/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210218.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 30

                            Headlines

3M CO: Bid for Class Certification in PFOA Suit Pending
3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
ADAFRUIT INDUSTRIES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALLSTATE FIRE: Estes Law Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
AMAZON.COM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 16

AMGUARD INSURANCE: Filing for Class Status Bid Due October 31
BAGEL MENTCH: Carnero Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
BOSLEY INC: Failed to Safeguard Customers' Personal Data, Says Suit
BROOKLYN BAZAAR: Robinson Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Files Civil Rights Suit

CARRIZO OIL: Class Status Bid Filing Due June 11
CHRISTIANBOOK LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIRCLE K: Deadline to File Response to Class Status Bid Stayed
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Haynes-Glenn Files Suit in S.D. New York
DOORDASH INC: Dow Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California

EASTLAND MALL: Court Approves Distribution of Proposed Notice
ENDO INTL: Appointment of JSLF, Motley Rice as Class Counsel Sought
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Class Status Bid Optional Reply Due May 7
GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Angus Class Action
GLOCK INC: California Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Johnson Suit

HAIN CELESTIAL: Micks Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
HAIN CELESTIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Stayed
HERCULES INC: Libman Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
HONIG & GREENBERG: Giovinazzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

HOPKINS MANUFACTURING: Haass Files Suit in S.D. New York
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IRHYTHM TECH: Habelt Slams Share Price Drop
LABCORP EMPLOYER: Class Status Bid Filing Due August 23
LISTENING SYSTEMS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MIDWEST RECOVERY: Class Status Partly OK'd in Franklin Suit
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Akhter Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
OPPOSUITS USA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OREGON DOE: Court Certifies Class of Disabled Students
ORGANIFI LLC: California Court Narrows Claims in Liou Consumer Suit

OXFORD HEALTH: Briefing Schedule for Class Status Bid Stayed
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Kahn Insurance Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Blais Class Action Underway in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Suit

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
PREMIERE CREDIT: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Echols FDCPA Suit
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Hastings Files ERISA Suit in S.D. Iowa
REGIONS BANK: Haggard Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Juncadella Sues for Stock Market Interference
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krasowski Sues Over Stock Market Interference
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lagmanson Sues Over Stock Market Interference
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lavin Sues Over Stock Market Interference
S&P GLOBAL: Federman Trust Files Suit Over IHS Markit Merger Deal

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Protege Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Cooper Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
SPARKFUN ELECTRONICS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPINSTER SISTERS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STEPHEN HERETICK: Class Certification Hearing Set for March 23

STOCK ROVER: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TESORO REFINING: Class Status Bid Filing Due August 9
TOTAL LIFE CHANGES: Friday Disputes THC Content in Raspberry Tea
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Yancey Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
USHIP INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

USMS: Court Dismisses Gess Class Action without Prejudice
ZACHARY PRELL: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

3M CO: Bid for Class Certification in PFOA Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in the putative class action suit related to
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, is pending.

In New York, 3M is defending 41 individual cases and one putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York
state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,
Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.

The plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that was used for manufacturing
purposes at Saint-Gobain's and Honeywell's facilities located in
the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick.

The plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls
became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the
activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily
injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA.

The four state court cases also include Tonaga, Inc. (Taconic) as a
defendant and make similar allegations related to Taconic’s
facility in neighboring Petersburg.

The plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and
punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

3M has answered the complaints in these cases, which are now
proceeding through discovery.

The plaintiffs in the putative class action have moved for class
certification. 3M is also defending 11 individual cases in New York
filed by Nassau County drinking water providers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege that 3M, DuPont, and
additional unnamed defendants are responsible for the contamination
of plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS compounds.

DuPont's motion to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL was denied
in March 2020. 3M has filed answers in the eight cases in which it
has been served.

Preliminary discovery is ongoing.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.

3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in "St. John"
have agreed to continue to stay the case through February 2021

A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M,
BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking property damage from
exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's
Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case
through February 2021, pending ongoing mediation between the
parties involved in this case and another case.

Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by
certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking
relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case,
respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the St. John case.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


ADAFRUIT INDUSTRIES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adafruit Industries
LLC. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Adafruit Industries LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01284 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

Adafruit Industries -- https://www.adafruit.com/ -- is an
open-source hardware company based in New York City.[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


ALLSTATE FIRE: Estes Law Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as The Estes Law Firm, on behalf of itself and
for all others similarly situated v. Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, Marc Chapman, Rhonda Guitreau, Jana Schieber,
Case No. 2021-02383 was removed from the 157th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on Feb. 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00498 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company --
https://www.allstate.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roger Dale Higgins, Esq.
          THOMPSON COE ET AL
          700 N Pearl St., 25th Flr.
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 871-8256
          Fax: (214) 871-8209
          Email: rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com


AMAZON.COM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 16
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ALVARADO, et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, SERVICES LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07292-BLF (N.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman Entered a case
management order as follows:  

   (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case
       unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

   (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or
       other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after
       entry of this order unless stated otherwise below.

