoration products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATTHEWS SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Berglund Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA BERGLUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEWS SENIOR HOUSING LLC; and CUDAHY
PLACE SENIOR LIVING LLC, Defendants, Case 2:21-cv-00108-PP (E.D.
Wis., Jan. 26, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Berglund was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Matthews Senior Housing LLC provides health care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: County Commission Files Suit in S.D. West Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company,
Inc. The case is styled as The County Commission of Mingo County,
The Town of Kermit, West Virginia, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00079 (S.D.W. Va., Jan. 31, 2021).

The case is brought over personal injury allegations.

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Truman Chafin, Esq.
          Letitia Neese Chafin, Esq.
          THE H. TRUMAN CHAFIN LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 1799
          Williamson, WV 25661
          Phone: (304) 235-2221
          Fax: (304) 235-2777
          Email: Tish@thechafinlawfirm.com
                 truman@thechafinlawfirm.com


MEDICREDIT INC: Court Decertifies Class in Kwasniewski Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELEN KWASNIEWSKI, on
behalf of plaintiff and a class, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00701-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley
entered an order that:

   1. Under Rule 23(c)(1)(C), the class previously certified by
      the court is decertified.

   2. The Named plaintiff Helen Kwasniewski's individual
      complaint is dismissed for lack of standing.

   3. The clerk's office is directed to enter final judgment and
      close this case.

The Court said, "The class was only recently certified, and no
notice has yet been sent to class members. Indeed, the defendant is
currently seeking to appeal that certification to the Seventh
Circuit. In light of the court's consideration of further
developments in FDCPA standing law as set forth above and for the
reasons discussed with the parties' counsel, the court finds it
proper to decertify the class as well."

In a previous order, the court certified the following class
pursuant to Rule 23:

   "(a) all individuals (b) to whom Medicredit sent a letter to
   a Wisconsin address (d) seeking to collect a debt for St.
   Mary's Hospital in the amount of less than $1200, (e) which
   letter was sent at any time during a period beginning August
   28, 2018 (one year prior to the filing of this action) and
   ending September 18, 2019 (21 days after the filing of this
   action)."

Medicredit is a large collections agency focused exclusively on
medical and healthcare debts.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36zubYa at no
extra charge.[CC]

MEDNAX SERVICES: Fails to Secure Patients' Health Info, Cohen Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA COHEN, as parent and legal guardian of A.H., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDNAX
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case 1:21-cv-20375-JEM (S.D. Fla., Jan.
28, 2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure
and safeguard personal identifiable information and personal health
information, including without limitation, patients' names, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth,
addresses, health insurance information, medical and treatment
information, and other health-related billing and claims
information (collectively, "personal identifiable information,"
"PII" or "PHI").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on December 16, 2020,
the Defendant started notifying patients that unauthorized and
unknown third-parties accessed the Defendant's business email
accounts between June 17 and June 22, 2020 ("Data Breach"). The
Defendant discovered the Data Breach on June 19, 2020, but allowed
the breach to continue for days and did not notify affected
patients for almost six months.

The Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate
notice to the Plaintiff and the Class that their PII had been lost
and precisely what types of information was unencrypted and in the
possession of unknown, unauthorized third-parties. The Defendant's
conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state
statutes.

MEDNAX Services, Inc. provides physician services. The Company
offers neonatology, maternal-fetal medicine, and anesthesiology, as
well as provides pediatric, cardiology, intensive care, emergency
medicine, surgery, urology, and hospital services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Kuntz Jr., Esq.
          DEVINE GOODMAN & RASCO, LLP
          2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 374-8200
          E-mail: rkuntz@devinegoodman.com

               -and-

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com


MERCK & CO: Taylor Sues Over Zostavax Vaccine's Undisclosed Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME,
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01547-JMV-MF (D.N.J., January
31, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentations, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax
vaccine. The patient information sheet, as well as the label and
prescribing information for Zostavax, did not adequately, if at
all, address the risk of viral infection. Despite the potential
correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and
within a relatively short period of time developing an infection,
leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus
pneumonia, Merck allegedly failed to properly address and provide
this information both to the patient and the medical providers
prescribing the vaccine.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff
sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as
significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional
distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and
injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.

Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is an company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Robert S. Greenwell, Esq.
         MORRIS BART, LLC
         601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (504) 525-8000
         Facsimile: (504) 599-3392
         E-mail: bgreenwell@morrisbart.com

MICROSOFT CORP: Ten-Month Claims Period Closes Sept. 23
-------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that ten-month claims
period commenced on November 23, 2020 and will close on September
23, 2021.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All
three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect purchasers
who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system software
and/or productivity application software between 1998 and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions, and submitted the proposed settlement
agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval.

The final settlement and form of notice have been approved by the
courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

The ten-month claims period commenced on November 23, 2020 and will
close on September 23, 2021.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Pinkesz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Lea Pinkesz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00536 (E.D.N.Y., February 1,
2021).

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

Midland Credit Management (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- provides debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


MOD SUPER: Rocio BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER ROCIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC, Case No.
2020 CH 07479, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on January 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00507 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to inform the
Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their biometrics were being
collected and stored, prior to such collection or storage; failing
to inform them in writing of the specific purpose and length of
time for which their biometrics were being captured, collected,
stored, and used; failing to obtain written releases; failing to
publicly provide a publicly-available retention schedule detailing
the length of time for which the biometrics are stored and/or
guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics they store;
and failing to obtain consent from the Plaintiff and the Class to
disclose, redisclose, or other disseminate their biometric data to
a third party.

Mod Super Fast Pizza, LLC is a fast casual pizza restaurant chain,
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Kwabena Appenteng, Esq.
         Orly Henry, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com
                 ohenry@littler.com

                - and –

         Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: pmartin@littler.com

NALU KAI INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nalu Kai
Incorporated. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Nalu Kai Incorporated,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00734 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2021).

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

Kai Nalu Incorporated -- https://www.naishsurfing.com/ -- is
located in Haiku, Hawaii and is part of the sporting goods
manufacturing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NEVADA: Kerkorian Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERKORIAN v. STATE OF
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00950-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard F.
Boulware, II entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and
      the Defendants' Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's
      Discovery Plan; and

   3. giving the Plaintiff 14 days to file a motion to amend the  
      complaint or this case will be dismissed in its entirety
      without prejudice, given the fact that the Plaintiff is no
      longer in custody, and all claims sought were only for
      injunctive relief.

The Court denies Plaintiff's motion because it finds that Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate he will likely suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief. At the time this action was
commenced, Plaintiff was in custody at Nevada Department of
Corrections (NDOC) residing at Southern Desert Correctional Center.
The Plaintiff alleges that because Defendants are not following
COVID-19 policies and guidelines, he is at risk of serious
irreparable harm, including death from COVID-19, which is spreading
in NDOC facilities. As of October 29, 2020, however, Plaintiff is
no longer in NDOC custody and paroled. Because Plaintiff is no
longer in custody, his basis of relief is moot. Therefore, this
Court finds that the Plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable harm
in the absence of the requested relief, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ri8bZG at no extra charge.[CC]

NGM INSURANCE: Class Status Bid Filing Due March 29 in MSP Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, et al., v. NGM INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00128-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Maria Morales
Howard entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to
Amend Case Management and Scheduling Order as follows:

                                                  Date

   1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class       March 29, 2021
      Certification and Proposed Class
      Wide Trial Plan; Plaintiffs'
      Initial Class Expert Disclosures:

   2. The Defendants' Opposition to          June 21, 2021
      Motion for Class Certification
      and Response to Trial Plan;
      Defendants' Rebuttal Class
      Expert Disclosures; Completion
      of Discovery on Plaintiffs'
      Class Experts:

   3. The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of    August 2, 2021
      Class Certification Motion;
      Completion of Discovery on
      Defendants' Class Experts:

   4. Hearing on Class Certification         To be set by the
                                             Court at a later
                                             date

   5. Disclosure of Non-Class Expert         September 21, 2021
      Reports by the Plaintiffs and
      Defendants:

   6. Disclosure of Non-Class Expert         October 19, 2021
      Rebuttal Reports by the
      Plaintiffs and Defendants:

   7. Mediation Deadline                     October 4, 2021

   8. Fact Discovery Deadline:               October 19, 2021

   9. Non-Class Expert Discovery Deadline    November 15, 2021

  10. Dispositive and Daubert Motions        December 13, 2021

  11. Responses to Dispositive and           January 18, 2022
      Daubert Motions

  12. All Other Motions Including            May 2, 2022
      Motions In Limine:

..13. Responses to Other Motions             May 16, 2022
      Including Motions In Limine

  14. Joint Final Pretrial Statement         May 16, 2022

MSP Recovery provides professional services.

NGM provides insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tnOKAf at no extra charge.[CC]

NOVARTIS AG: Average Wholesale Price Related Suit vs. NPC Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation (NPC) continues to defend a putative class action suit
related to the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) litigation initiated
by private payors in New Jersey

Lawsuits have been brought, the latest in February 2016, by various
US state governmental entities and private parties against various
pharmaceutical companies, including NPC, alleging that they
fraudulently overstated the AWP that is or has been used by payors,
including state Medicaid agencies, to calculate reimbursements to
healthcare providers. NPC remains a defendant in a putative class
action brought by private payors in New Jersey, and vigorously
contests those claims.

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.



NOVARTIS AG: Consolidated Exforge-Related Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to Exforge.

Since 2018, Novartis Group companies as well as other
pharmaceutical companies have been sued by various direct and
indirect purchasers of Exforge in multiple US individual and
putative class action complaints.

They claim that Novartis made a reverse payment in the form of an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic, alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection
and common laws, and seeking damages as well as injunctive relief.


The cases have been consolidated in the S.D.N.Y. and the claims are
being vigorously contested.

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

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.

NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz and Fougera Continue to Defend Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Sandoz Inc. and Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc. continue to defend multiple class action suits
related to the price-fixing of generic drugs.

Since 2016, Sandoz Inc. has received a grand jury subpoena and a
civil investigative demand and interrogatories from the Antitrust
and Civil Divisions of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), and a
subpoena and interrogatories from the Attorney General of the State
of Connecticut in connection with those agencies' investigation
into alleged price fixing and market allocation of generic drugs in
the US market as well as alleged federal False Claims Act (FCA)
violations.

In 2020, Sandoz Inc. reached a resolution with the DOJ Antitrust
Division, pursuant to which Sandoz Inc. agreed to pay USD 195
million and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. The
Sandoz resolution related to instances of misconduct at the company
between 2013 and 2015 with regard to certain generic drugs sold in
the United States.
Under the terms of that agreement, Sandoz Inc. will continue to
take steps to enhance its compliance program, employee training and
monitoring, and will continue to cooperate with the US government's
ongoing investigation into the generic pharmaceutical industry.
Sandoz Inc. is also in negotiations with the DOJ Civil Division to
resolve potential related claims and has recorded a provision of
USD 187 million.

Since the third quarter of 2016, Sandoz Inc. and Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc. have been sued alongside other generic
pharmaceutical companies in numerous individual and putative class
action complaints by direct and indirect private purchasers and by
54 states and US territories, represented by their respective
Attorneys General.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants, including Sandoz, engaged in
price-fixing and market allocation of generic drugs in the US
market, and seek damages and injunctive relief.

The actions contain product-specific complaints as well as
complaints alleging the existence of an overarching industry
conspiracy, and assert violations of federal and state antitrust
laws as well as consumer protection laws.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
United States District Court (USDC) for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and the claims are being vigorously contested.

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

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.

NOVARTIS AG: Valsartan and Valsartan/HCT-Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Sandoz Inc. and other
pharmaceutical companies continue to defend class action suits in
Canada and a Multidistrict Litigation in New Jersey related to
valsartan and valsartan/HCT product liability.

Since 2018, claims have been brought against Sandoz and other
pharmaceutical companies alleging injury from carcinogenic
impurities found in valsartan and valsartan/HCT film-coated tablets
and/or losartan marketed or manufactured by Sandoz. These claims
include several putative class actions in Canada.

Claims have also been brought alleging injury from carcinogenic
impurities in ranitidine-containing medicines.

These claims also include several putative class actions in Canada
and a multidistrict litigation in Florida.

All of these claims are being vigorously contested.

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

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range
of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative
Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance
health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG
has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface
Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers
Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and
Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.

OC RAMPS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OC Ramps Inc. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. OC Ramps Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00814
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

OC Ramps -- https://www.ocramps.com/ -- is a manufacturer of
skateboard ramps & rails in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OOGIE'S SNACKS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oogie's Snacks LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Oogie's Snacks LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00847 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Oogie's Snacks LLC -- https://oogiesnacks.com/ -- is located in
Denver, Colorado and is part of the snack foods manufacturing
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


P & Z FOODS: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA GARCIA,
individually and acting in the interest of other current and former
employees, v. P & Z FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06253-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered a scheduling
order as follows:

                                           Deadline

   1. Plaintiff's Motion for              June 30, 2021
      Class Certification:

   2. Plaintiff's Motion for              September 30, 2021
      Default Judgment:

The Status Conference currently scheduled for February 26, 2021, is
continued to December 10, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tinAej at no extra charge.[CC]


PACIFICA HOTEL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Corvarrubias Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY CORVARRUBIAS, on behalf of all aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff v. PACIFICA HOTEL COMPANY and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV03280 (Cal. Super., January 26, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking for penalties and unpaid
wages under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA).

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendant failed to provide meal and rest periods to
its aggrieved employees as required by the Labor Code and the
relevant Wage Order;

     -- The Defendant failed to timely pay all wages owed to each
aggrieved employee each pay period, including proper calculation of
the regular rate for shifts during which the Defendants intended
its employees not to received compliant meal periods as required by
the Labor Code Section 512;

    -- The Defendant failed to pay all accrued vacation and all
wages owing to its employees upon separation from employment; and

    -- The Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

Pacifica Hotel Company operates several hotel and motels throughout
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH GOLDMAN, PC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Tel: (818) 287-7689
          Fax: (818) 287-7816

                - and –

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Tel: (818) 609-0807


PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Fredricks FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR J. FREDRICKS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., Case No.
2020 CH 07423, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on January 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00504 to the proceeding.

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

Paycom Software, Inc. is an American online payroll and human
resource technology provider based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Todd P. Stelter, Esq.
         HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
         151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 704-3966
         Facsimile: (312) 704-3001
         E-mail: tstelter@hinshawlaw.com

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Rumely Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pediatrix Medical
Group, et al. The case is styled as Michael Rumely, Abigail Bean,
Jessica Jay, Matias Soto, Gregory Baum, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general v.
Pediatrix Medical Group, Mednax, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00152-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2021).

The case arises from alleged personal injury violations.

Pediatrix Medical Group Inc. -- http://www.pediatrix.com/--
provides maternal-fetal, newborn and pediatric physician
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Phone: (415) 477-6700
          Fax: (415) 477-6710
          Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com


PHENIXFIN CORPORATION: Kahn Sues Over Removal Provision in Bylaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID L. KAHN; and DOREEN R. DE LEON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHENIXFIN CORPORATION;
DAVID A. LORBER; ARTHUR S. AINSBERG; HOWARD AMSTER; KAREN
HIRTLER-GARVEY; and LOWELL W. ROBINSON, Defendants, Case No.
2021-0076 (Del. Ch., Jan. 28, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory
judgment that the Removal Provision violates the Delaware General
Corporation Law ("DGCL") and Delaware common law and is thus
invalid.

According to the complaint, a certain provision of the Company's
bylaws, adopted and maintained by the Defendants provides that the
Company's directors may be removed from office by a supermajority
vote, contrary to Delaware law. In Delaware, any director or the
entire board of directors may be removed by the holders of a
majority of the shares.

PhenixFIN Corporation is a non-diversified closed-end management
investment company that operates as a business development company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

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

               -and-

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


PLANT DELIGHTS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plant Delights
Nursery, Incorporated. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Plant
Delights Nursery, Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-00858 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Plant Delights Nursery https://www.plantdelights.com/ is a plant
nursery in North Carolina that offers perennial garden plants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORCH.COM INC: Preston Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARIANA PRESTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PORCH.COM, INC., HIRE A HELPER, LLC,
KERI MILLER, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00042869-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court in
the State of California for San Diego County to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on January 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00168-BEN-BLM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act including failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay compensation when due at time of
separation of employment, unlawful and unfair business practices,
retaliation, discrimination, hostile work environment harassment
based on disability, failure to engage in the interactive process,
failure to accommodate, failure to prevent discrimination,
harassment and retaliation, and wrongful constructive termination.

Porch.com, Inc. is an online website that connects homeowners with
local home improvement contractors, headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.

Hire A Helper, LLC is a company that offers helper services based
in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq.
         Kevonna J. Ahmad, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 597-9600
         Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
         E-mail: dmoore@fisherphillips.com
                 kahmad@fisherphillips.com

REHABMART LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RehabMart, LLC. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. RehabMart, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00849
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

RehabMart, LLC -- https://www.rehabmart.com/ -- provides
rehabilitation products. The Company offers air pillows, arm
slings, body wipes, bariatric walkers, blood pressure cuff and
monitor, oxygen carts, pulse oximeters, as well as pool wheel
chairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIPPLE LABS: Sale of XRP Tokens Violates FDUTPA, Toomey Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER TOOMEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., XRP II, LLC, and BRADLEY
GARLINGHOUSE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00093-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25,
2021), is a class action lawsuit regarding the Defendants' sale of
XRP cryptocurrency tokens to Florida residents in violation of
Florida securities laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sold millions of dollars
(or more) of XRP tokens, which are securities under Florida law, to
Florida investors without registering the same either with federal
or Florida authorities. Recently, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Defendants and
certain other individuals, Securities And Exchange Commission v.
Ripple Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10832 (S.D.N.Y.),
alleging that "[f]rom at least 2013 through the present, the
Defendants sold over 14.6 billion units of a digital asset security
called 'XRP,' in return for cash or other consideration worth over
$1.38 billion U.S. Dollars ("USD"), to fund Ripple's operations.
The Defendant undertook this distribution without registering their
offers and sales of XRP with the SEC as required by the federal
securities laws, and no exemption from this requirement applied."
The Defendants similarly failed to comply with Florida securities
laws by failing to register with the Florida Office of Financial
Regulation, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not provide Florida
investors with material information regarding the offering of XRP,
as would have been required had the Defendants complied with the
law. The Defendants began their unregistered and unlawful sale of
XRP in 2013, despite having knowledge as early as 2012 that XRP
could be considered an "investment contract" under and, by
extension, Florida law. Nevertheless, the Defendants allegedly
chose to disregard filing requirements and initiated a vast
offering of XRP without registration.

The Plaintiff brings this action for violation of the Florida
Securities and Investor Protection Act, violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. Sections
501.201, et seq. ("FDUTPA"), fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and money had and
received. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered damages, the suit added.

Mr. Tyler Toomey is a citizen of Florida who resides in
Jacksonville, Florida. The Plaintiff purchased 135 XRP on or around
November 24, 2020 for $97.80. The Plaintiff sold his XRP first in a
transaction on or around December 7, 2020 wherein he sold 33.1 XRP
for $20, and second in a transaction on or around December 28, 2020
wherein he sold 101.9 XRP for 0.0383 Ethereum ($28.56). Thus,
Plaintiff sustained a loss of $48.56, or just over 50% of his
initial investment.

Defendant XRP II, LLC is Ripple's wholly-owned subsidiary. It was
founded in approximately 2013, has been organized as a New York
limited liability company since at least 2015, and is the entity
through which Ripple offered and sold most of its XRP. The
Defendant Bradley Garlinghouse is the Chief Executive Officer of
Ripple. The Defendant Garlinghouse became CEO of Ripple in or
around January 2017. Defendant Garlinghouse was Ripple's President
and Chief Operating Officer from April 2015 through December
2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard R. Best, Esq.
          Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq.
          Jorge G. Tenreiro, Esq.
          Dugan Bliss, Esq.
          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
          COMMISSION
          New York Regional Office
          Brookfield Place
          200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
          New York, NY 10281-1022
          Telephone: (212) 336-9145
          E-mail: TenreiroJ@sec.gov

ROANOKE AIRPORT: Pinon FLSA Suit Gets Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT BRANDON PINON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROANOKE
AIRPORT HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, and KALYAN PLAZA, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-00205-EKD (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
      Act;

   2. authorizing and approving judicial notice as agreed to by
      the parties to inform potential collective members of the
      action and to give them an opportunity to join this action
      as party plaintiffs by opting in;

   3. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to administer the notice
      through first class mail and/or electronic mail using a
      Notice substantially similar to the Notice proposed by the
      parties;

   4. directing the Defendants' counsel, within 10 calendar days
      of the entry of this Order, to provide a list to the
      Plaintiffs' counsel in an electronically manipulable
      format, e.g. excel, of:

      "all persons employed by the Defendants as Salaried
      Management Employees who worked at hotels owned, managed,
      and/or where benefits were administered by either Kalyan
      Plaza, LLC or Roanoke Airport Hotel Partners, LLC from
      April 9, 2017, through the present who were classified as
      exempt, including their names, last known addresses,
      personal email addresses (if known), telephone numbers,
      and employment dates;"

   5. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to disburse the Notice
      within 7 calendar days of receipt of such list from the
      Defendants; and

   6. giving the Notice period extending 30 days from the date
      that the Plaintiffs' counsel disburses the Notice. As soon
      as reasonably practicable, Plaintiffs' counsel will file a
      submission indicating Notice has been sent.

The Defendants are part of the hotels, motels & resorts industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jcovYY at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
          STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
          Warehouse Row
          119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
                  thomas@strelkalaw.com
                  leigh@strelkalaw.com

               - and -

          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
                  paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Susan Childers North, Esq.
          Jesse D. Pound, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          5425 Discovery Park Boulevard, Suite 200
          Williamsburg, VA 23188
          Telephone: (757) 903-0870
          E-mail: snorth@grsm.com
                  jound@grsm.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniels Suit Alleges Stock Market Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANCE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
CITADEL SECURITIES, LLC, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., INTERACTIVE
BROKERS, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC., and WEBULL
FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00290 (D. Colo., Jan.
28, 2021) is an action alleging stock market manipulation.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint the Defendants purposefully,
willfully, and knowingly removed numerous stocks including but not
limited to "GME", "BB", "NOK", "AMC", "BBBY", "EXPR", and "KOSS"
(hereinafter "Subject Securities") from their trading platforms in
the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail
investors of the ability to invest in the open-market, thereby
manipulating the open-market.

In so doing, the Defendants allegedly created a one-way buy-sell
situation by which the only option of retail investors who had
already purchased the above securities, and others, to sell or
liquidate their holdings, thus depriving these stocks of buy
liquidity to counter selling pressure by permitting purchase of the
equity to take place. The end result was that all of these
equities, and Plaintiff and other class members that held them
suffered massive losses to their equity shares, the suit says.

Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company. The Company provides online and mobile application-based
discount stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          The Hannon Law Firm, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Fray Suit Over GME Stock Trading Control
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER FRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
0:21-cv-60226 (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendants' removal of Gamestop Corp.
(GME) stock and other securities from their Web-based application
in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail
investors, including the Plaintiff, of the ability to invest in the
open-market. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that the
Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled the stocks in their
trading platform to manipulate the market for the benefit of people
and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Caroline Miller, Esq.
         DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
         701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1310
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 946-1884
         Facsimile: (305) 503-6741
         E-mail: caroline@dereksmithlaw.com

                 - and –

         Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
         DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
         New York, NY 10119
         Telephone: (212) 587-0760
         Facsimile: (212) 587-4169
         E-mail: alexc@dereksmithlaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Ng Suit Over Open Market Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ng, Chetah Patel, Anuj Kapur, Jayesh Shah, and Summit
Thakrai, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD
MARKETS, INC., and DOES 1-50, Case No. 4:21-cv-00311 (S.D. Tex.,
Jan. 30, 2021) alleges that Robinhood Financial purposefully,
willfully, and knowingly restricts access to the open markets in
publicly available securities, thereby depriving retail investors
from investing additional monies into the market through these
securities, and openly manipulates the open market to the detriment
of all the Plaintiffs and the market at large by restricting
purchase of non-exhaustive list of tickers.

Allegedly, in the early morning hours of January 28, 2021, in the
midst of an unprecedented rise in the per share value of the
Restricted Tickers, Robinhood without providing prior notice to its
users or the market at large restricted solely on its platform the
purchase of the Restricted Tickers. Robinhood, did however allow
its users to "close their positions." Closing positions, given the
suffocation of additional purchases through the Robinhood app would
be dubious as the price per share of the Restricted Tickers
plummeted, the suit says.

Robinhood's claim is that their mission is to "democratize finance
for all." And that they were restricting transactions for certain
securities to position closing only on the Restricted Tickers.
Further, they remain committed to the same restriction. On January
29, 2021, rather than lift the restrictions in their entirety
Robinhood implemented "capped restrictions." Robinhood allowed the
trades of Restricted tickers but limited the total number of shares
that each account would be able to hold. They set aggregate limits
for each of the Restricted Tickers to the tune of the following:
$AAL (55 shares), $AMC (115 shares), $BB (65 shares), $BBBY (30
shares), $CTRM (1650 shares), $EXPR (200 shares), $GME (5 shares),
$KOSS (25 shares), $NAKD (750 shares), $NOK (110 shares), $SNDL
(1200 shares), $TR (25 shares), and $TRVG (400 shares), added the
suit.

The conduct of Robinhood and DOES 1-50 allegedly violated their
obligations under relevant federal and state law, including
California law. Specifically, Robinhood's acts and omissions
breached Robinhood's agreements with Plaintiffs and Class
Plaintiffs, fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs,
committed fraud, breaches of express and implied warranties, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are active traders that use the Robinhood platform.

Robinhood is a mobile application and Website investment service
that places stock trade orders on behalf of users.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis C. Reich,
          Robert J. Binstock
          Shreedhar R. Patel
          REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: (713) 622-7271
          Fax: (713) 623-8724
          Email: dreich@reichandbinstock.com
                 bbinstock@reichandbinstock.com
                 spatel@reichandbinstock.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Illegally Restraint Stock Trade, Nelson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDON NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00777 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendants' removal of Gamestop Corp.
(GME) stock from their Web-based application in the midst of an
unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors,
including the Plaintiff, of the ability to invest in the
open-market. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that the
Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled GME stock in their
trading platform to manipulate the market for the benefit of people
and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers.
Allegedly, Robinhood continues to randomly pull other securities
from its application for no legitimate reason.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq.
         DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
         New York, NY 10119
         Telephone: (866) 470-8261
         Facsimile: (212) 587-4169

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Stock Trading, Courtney Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW B. COURTNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
0:21-cv-60220 (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendants' removal of Gamestop Corp.
(GME), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC),
Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL), and Naked Brand Group Ltd. (NAKD)
stocks from their Web-based application in the midst of an
unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors,
including the Plaintiff, of the ability to invest in the
open-market. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that the
Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled the stocks in their
trading platform to manipulate the market for the benefit of people
and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Michael McMullen, Esq.
         COHEN & MCMULLEN, P.A.
         1132 SE 3rd Ave,
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 523-7774
         Facsimile: (954) 523-2656

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Stock Trading, Kayali Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HANNA KAYALI AND MOHAMMED A. DOLEH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL,
LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., CITADEL
ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC, MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, TD
AMERITRADE, INC., THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, and CHARLES
SCHWAB & CO. INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00835 (C.D. Cal.,
January 28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, civil
conspiracy, and violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' removal of Gamestop Corp.
(GME), AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC), Nokia Oyj (NOK), and
Naked Brand Group Ltd. (NAKD) stocks from their web-based
application in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby
deprived retail investors, including the Plaintiffs, of the ability
to invest in the open-market. The Plaintiffs and Class members
allege that the Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled the
stocks in their trading platform to manipulate the market for the
benefit of people and financial intuitions other than the
Defendants' own client investors. As a result of the Defendants'
contract combination, or conspiracy, and the unreasonable restraint
of trade in the stock market, the Plaintiffs and the Class were
damaged because they were prohibited to purchase shares of the
stocks, the suit says.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Citadel Enterprise Americas, LLC is an American multinational hedge
fund and financial services company, with its principal place of
business at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Melvin Capital Management, LP is an American investment management
firm, with its principal place of business at 535 Madison Avenue,
22nd Floor, New York, New York.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company based in
Nebraska.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company, with its principal place of business at
211 Main Street, San Francisco, California.

Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a brokerage, banking and financial
advisory services provider, with its principal place of business at
211 Main Street, San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                           
         Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
         BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
         123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 448-6602
         Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
         E-mail: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com

                - and –

         Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
         BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
         123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 448-6602
         Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
         E-mail: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Nabi Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarkhan Nabi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware LLC, and ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00755 (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 29, 2021) is brought against the Defendants for material
misrepresentations and omissions by Robinhood relating to its
revenue sources, statements concerning the execution quality
Robinhood achieved for consumers' orders, and Robinhood's failure
to satisfy its duty of best execution in violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 as well as negligent
misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.

In order to distinguish itself from competitors, Robinhood
allegedly engaged in an aggressive marketing campaign promoting its
"commission free trading." This purported advantage, however, came
with a catch: Robinhood's customers, such as the Plaintiff,
received inferior execution prices compared to what they would have
received from Robinhood's competitors. In fact, the difference in
execution price typically exceeded the commission Robinhood's
competitors would have charged, the suit says. Allegedly, Robinhood
engaged in this deceptive campaign while failing to disclose its
inferior execution prices to consumers.

The Plaintiff seeks an order for relief including, but not limited
to, the following: (1) requiring the Defendants to pay damages and
restitution to the Plaintiff and the putative Class; (2) enjoining
the Defendants from further legal violations through Robinhood's
payment for order flow collection scheme; and (3) requiring
Defendants to publicly correct the false and misleading statements
and omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff opened an account with Robinhood in 2017.

Robinhood is an online brokerage firm founded in 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com
                 sbeck@bursor.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ross Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Zachary Ross, Erika Mercado, C. Louis Bunya, and Drew
Hunnicutt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., TD AMERITRADE
CLEARING, INC., TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, THE CHARLES
SCHWAB CORPORATION, AND WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00292 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 29, 2021) is brought against online
brokerage firms for engaging in an anticompetitive conspiracy
through conscious parallelism that impacted the value of various
securities by preventing individual retailer investors who utilize
these firms from being able to purchase specific stocks, including
but not limited to GameStop Corp. ("GME"), AMC Entertainment
("AMC"), and Nokia ("NOK"), and further restricting transactions
related to these securities.

Over the past several weeks, an online forum of clever and
eccentric amateur stock enthusiasts, having grown increasingly
frustrated by the stranglehold major players maintain over the
world of finance, began developing a strategy to capitalize on
over-exposed short positions held by some of the nation's most
aggressive hedge funds. Noting that short positions for declining
video game retailer GameStop far exceeded the available stock, they
theorized that a collective buying movement coordinated through the
online forum could raise the price of stock, potentially triggering
a price-inflationary feedback-loop known as a "short squeeze,"
ultimately punishing the hedge funds and transferring a large sum
of their money to individual investors. To do this, the online
group needed to make the stock an Internet meme, the suit says.

Their plan began to slowly gain steam over mid-January 2021. Other
heavily shorted and financially troubled businesses were targeted
for meme status in the same way. By Tuesday, January 26th, 2021,
the wider world began to take notice of GameStop and other "Meme
Stocks." As the prices rose and understanding began to spread about
the ideological underpinnings of the Meme Stock concept, public
interest in trading these stocks grew dramatically. On Wednesday,
January 27, 2021, the meme stocks all underwent explosive growth in
prices along with a corresponding rise in public interest, added
the suit.

After the trading day on Wednesday, TD Ameritrade informed its
customers that it was enacting restrictions on its users' ability
to trade certain meme stocks, including GameStop (GME), and AMC
Entertainment Holding, Inc. (AMC). Early Thursday morning, a social
media user posted a message noting that Robinhood was no longer
allowing new purchases of the most popular meme stocks, notably
GME, AMC, Nokia ("NOK"). Shortly thereafter, a user posted a
screenshot of the Robinhood app showing an error message
disallowing additional purchases of AMC. An hour later, Robinhood
belatedly announced it was restricting purchases on the meme
stocks.

Almost immediately following Robinhood's announcement, the
Defendant Webull also informed its retail customers that new
purchases would not be allowed for GME, AMC, and KOSS. The stock
continued heavy trading the remainder of the day. Stock prices for
AMC and NOK showed identical behavior, with the same dramatic rises
and falls as the sales and purchases played out. As this process
occurred, millions of dollars were made by traders on this historic
and unprecedented day, but Defendants' customers were entirely
excluded from the process. Even worse, Defendants' alleged actions
manipulated the course of the Meme Stocks, disrupting a
crowd-sourced collective purchasing strategy in the midst of
enormous public enthusiasm and interest in trading these stocks.
This understanding violated the underlying customer contracts,
breached fiduciary duties, and violated the U.S. antitrust law on
anti-competitive conduct and price fixing, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased stocks through the Defendants.

Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          McDonald "Don" Worley, Esq.
          Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
          MCDONALD WORLEY, PC
          1770 St. James St., Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (713) 523-5500
          Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
          Email: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
                 don@mcdonaldworley.com
                 matt@mcdonaldworley.com

              - and -

          William R. Ogden, Esq.
          Mark D. Bankston, Esq.
          FARRAR & BALL LLP
          1117 Herkimer St.
          Houston, TX 77008
          Phone: (713) 221-8300
          Facsimile: (713) 221-8301
          Email: bill@fbtrial.com
                 mark@fbtrial.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Simpson Sues Over Manipulation of Open-Market
------------------------------------------------------------------
Riley Simpson, Noah Alan Henderson, Jacob Chapman, and Suzanne
Seed, and all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., TD AMERITRADE
HOLDING CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CITADEL LLC, and
MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00207-B (N.D. Tex.,
Jan. 29, 2021) seeks to recover the damages caused to them by the
Defendants' nefarious actions by depriving retail investors, like
Plaintiffs, of the ability to invest in the open-market, deprived
those investors of purchasing certain stocks while the Defendants
were making unprecedented gains, and manipulated the open-market to
the detriment of retail investors.

The Hedge Fund Defendants are Citadel, a multinational hedge fund
and financial services company, and Melvin Capital, an American
investment management firm and hedge fund. In the days preceding
the filing of this lawsuit, retail investors -- many of whom are
young investors simply looking to earn some money in the stock
market -- have been abhorrently taken advantage of and denied the
opportunity to participate in a so called "open market" by
Defendants and Hedge Fund Defendants, says the suit. These retail
investors, like the Plaintiffs, made investments in certain stocks
to the detriment of wealthy, elite hedge funds that had short sold
these stocks. Allegedly, the retail investors' purchase of these
stocks resulted in a drastic increase in value, which threatened to
cause billions of dollars in losses to certain hedge funds like the
Hedge Fund Defendants.

According to the complaint, in an effort to offset these enormous
losses, Defendants purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removed
certain stocks and/or imposed sudden restrictions on the trading of
certain stocks on their trading platforms during unprecedented
stock price increases. These actions were done at the behest of and
in concert with the Hedge Fund Defendants. By doing so, Defendants
deprived retail investors, like Plaintiffs, of the ability to
invest in the open-market, deprived those investors of purchasing
certain stocks while they were making unprecedented gains, and
manipulated the open-market to the detriment of retail investors,
including Plaintiffs, added the suit.

The reason is simple -- hedge funds, like Citadel and Melvin
Capital, who had been taking advantage of the market for years,
were now facing astronomical losses, having short sold stocks that
were now realizing unprecedented gains. The Hedge Fund Defendants
conspired with the other Defendants to prohibit the purchase of
certain stocks, effectively driving the price down to save
themselves at the expense of Defendants' users and customers, to
whom they owed fiduciary and contractual duties, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased stocks through the Robinhood app.

The Defendants are online brokerage firms and/or financial services
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Friedman, Esq.
          Ryan K. Lurich, Esq.
          FIREDMAN & FEIGER, L.L.P.
          5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 7554
          Phone: (972) 788-1400  
          Facsimile: (972) 788-2667  
          Email: lfriedman@fflawoffice.com
                 rlurich@fflawoffice.com

              - and -

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          Paul D. Stickney, Esq.
          Austin Smith, Esq.
          STECKLET WAYNE COCHRAN, PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Phone: (972) 387-4040  
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041  
          Email: Bruce@swclaw.com
                 judgestickney@swclaw.com
                 austin@swclaw.com

              - and -

          W. Carter Boisvert, Esq.
          CARTER BOISVERT LAW GROUP, P.C.
          12600 Hill Country Boulevard, Suite R-275
          Bee Cave, TX 78738
          Phone: (512) 538-5788  
          Facsimile: (512) 329-2604  
          Email: carterboisvert@cblawaustin.com

              - and -

          Michael L. Gaubert, Esq.
          GAUBERT LAW GROUP, P.C.
          100 Crescent Court, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 593-6440  
          Facsimile: (972) 441-2960  
          Email: michael@gaubertlawgroup.com


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Perry Sues Over Imposed Trading Restrictions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Perry, Ryan Heitz, and Kevin Sheehan, on behalf of
themselves and the Class of others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD
MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL
LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00234 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2021) is brought
against the Defendants by failing to adequately or properly
maintain the systemic resources and sufficient capital to maintain
the Plaintiffs' and Class members' access to trading services.

Allegedly, on January 28, 2021, Robinhood proactively decided to
impose trading restrictions on its own customers, preventing them
from participating in the marketplace. Robinhood stated that its
justification for these restrictions was market volatility,
however, the exchange-based volatility measures were still fully
operational. Robinhood took the extraordinary step of not only
prohibiting trades of derivatives, but of the securities
themselves. Accordingly, the customers who wanted to acquire
positions in these securities are unduly prohibited from
participating in market transactions, whereas customers of other
broker-dealers do not have similar limitations, the suit says.

These restrictions prevented Robinhood users from freely
participating in major market movements, whereas customers of many
other broker-dealers were free to capture the value associated with
these market movements. Moreover, these restrictions fly in the
face of the principles that Robinhood promoted to its own customers
through its marketing materials and customer agreements. Moreover,
Robinhood executives had been acutely aware of the growing demand
and popularity within its platform for investments in volatile
stocks, including $GME, for several months. While Robinhood was
actively encouraging  stock trading on its platform, Robinhood
deliberately chose to remain silent and leave its customers in the
dark that preventing trades in popular stocks was a potential
consequence of the same increased volatility and volume, the suit
added.

In short, Robinhood allegedly chose to deny its customers access to
the marketplace despite profiting off the customers who it lured in
under the promise of market participation. These customers were
harmed by their inability to access the markets during periods of
peak volatility due to their choice of broker-dealer. These
customers had no advance warning about a possibility that trades
would be declined despite Robinhood knowing full well that this was
in consideration.

The complaint further asserts that Robinhood acted negligently by
failing to adequately or properly maintain the systemic resources
and sufficient capital to maintain the Plaintiffs' and Class
members' access to trading services. Due solely to its own
negligence and failure to maintain sufficient capital, Robinhood
breached obligations owed to Plaintiffs and Class members and
caused them substantial losses. Robinhood's failures are all the
more serious due to Robinhood's history of such failures, including
several major trading outages, the absence of alternative means for
customers to protect their positions, and lack of communication and
customer support, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were customers of Robinhood.

Robinhood is an online brokerage firm founded in 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael S. Taaffe, Esq.
          Michael D. Bressan, Esq.
          Brandon M. Taaffe, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Halpern, Esq.
          SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
          240 South Pineapple Ave., 10th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Phone: (941) 366-6660
          Facsimile: (941) 366-3999
          Email: mtaaffe@shumaker.com
                 mbressan@shumaker.com
                 btaaffe@shumaker.com
                 jhalpern@shumaker.com



ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Dalton Sues Over Removal of Stocks From App
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN A. DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD SECURITIES LLC,
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00697 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for fraud and deceit, breach of
fiduciary duty, and violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' removal of Gamestop Corp.
(GME); AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC); BlackBerry Ltd. (BB);
Nokia Oyj (NOK); Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (BBBY); Express, Inc.
(EXPR); Koss Corporation (KOSS); and Naked Brand Group Ltd. (NAKD)
stocks from their Web-based application in the midst of an
unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors,
including the Plaintiff, of the ability to invest in the
open-market. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that the
Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled the stocks in their
trading platform to manipulate the market for the benefit of people
and financial intuitions other than the Defendants' own client
investors. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff
and the Class were damaged because they were prevented from using
their accounts and making planned trades or exercising options,
which would have been very lucrative.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                           
         Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
         RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
         P.O. Box 358
         Carencro, LA 70520
         Telephone: (337) 371-0375
         E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com

ROYAL PALACE: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL PALACE HOTELS PARTNERSHIP, LP,
AAMES-WARNER CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
21SMCV00220 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Royal Palace
Westwood Hotel on its reservation Website,
http://www.royalpalacewestwood.com/,for people with disabilities,
including the Plaintiff. The Website reservation system lacks
sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.

Royal Palace Hotels Partnership, LP is the owner of the Royal
Palace Westwood Hotel located at 1052 Tiverton Ave., Los Angeles,
California.

Aames-Warner Corporation is the operator of the Royal Palace
Westwood Hotel located at 1052 Tiverton Ave., Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
         Russell Handy, Esq.
         Amanda Seabock, Esq.
         Zachary Best, Esq.
         CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
         8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92111
         Telephone: (858) 375-7385
         Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
         E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DURHAM, et al., v.
SACHS ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-04506-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting
in part and denying in part motion to certify class as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied
      as moot as to the Unpaid Wages Class (Meal Period Time).

   2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted
      as to the Unpaid Wages Class (Buggy Time Claim),
      Termination Pay Subclass, and Wage Statement Subclass. The
      action is certified for the Rule 23(b)(3) Class and
      Subclasses as to wage and hour claims brought pursuant to
      the Cal. Labor Code and the UCL.

   3. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B),

      a. The Buggy Time Class is defined as:

         "all non-exempt employees of Sachs Electric Company who
         worked on the construction of the California Flats
         Solar Project at any time within the period from July
         25, 2014 through the date of class certification who
         were not paid for all time spent after arriving at the
         parking lots and waiting for and traveling to their
         daily work sites and the time spent waiting for and
         traveling from their daily work sites to the parking
         lots."

      b. The Termination Pay Subclass is defined as:

         "all members of Class whose employment with Sachs
         Electric Company terminated within the period beginning
         July 25, 2015 to the date of class certification."

      c. The Wage Statement Subclass is defined as:

         "all member of Class who received wage statements from
         Sachs Electric Company during the period beginning July
         25, 2017 to the date of class certification."

   4. The class issues are (1) whether Sachs had a uniform
      policy that workers were required to engage in buggy rides
      before the start time from which they were 4 paid; (2)
      whether Buggy Time constituted "hours worked" under
      California 5 law; and (3) whether Sachs uniformly
      compensated class members for Buggy Time.

   5. The Court appoints William Durham as the class
      representative.

   6. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court appoints the Dion-Kindem
      Law Firm and the Blanchard Law Group, APC as co-class
      counsel.

   7. On January 21, 2021, the Court lifted the stay on
      Plaintiff's Drive Time claims. On that date, the Plaintiff
      represented to the Court that he intends to file a motion
      for class certification related to that claim. Because the
      Court expects class notice will be sent only once,
      Plaintiff need not file a notice plan related to the above
      classes until the Court considers the forthcoming class
      certification motion.

This wage and hour class and PAGA action arise out of Plaintiff
William Durham and the proposed class members' employment by
Defendant Sachs at the California Flats Solar Project.

Mr. Durham seeks to bring the following claims: failure to pay
wages for hours; wage statement and record-keeping violations; and
failure to pay waiting time wages in violation of the California
Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. Durham also
separately brings a representative claim for the recovery of civil
penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act.

Durham was employed at the California Flats Solar Project by Sachs
as a journeyman wireman, crew foreman, and general foreman between
July 2016 and September 2017.

Sachs Electric is a national electrical contracting,
communications, instrumentation, and engineering company serving
the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39ENW2s at no extra charge.[CC]

SAMSON TECHNOLOGIES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samson Technologies
Corp. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Samson Technologies Corp.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00747 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2021).

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

Samson Technologies Corp. -- http://www.samsontech.com/-- was
founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes the
manufacturing of electronic audio and video equipment for home
entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SANCHEZ OIL: Seeks to Stay Class Status Proceedings in "Hutchins"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HUTCHINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00195-DAE (W.D.
Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter and order staying
proceedings in this matter, including a hearing on its Motion to
Compel, as well as the scheduling deadlines in this case, pending
consideration of a Motion for Reconsideration of Conditional Class
Certification, which SOG shall file not later than February 12,
2021, and grant such further relief as the Court may deem
appropriate.

Plaintiff Hutchins's Complaint was filed on February 18, 2020. SOG
timely answered on March 12, 2020. On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff moved
for conditional certification, and that Motion was fully briefed by
the parties on June 12, 2020. The Court set the Motion for hearing
on July 7, 2020. The Court orally granted the Motion at the hearing
and issued a written order granting the Motion on July 21, 2020.
The Court rejected SOG's argument that application of the Lusardi
standard was improper and that Plaintiff did not show that
similarly situated individuals existed. On July 31, 2020, SOG filed
a Motion to Reconsider the Magistrate Judge's Order on Conditional
Class Certification. On August 28, 2020, SOG timely filed
objections to the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification and Motion to Stay Certification Order. On October
29, 2020, the Court entered its Order (1) Denying Defendant's
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Conditional Certification
Order; (2) Adopting That Order in Its Entirety; and (3) Denying
Defendant's Motion to Stay as Moot.

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation manages oil and gas properties. The
Company generates drilling opportunities, as well as reduces risks
through cutting-edge, controlling large land positions, and
acquiring and controlling 3D seismic surveys. Sanchez Oil & Gas
serves customers in North America.

A copy of the Court's the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 26, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3atjYxp at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Ms. Olivia Howe, Esq.
          Ms. Megan Coker, Esq.
          Legal & Government Relations
          RIGUP, INC., RUDTUK OPERATING, LLC
          AND RUSCO OPERATING, LLC
          111 Congress Ave., Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          E-Mail: Olivia.Howe@rigup.com
                  megan.coker@rigup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          George R. Gibson, Esq.
          Iain L. C. Kennedy, Esq.
          NATHAN SOMMERS JACOBS
          2800 Post Oak Boulevard, 61 st Floor
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 960-0303
          Facsimile: (713) 892-4800
          E-mail: ggibson@nathansommers.com
                  ikennedy@nathansommers.com

SHOE SHOW INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOE SHOW, INC. d/b/a SHOE SHOW MEGA, and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-at-00073 (E.D.
Cal., Jan. 26, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Shoe Show, Inc. operates as a footwear retailing company. The
Company offers boots, casuals, slippers, and sandals, as well as
shoe care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIGUE CORPORATION: Babare Consumer Suit Goes to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL BABARE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SIGUE CORPORATION, Case No.
20-2-01321-37, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington in and for Whatcom County to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on January 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00114 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Washington's Consumer Protection Act and the Commercial and
Electronic Mail Act by sending unsolicited commercial text messages
to consumers, including the Plaintiff.

Sigue Corporation is a provider of payment processing services
based in Sylmar, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         R. Omar Riojas, Esq.
         GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC
         925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3950
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Telephone: (206) 452-0260
         Facsimile: (206) 397-3062
         E-mail: riojas@goldfarb-huck.com

                  - and –

         Joshua Briones, Esq.
         Matthew J. Novian, Esq.
         MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 586-3200
         E-mail: jbriones@mintz.com
                 mjnovian@mintz.com

SIMMONS BANK: Class Status of Checking Account Holders Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY L. WALKINGSTICK,
WHITYNE A. FORT, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, v. SIMMONS BANK, Case No. 6:19-cv-03184-RK (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and a Rule 23(b)
      (2) declaratory and injunctive relief class;

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their attorneys and firms as class counsel for
      the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), for the following
      Class:

      "all holders of a Simmons Bank checking account, who, from
      May 22, 2014 forward, were assessed an Overdraft Fee as a
      result of Simmons Bank's practice of assessing Overdraft
      Fees based on the account's available balance rather than
      its ledger or account balance."

Simmons Bank is a bank with operations in Arkansas, Colorado,
Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36DnNyR
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Plaintiff Class, are:

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          E-mail: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          LINVILLE JOHNSON
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
          Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
                  martys@bsjfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason C. Smith, Esq.
          Rodney H. Nichols, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          2144 E. Republic Road, Suite B300
          Springfield, MO 65804
          E-mail: jcsmith@spencerfane.com
                  rnichols@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq.
          Matthew C. Sostrin, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          E-mail: dernst@mayerbrown.com
                  msostrin@mayerbrown.com

SKYLINE RESTORATION: Magaliel Suit Seeks Proper Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONAL MAGALIEL PEREZ MOLINA, FELIPE FLORES NICOLAS, JESUS ORELLANA,
JULIO PENARANDA ASTUDILLO, MARCO ANTONIO SALVADOR BERNARDINO, and
SEGUNDO CARLOS PALA YUICELA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. SKYLINE RESTORATION INC. (D/B/A SKYLINE
RESTORATION), JOHN KALAFATIS, VASILIOS PIERRAKEAS, RONALD DUARTE,
and ERIC DOE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00647 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law (the
"NYLL") as well as applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs contend that they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

The Plaintiffs were employed as construction laborers, brick layer
workers, demolition workers, cement layer workers, and scaffold
workers at the construction corporation's projects located mostly
at various locations in Manhattan.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 49-28 31st Pl, Long Island City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SOUTHERN VALLEY: Bejines-Gonzalez Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS BEJINES-GONZALEZ,
ABRAHAAM SAYAGO-HERNANDEZ And all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.;
KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON FARMS MEX, L.P.; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.;
KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK HOLDINGS, LLC; WK MEX PROPERTIES, L.P.;
and WKW, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-00055-HL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the settlement class

   2. appointing their counsel as class counsel;

   3. approving the settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA) claims;

   4. granting preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement;

   5. approving the proposed Class Notice and Notice
      distribution plan; and

   6. scheduling a final approval hearing.

   Settlement Terms:

  (1) The Defendants shall pay a total gross settlement amount
      of $880,000 in settlement of all claims.

  (2) The Plaintiffs' Counsel will request an award of up to
      $237,600, or 27% of the Fund as an all-inclusive award of
      attorneys' fees, and request an award of up to $20,000 for
      out-of-pocket costs and expenses.

  (3) The Settlement Administrator Atticus Administration, LLC
      shall establish and administer an account to hold and
      distribute the Fund, and shall be paid from the Fund an
      amount estimated at no more than $25,000.

  (4) The Plaintiffs will request the Court award up to $10,000
      each as additional compensation in addition to any payment
      they may otherwise receive as Settlement Class Members.
      The Plaintiffs Loida Osorio-Jimenez and Margarito Osorio-
      Jimenez ("Retaliation Plaintiffs") request $10,000 and
      $7,000 respectively as compensation for their FLSA
      retaliation claims. Each opt-in Plaintiffs will request
      $1,500 in additional compensation for their claims.

  (5) The Plaintiffs Loida Osorio-Jimenez and Margarito Osorio-
      Jimenez will to be offered employment under the terms of
      an H-2A job order of at least eight months duration during
      the 2021 calendar year or 2022 calendar year.

  (6) Jesus Bejines-Gonzalez, Abraham Sayago-Hernandez, Loida
      Osorio-Jimenez, Margarito Osorio-Jimenez and all Opt-in
      Plaintiffs will release the Defendants from all wage
      claims and employment claims (including retaliation
      claims) through the date of the Agreement which arise from
      their employment with the Defendants, with the exception
      that bodily injury torts, worker's compensation, and
      industrial injury claims will not be released.

  (7) Class members will release Defendants from all causes of
      action, claims, losses, damages, and wages that were
      asserted in this action or which arise out of the factual
      allegations in the operative complaint, but not such
      claims that may not be waived under applicable state and
      federal including but not limited to claims arising from
      an industrial injury.

  (8) Any remaining funds, after redistribution to class
      members, will not revert to the Defendants and will go to
      a cy pres recipient, the Migrant Clinicians Network, Inc.,
      which works with farmworkers to improve access to health
      care.

In April 2019 Mr. Bejines-Gonzalez and Mr. Sayago-Hernandez filed
the instant lawsuit alleging that they and other similarly-situated
employees had not been paid overtime or properly reimbursed for
travel expenses when they worked for the Defendants in violations
of FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions, violations of the
Migrant and Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), as well as
common law claims for breach of contract and fraud. The Plaintiffs'
FLSA overtime claims, contract claims, and AWPA claims all arise
from the written employment contract between the parties which
promised compliance with federal wage laws.

The Plaintiffs and putative class members in this case are
farmworkers who came to Georgia from Mexico through Defendants' use
of the federal H-2A visa program to work in the Defendants' packing
shed operations, or are non-H2A workers who were employed in
similar positions under the terms of an H-2A clearance order.

Southern Valley is a highly recognized progressive and innovative
growing, packing, and shipping facility.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YCslkS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dawson Morton, Esq.
          DAWSON MORTON, LLC
          1003 Freedom Blvd.
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone 404-590-1295
          E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com

               - and -

          Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
          KAKALEC LAW PLLC
          195 Montague Street, 16th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 705-8730
          E-mail: patricia@kakaleclaw.com

SPIRIT MANUFACTURING: Faces Quinn Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Quinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPIRIT MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00031-BSM
(E.D. Tex., Jan. 29, 2021) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was paid
1.5x times their base hourly rate for the hours they worked over 40
in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not include the
commissions or bonuses that were paid to the Plaintiff in their
regular rates when calculating their overtime pay even though the
Plaintiff and received commissions and bonuses in pay periods in
which they also worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
technical support specialist from January of 2019 until January of
2021.

The Defendant's primary business is manufacturing and distributing
fitness equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SPRING HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cockrell Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
KASANA COCKRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING HOME HEALTH CARE LLC, Defendant,
Case: 2:21-cv-00346-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 26, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cockrell was employed by the Defendant as home health
aide.

Spring Home Health Care LLC is a home health agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Tel: (614) 949-1181
          Fax: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Brekke Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMANDA BREKKE, OMAR GARLAND, CASEY MCKAY, and
JORDONE SHANE-SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. CIV 2003380, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Marin to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on January 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00751 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to compensate all hours worked, failure to
pay the minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay final
wages, and unfair business practices.

Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of
coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                           
         Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
         Laura L. Vaughn, Esq.
         AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 229-1000
         Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
         E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                 jpslowik@akingump.com
                 vaughnl@akingump.com

STATE FARM: Court Reimburses Vogt Class Counsel $245K
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VOGT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. e 2:16-cv-04170-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order:

   1. granting Class Counsel's motion for a fee award of one-
      third of the Common Fund ($34,322,414.84, plus
      $4,521,674.38 in prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment
      interest, which continues to accrue) and reimbursement of
      their expenses, which total $245,658.05; and

   2. granting in part the motion for a service award for Mr.
      Vogt:

      -- Mr. Vogt is awarded $15,000 from the Common Fund.

The Court has reviewed the requested expenses and finds that they
were reasonably incurred on behalf of the Class, and that Class
Counsel should be reimbursed $245,658.05.

State Farm Life Insurance Company was founded in 1929. It is
licensed to sell life insurance and annuity products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rfR1Mk at no extra charge.[CC]

STL INTERNATIONAL: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STL International,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. STL
International, Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-00857-PAE-SLC
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

STL International, Incorporated, doing business as Teeter --
https://teeter.com/ -- distributes sporting products. The Company
offers wide variety of fitness and athletic products, as well as
provides online services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STRIVECTIN OPERATING: Slowinski Sues Over Mislabelled Neck Cream
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE SLOWINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STRIVECTIN OPERATING COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00406 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2021) is an action for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, unjust
enrichment, and breach of warranty, resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in intentionally labeling its TL Advanced
Tightening Neck Cream PLUS with false and misleading claims that
they tighten neck skin, when those products do not tighten neck
skin.

During the Class Period Defendant sold TL Advanced Tightening Neck
Cream PLUS products that were advertised to tighten neck skin, when
those products do not tighten neck skin, the Plaintiff claims,
whose latest purchase of the products was on October 12, 2020. As a
result, the Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products she
would not have otherwise purchased.

By making false and misleading claims about the qualities of their
products, the Defendant allegedly impaired Plaintiff's ability to
choose the type and quality of products she chose to buy.
Therefore, Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally protected
interest to obtain true and accurate information about her consumer
products as required by Illinois law, the suit says.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a citizen of Illinois, who was
at all relevant times residing in Schaumburg, Illinois.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes cosmetic products throughout Illinois and the United
States under the brand name "StriVectin."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Steven G. Perry, Esq.
          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 619-8966
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  steven.perry@toddflaw.com
                  dlevin@toddflaw.com

SUMMERHAYS MUSIC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summerhays Music. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Summerhays Music, Case No.
1:21-cv-00827 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Summerhays Music Center -- https://www.summerhaysmusic.com/ -- is
the oldest established family music store in Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNRISE SENIOR: Altamirano Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Myrna Altamirano, Angela Samson, on behalf of
themselves, others similarly situated and the general public v.
Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc., Sunrise Senior Living
Management Inc., Sunrise Senior Living LLC, Sunrise Development
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-08881, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for Southern District California to the U.S. District Court
for Central District California on Jan. 27, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00748-PA-JEM to
the proceeding.

The case is brought over alleged labor violations.

Sunrise Senior Living -- https://www.sunriseseniorliving.com/ --
communities provide senior care services including assisted living,
independent living, and memory care in the U.S., Canada, and the
UK.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Rebong, Esq.
          Sandra A. Beltran, Esq.
          LIBERATION LAW GROUP PC
          2760 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Phone: (415) 695-1000
          Fax: (415) 695-1006
          Email: arlo@liberationlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          Ashley L. Allyn, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: (949) 451-3945
          Fax: (949) 451-4220
          Email: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
                 aallyn@gibsondunn.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Says Class Cert. Has No Effect in Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRANT FRITSCH, an
individual, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 5:17-cv-02226-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the
Court on February 22, 2021 to enter an order for a determination
that the class certification order entered by the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino on February 5, 2018 is
without force or effect in these federal proceedings.

The Defendant says that its motion should be granted on two
separate grounds. First, the order was issued by the state court
after this action had been properly removed to federal court.
Second, the order was issued under state procedural law, and thus
there were no findings that the conditions of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 were satisfied.

Swift is a trucking company that is accurate and timely when it
comes to transportation and logistics.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aoe4gZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
          Robert E. Mussig, Esq.
          John D. Ellis, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17 Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434 9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434 3947
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
          rmussig@sheppardmull.com
          jellis@sheppardmullin.com

SYBARITIC CONSULTING: Hindi Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYBARITIC CONSULTING INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-21-001582 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., January 25, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent automated text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
0358 encouraging the Plaintiff to purchase its products and
services. Allegedly, the Defendant used a standard 10-digit phone
number, which is a platform that enabled the Defendant to send SMS
text messages en masse. Moreover, the text message appears
generically formatted and scripted which is another indication of
the use of an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS).

The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided the Defendant his
"prior express consent" to be contacted by the Defendant through
text messages via an ATDS. Despite the Plaintiff's opt-out request,
the Defendant allegedly failed to honor or abide and instead,
continued to send text message.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited text messages,
the Plaintiff suffered actual harm, such as invasion of his
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and treble
damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease unsolicited
text messaging activity and prohibiting the Defendant from using
ATDS with the recipient's consent, and any other relief that the
Court deems necessary.

Sybaritic Consulting Inc. sells cellular telephone accessories
through its Website themagnetmount.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TARGET CORPORATION: Bowen Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AISHA BOWEN, an individual
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; STACEY
WILLIAMS, an individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION; a Minnesota corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-02587-JGB-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 3, 2021 to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the following classes:

      Regular Rate Class:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees of the
       Defendant Target in the State of California during the
       period of December 7, 2011 through the date of the order
       granting class certification (the "Class Period"), and
       who were paid a shift differential and/or holiday premium
       pay during at least one workweek that they earned
       overtime wages during the Class Period;" and

       Reimbursement Class:

       "all current and former non-exempt employees of Target in
       the State of California who participated in Target's
       Bring Your Own Device program during the Class Period;"

   2. certifying the derivative claims for waiting time
       penalties and unfair and unlawful business practices;

   3. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   4. appointing Matern Law Group, PC as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs Aisha Bowen and Stacey Williams brought this wage
and hour lawsuit against the Defendant Target and seek to certify
classes for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to indemnify for
necessary expenditures, and derivative claims for waiting time
penalties under Labor Code, and unfair and unlawful business
practices.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. The
eighth-largest retailer in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpMaIz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
                  mgordon@maternlawgroup.com

TAX RISE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due June 1
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICAH WATKINS, on behalf
of herself, and all others similarly situated, v. TAX RISE, INC.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00029-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V.
Selna entered an order extending deadlines in scheduling and case
management as follows:

                                               Deadline

   1. Last Day to file Motion for             June 1, 2021
      Class Certification:

   2. Last Day to Conduct Fact Discovery:     August 2, 2021

   3. Deadline for Parties to                 August 2, 2021
     complete Settlement Conference:

   4. Last Day to Conduct                     October 28, 2021
      Expert Discovery:

   5. Law and Motion Cut-Off:                 December 13, 2021

   6. Pre-Trial Conference:                   January 24, 2022

   7. Jury Trial:                             February 8, 2022

Tax Rise is located in Irvine, California, and is part of the Legal
Services Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3atJh2b at no extra charge.[CC]

TENAFLY IMPORTS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenafly Imports, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tenafly Imports, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00843 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Tenafly Imports LLC -- https://www.gunterwilhelm.com/ -- is located
in Ramsey, New Jersey and is part of the home furnishings stores
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TENNESSEE: Prisoners Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tennessee Prisoners v.
Tony Parker, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02781-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiffs Marvin Green, Nathaniel Wilmoth and Thomas Pruitt
ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39A7IMh
at no extra charge.[CC]


THIRTY THREE THREADS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thirty Three Threads,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Thirty Three Threads, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00507-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

Thirty Three Threads -- https://www.thirtythreethreads.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of sock and accessories based in Vista,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRADITIONS MANAGEMENT: Toney-Marcum Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Andrew Toney-Marcum, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TRADITIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC and ANDREA
NOE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00069-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 29, 2021) is
brought against the Defendants for unlawfully denying the Plaintiff
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for hours worked.

The Defendants' managers routinely and improperly modify employee
time records to avoid paying overtime. The Plaintiff often worked
more than 40 hours per week during his employment and the
Defendants were aware he worked these hours; yet the Defendants
repeatedly failed to pay overtime for the hours worked over 40
hours per workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a licensed
practical nurse.

Traditions Management, LLC owns and operates Traditions of
Deerfield, a nursing home in Circle Loveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robb S. Stokar, Esq.
          MINNILLO LAW GROUP CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 723-1600
          Fax: (513) 723-1620
          Email: rss@mlg-lpa.com


TYCO FIRE: Settlement Agreement Wins Initial Approval in AFFF Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00422-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order:

   1. granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of the
      settlement agreement and certification of the settlement
      class; and

   2. adopting and approving the parties' Proposed Timeline.

The Court said, "The class members are readily identifiable and the
implicated threshold requirement to proceed under Rule 23 is
satisfied. The proposed class representatives' claims arise from
the same alleged exposure to the same chemicals in the same
geographical area during same time period, as do the putative
members' claims. Typicality is therefore satisfied. The causes of
action brought in the complaint encompass the types of injuries
provided for in the parties' First Amended Class Settlement and
Release Agreement and, therefore, are interrelated to the class
claims. Adequacy is, therefore, satisfied. The proposed Agreement
treats class members equitably in relation to one another in the
context of settlement fund allocation and the claim submission
process."

This is a putative class action brought by property owners Joan and
Richard Campbell of Marinette County, Wisconsin against Tyco Fire
Products L.P., Chemguard, Inc., and Chemdesign, Inc. The complaint
alleges that Aqueous film forming foam  (AFFF) is manufactured,
tested and used at the Ansul Fire Technology Center (AFTC), an
active fire suppressant training, testing and research site in
Marinette that is owned and operated by Defendant Tyco. Per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the AFFF, alleged to be
manufactured by Defendants and used at the AFTC, allegedly
contaminated certain water well systems that supply potable water
to Marinette County residences such as the Campbells. This well
contamination required identification and supply of alternative
water sources. The Campbells allege that, as a result of their
exposure to the PFAS-contaminated water, Joan developed thyroid
disease and thyroid cancer and Richard is at an increased risk to
develop certain serious health conditions. In the complaint, they
seek to represent a medical monitoring class and a property damage
class.

A copy of the Court's preliminary approval order dated Jan. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YC4aTr
at no extra charge.[CC]

U.S. TAPE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S Tape Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. U.S Tape Company, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00506 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2021).

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

U.S. Tape Company, Inc. -- https://www.ustape.com/ -- has been
manufacturing professional grade tape measures since 1876.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: James Bid to Certify Drivers Class Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER JAMES, et al.,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-06462-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

   -- The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(3) motion
      to certify a class of Uber drivers who drove for Uber in
      the State of California between February 28, 2019 and
      December 16, 2020, and who opted out of Uber's arbitration
      agreement. The trier of fact will first consider on a
      class-wide basis whether this class of drivers satisfies
      prongs A and B of the ABC test. If these drivers do not
      satisfy either prong, then the trier of fact will proceed
      to consider, also on a class-wide basis, this class'
      expense reimbursement and itemized wage statement claims.

   -- The Court also denies in part Plaintiff's Rule 23(b)(3)
      motion as it pertains to prong C of the ABC test and the
      Plaintiffs' minimum wage, overtime, and paid sick leave
      claims.

   -- The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the
      contents and logistics of class notice and other relevant
      procedural details in advance of the next case management
      conference, to be held at 10:30 a.m., February 18, 2021.

Uber is an American technology company. Its services include
ride-hailing, food delivery, package delivery, couriers, freight
transportation, and, through a partnership with Lime, electric
bicycle and motorized scooter rental.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cC6X7d at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED AMERICAN: Bailey Seeks Security Guards' Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HOLLIS BAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00257-NYW (D. Colo., January 26, 2021)
challenges the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a security
guard and was classified as non-exempt employee, alleges that the
Defendant did not compensate him and other similarly situated
security guards for the time they spent performing pre-shift "pass
down" work, that is approximately 10-15 minutes, which constituted
an integral and indispensable part of their principal activities.
As a result, despite the Plaintiff and other security guards
regularly worked 40 or more hours per week, they were not paid
overtime compensation for all the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the
law, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective and class
action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated security
guards seeking actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages
equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and post-judgment
interest at the statutory rate, attorneys' fees, costs and
disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

United American Security, LLC provides security services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (234) 401-9286
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


UNITED SERVICES: Marchek Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Services
Automobile Association. The case is styled as Jeremy Marchek,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Services Automobile Association, a Texas Corporation, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00087 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 27, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over insurance contract violations.

United Services Automobile Association -- https://www.usaa.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company offers auto, life, flood,
vehicle, business, health, and condo, insurance services, as well
as banking, investment, real estate, retirement, financial
planning, and mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vaughan & Bushnell
Manufacturing Company. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Vaughan & Bushnell
Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00505 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 29,
2021).

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

Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing, also known as Vaughan
Manufacturing and branded as simply Vaughan, --
https://www.vaughanmfg.com/ -- is an American manufacturing company
that specializes in the production of hammers, axes, prybars, and
hand saws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERTAFORE INC: Mulvey Alleges Unlawful Use of Customers' Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Mulvey, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated individuals v. VERTAFORE INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00213-E (N.D. Tex., Jan. 31, 2021) is seeking redress for
the unlawful and negligent obtainment, use, and redisclosure of
millions of Texas resident's Personal Identifying Information
("PII") and sensitive information, a "Data Event" that reportedly
included the names, addresses, dates of birth, vehicle
registrations, vehicle registration histories, and driver's license
numbers issued before February 2019 involving 27.7 million Texas
residents.

According to the complaint, the entire database of the Texas
Department of Motor Vehicles, was compromised, reportedly the event
beginning on March 11, 2020, the result of glaring weaknesses and
vulnerabilities in the Defendant's data computing systems. On
November 10, 2020, Defendant Vertafore announced publicly in a
press release that it was subject to one of the largest data events
in Texas history, the severity unprecedented, affecting most, if
not all, of the Texas adult population. Reportedly, databases of
PII involving Texas consumers were accessed, without authorization.
The public concern being, using this information, identity thieves
can then create fake identities, fraudulently obtain loans and tax
refunds, and destroy a consumer's insurance-worthiness -- the very
thing the Defendant exists to assess and report, the suit says.

Allegedly, the Defendant stated that in mid-August 2020 it was made
aware of the "Data Event," by a "trusted third-party," refraining
from disclosing the identity of the third-party. During this five
(5) month period, from the date of the breach to the initial notice
of the breach, the Defendant claims to have failed to detect the
unauthorized access of the massive amounts of data that were being
exfiltrated from its computing system, reportedly delaying notice
to involved consumers for 90 days to conduct an investigation while
actively assisting law enforcement.

This class action is brought by individuals throughout Texas whom
suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest, and were
victimized by these events, in order to redress the harm that they
have suffered, and to obtain appropriate relief, risking that the
Defendant will continue to obtain, use, and re-disclose motor
vehicle records in its possession, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a licensed and registered driver in the State of
Texas.

Vertafore plays a central role in the modern American economy,
collecting and selling vast amounts of data about the most
intricate details of consumers' financial lives, connecting every
point within the insurance distribution channel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C.
          1045 North Zang Blvd
          Dallas, Tx 75208
          Phone: (214) 943-6100
          Email: malleylaw@gmail.com


VILLA MONTES: Hotel Online Booking Violates ADA, Whitaker Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOSE A. MONTES and MARIA G. MONTES, Trustees
of the Montes Family Revocable Trust of November 11, 1996; and
VILLA MONTES HOTEL, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00679-SK
(N.D. Cal., January 28, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Villa Montes
Hotel, Ascend Hotel Collection on its reservation Website,
https://www.choicehotels.com/california/san-bruno/ascend-hotels,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Villa Montes Hotel, LP is the operator of the Villa Montes Hotel,
Ascend Hotel Collection located at 620 El Camino Real, San Bruno,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
         Russell Handy, Esq.
         Amanda Seabock, Esq.
         Zachary Best, Esq.
         CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
         8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92111
         Telephone: (858) 375-7385
         Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
         E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

VIRGINIA MOTEL: Faces Garcia ADA Suit Over Online Booking System
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA MOTEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21GDCV00142 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Travelodge by
Wyndham Rosemead on its reservation Website,
https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/travelodge/rosemead-california/travelodge-rosemead/overview,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Virginia Motel, LLC is an owner and operator of the Travelodge by
Wyndham Rosemead located at 3327 Del Mar Ave., Rosemead,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
         Russell Handy, Esq.
         Amanda Seabock, Esq.
         Zachary Best, Esq.
         CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
         8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
         San Diego, CA 92111
         Telephone: (858) 375-7385
         Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
         E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com

VISTA EQUITY: Faces Solak Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AARON SKONNARD, ARNE DUNCAN, BONITA C. STEWART, BRAD
RENCHER, FRITZ ONION, GARY CRITTENDEN, KARENANN TERRELL, LEAH
JOHNSON, RYAN HINKLE, SCOTT DORSEY, TIM MAUDLIN, VISTA EQUITY
PARTNERS FUND VII, L.P., LAKE HOLDINGS, LP, LAKE GUARANTOR, LLC,
LAKE MERGER SUB I, INC., AND LAKE MERGER SUB II, LLC, PLURALSIGHT,
INC., Case No. 2021-0077- (Del. Ch. Ct., Jan. 29, 2021) is brought
to remedy their misconduct in connection with the buyout (the
"Buyout") of Pluralsight by Vista Equity Partners Fund VII, L.P.,
Lake Holdings, LP, Lake Guarantor, LLC, Lake Merger Sub I, Inc.,
Inc. and Lake Merger Sub II, LLC (collectively referred to as
"Vista") and to enjoin the Buyout unless and/or until Defendants
cure their breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or recover damages
resulting from Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.

On December 13, 2020, the Company and Vista issued a joint press
release announcing that the Board had caused the Company to enter
into a merger agreement whereby Pluralsight agreed to be acquired
by Vista for $20.26 per share in cash. Pluralsight's controlling
stockholder, co-Founder, Chairman, and CEO Aaron Skonnard
spearheaded the decision to pursue and ultimately agree to the
Buyout. Skonnard steered the Board towards the transaction with
Vista because it secures significant and immediate benefits for
Company insiders like himself. Less than three years ago, in May
2018, Pluralsight had gone public through an initial public
offering (the "IPO"). In connection with the IPO, Skonnard, several
members of Pluralsight's management team, and Pluralsight's Board
entered into an income tax receivable agreement (the "TRA") with
Pluralsight. The TRA requires a payout upon a Company change of
control transaction.

In connection with the Buyout, on January 7, 2021, the Individual
Defendants allegedly issued materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures in a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, the
Proxy Statement is materially deficient and misleading because,
inter alia, it omits material information regarding: (i) potential
conflicts of interest surrounding Qatalyst and Vista; (ii) the
financial analysis conducted by Qatalyst; (iii) Skonnard's
agreement with Vista; and (iv) that the Buyout is subject to
Section 203 of the DGCL and thus requires an affirmative vote of at
least 66 2/3% of the outstanding voting stock not owned or
affiliated with Skonnard. Without this information, Pluralsight
stockholders cannot make an informed decision with respect to the
Buyout, the suit says.

According to the complaint, by agreeing to the Buyout for
self-serving purposes, the Individual Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties. The Board allegedly failed to act in good
faith when it approved the sale of the Company to Vista for unfair
consideration and pursuant to an unfair process. Pluralsight
conducted a deeply flawed and highly manipulated sales process that
conspicuously occurred during a period when the Company's quarterly
billings growth rate showed optically weaker growth than expected
simply because of a shift in the timing of the Company's annual
user conference, the suit added.

As a result of this flawed process, the price per share Vista had
agreed to pay for the Company is grossly inadequate. As the process
and economic terms of the Buyout were clearly unfair to Pluralsight
and its stockholders, Plaintiff brings this action directly on
behalf of a class of Pluralsight stockholders to seek redress for
the harms stemming from Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and
to recover all amounts that Skonnard has cost the Company and its
stockholders by its inequitable manipulations of his control over
the Company. Additionally, Plaintiff brings claims against Vista
for aiding and abetting the Skonnard's breach of fiduciary duties,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Pluralsight.

Vista Equity Partners is an American investment firm focused on
financing and forwarding software, data and technology-enabled
startup businesses.

Skonnard has served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, Co-Founder and a Chairman of Pluralsight's Board
of Directors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
          824 N. Market St., Suite 1001A
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 778-4000
          Email: rernst@oelegal.com

              - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          Gregory Nespole, Esq.
          Jordan Cafritz, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 524-4290


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Stipulation to Extend Class Status Bid Date Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PATRICK,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation, Case No.  8:19-cv-01908-MCS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order denying stipulation to extend
plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification and
associated briefing schedule by 45 days.

Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3atntUz at no extra charge.[CC]

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hernandez Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSICA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2024738, was removed
from the Superior Court in the State of California for San
Bernardino County to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on January 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00166 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, and unfair
and unlawful business practices.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is an American multinational retail
corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount
department stores, and grocery stores from the United States,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

                 - and –

         Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
         695 Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
         E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Nelson FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER NELSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20-TRT 00004 1E, was removed from
the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on January 29,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-00066 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Nevada Constitution including failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
wages for all hours worked, and failure to timely pay all wages due
and owing upon termination.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is an American multinational retail
corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount
department stores, and grocery stores from the United States,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
         Dana B. Salmonson, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1500
         3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
         Las Vegas, NV 89169
         Telephone: (702) 369-6800
         Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
         E-mail: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
                 dana.salmonson@ogletreedeakins.com

WAREHOUSE SKATEBOARDS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warehouse
Skateboards, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Warehouse
Skateboards, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00748 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27,
2021).

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

Warehouse Skateboards -- https://www.warehouseskateboards.com/ --
offers largest selection of skateboards, skateboard decks, complete
skateboards, skate trucks, wheels and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


WLLC II: Easley Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lillian Easley, and all others similarly
situated v. WLCC II d/b/a Arrowhead Advance was removed from the
Circuit Court for Mobile County, Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of Alabama on Jan. 29, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00049-KD-MU to
the proceeding.

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

Arrowhead Advance -- https://www.arrowheadadvance.com/ -- provides
loans and installment services. The Company specializes in consumer
lending.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood , Jr., Esq.
          UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 990-5558
          Fax: (251) 990-0626
          Email: epunderwood@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
          UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC
          2153 Airport Boulevard
          Mobile, AL 36606
          Phone: (251) 432-9212
          Email: kriemer@alalaw.com

               - and -

          Steven P Gregory, Esq.
          GREGORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          505 20th Street North, Suite 1215
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 208-0312
          Email: steve@gregorylawfirm.us

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jaclyn Carol Combs, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE
          11 N. Water Street, Ste. 24290
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Phone: (251) 432-0001
          Email: jcombs@maynardcooper.com

               - and -

          John N. Bolus, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER, and GALE P.C.
          1901 6th Ave. N., Ste. 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 254-1000
          Fax: (205) 254-1999
          Email: jbolus@mcglaw.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces Hall Suit Over Workplace Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY HALL v. XPO LOGISTICS, LLC, d/b/a XPO LOGISTICS, Case No.
2:21-cv-00053-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., Jan. 25, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
comparator employees, seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
declaratory, and injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, to redress injury caused
by the Defendant's disparate treatment motivated by his race and/or
and in retaliation against his protected conduct.

The case arises out of discrimination by Defendant-employer
motivated by race, as well as its retaliation for internal
complaints and for requests for medical leave, in the course of
employment of, and termination of the Plaintiff, Rodney Hall, an
African-American male.

The Plaintiff is an African-American male who worked for the
Defendant as a truck driver.  

The Defendant is a global provider of freight transportation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Theuer, Esq.
          JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC
          www.theuerlaw.com
          555 E. Main Street, Suite 1212
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 446-8047
          Facsimile: (757) 446-8048

               - and -

          Michael G. Green II, Esq.
          John P. Salas, Esq.
          SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: (954) 315-1155
          Facsimile: (954) 452-3311
          E-mail: michael@jpsalaslaw.com
                  jp@jpsalaslaw.com

YCI METHANOL: Faces Strawn Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY STRAWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YCI METHANOL ONE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00309 (S.D. Tex., January 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated quality assurance inspectors overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Strawn worked for the Defendant as a quality assurance
inspector at its construction site in Saint James, Louisiana from
approximately June 2019 until November 2020.

YCI Methanol One, LLC is a methanol producer based in Houston,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         Melodie K. Arian, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 marian@mybackwages.com

                   - and –

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

ZAGG INC: Rosa Sues Over Misleading SEC Registration Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Rosa, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ZAGG, INC., CHERYL A. LARABEE, CHRIS AHERN, DAN MAURER,
SCOTT STUBBS, MICHAEL BIRCH, RON GARRIQUES, and EDWARD TERINO, Case
No. 2:21-cv-01415 (D.N.J., Jan. 29, 2021) is brought on behalf of
other public holders of the common stock of Zagg, Inc. against the
Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Regulation G in connection with the proposed merger (the "Proposed
Transaction") between Zagg and a buyer group led by Evercel, Inc.
due to materially incomplete and misleading Proxy statements.

On December 10, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $4.20 in cash and
an additional $0.25 per share contingent on the Company's Paycheck
Protection Program Loan being forgiven for each share of Zagg stock
they own (the "Merger Consideration"). On January 7, 2021, in order
to convince Zagg shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, the Board allegedly authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation
of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, while touting the fairness of the
Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy
materially incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the Proxy allegedly contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Zagg shareholders vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by Zagg's financial advisor,
BofA Securities, Inc. in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote
to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Zagg common stock.

Zagg designs, manufactures and distributes mobile technology
accessories for smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and other
mobile devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Hartzband, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          Email: ahartzband@faruqilaw.com

              - and -

          Maxwell Michael, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Email: mmichael@faruqilaw.com

              - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (424) 303-1964
          Facsimile: (877) 590-0482
          Email: brian@schallfirm.com



                            *********

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 ***