   (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit
       a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by
       the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
       disclosure deadlines, is February 26, 2021.

   (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
       referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

   (5) Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties
       shall meet and confer further in order to reach an
       agreement on an ADR process within 10 days of the date of
       this Order. Within that same time frame, the parties
       shall either (1) file the form entitled "Stipulation and
       (Proposed) order Selecting ADR Process" if an agreement
       is reached, or (2) file the form entitled "Notice of Need
       of ADR Phone Conference".

   (6) The parties shall comply with the Court's standing
       orders, which are available on the Court's website and in
       the Clerk's Office.

The Court further ordered that the following schedule and deadlines
shall apply to this case:

             EVENT                       DATE OR DEADLINE

   Last Day to Request Leave       60 Days from Date of this
   to Amend the Pleadings per      Order
   F.R.Civ.P 15:

   Last Day File Motion Class      April 16, 2022
   Certification:

   Last Day to Hear Dispositive    April 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM
   Motions:

   Final Pretrial Conference:      July 20, 2023 at 1:30 PM

   Trial                           Aug. 21, 2023 at 9:00 AM

Amazon Services LLC is located in Seattle, Washington, and is part
of the Telecommunications Services Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jSBY8U at no extra charge.[CC]

AMGUARD INSURANCE: Filing for Class Status Bid Due October 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH PYLES, v.
AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05755-EAS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order vacating
the Pretrial Conference scheduled for February 10, 2021 at 10:30
a.m. and adopting the following schedule based upon the parties'
Report pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

   1. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by March
      31, 2021.

   2. The parties agree that the motion for class certification
      shall be filed by October 31, 2021.

   3. Primary expert reports must be produced by July 27, 2021.

   4. The Plaintiff will make a settlement demand by November 9,
      2021. The Defendant will respond by December 9, 2021.

Amguard is an insurance firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jSz0kM at no extra charge.[CC]

BAGEL MENTCH: Carnero Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bagel Mentch, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Ulises Carnero, Leila Calderon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Bagel Mentch, Inc., David Weiss, as an individual, Case No.
2:21-cv-00781 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bagel Mentch -- https://www.bagelmentch.com/ -- is a bagel shop in
Great Neck, New York which aims to make great food impressions with
their kosher menu and extensive catering options.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq.
          Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: (718) 263-9591
          Email: jamespodonnell86@gmail.com
                 avshalumovr@yahoo.com


BOSLEY INC: Failed to Safeguard Customers' Personal Data, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Hashemi and Steve Altes, as individuals and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bosley, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00946, (C.D. Cal., February 1, 2021), seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief resulting from the failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information and
protected information that Bosley acquired in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Privacy Act.

Bosley operates a hair clinic in Beverly Hills, California where
Plaintiffs were customers/patients. On or about January 26, 2021,
Bosley reported a data breach involving sensitive data of over
100,000 individuals due to a "ransomware infection" beginning on or
about August 17, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
      Leslie Guillon, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
      Email: aberry@justice4you.com
             lguillion@justice4you.com


BROOKLYN BAZAAR: Robinson Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Bazaar LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Marcel Robinson, On behalf of
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals v. Brooklyn Bazaar
LLC, Aaron Broudo, Case No. 1:21-cv-00795 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Brooklyn Bazaar -- https://bkbazaar.com/ -- is a live music venue
and a weekend night flea-market scene with live bands, food stands,
beer & wine, art galore & Ping-Pong.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA, & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 11379
          Phone: (202) 468-4728
          Email: ls@aidalalaw.com


CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Files Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California State
University, Fresno, et al. The case is styled as Taylor Anders,
Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
California State University, Fresno; Terrence Tumey, in his
official capacity as Director of Athletics of California State
University, Fresno; Joseph Castro, in his official capacity as
former President of California State University, Fresno; Saul
Jimenez-Sandoval, in his official capacity as Interim President of
California State University, Fresno; Case No. 1:21-at-00100 (E.D.
Cal., Feb. 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.

California State University, Fresno -- https://www.csufresno.edu/
-- is a public university in Fresno, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th St.
          Houston, TX 77007-1722
          Phone: (713) 751-0400
          Fax: (713) 751-0906
          Email: mac@caddellchapman.com


CARRIZO OIL: Class Status Bid Filing Due June 11
------------------------------------------------
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. PE:20-CV-00051-DC-DF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
David B. Fannin entered a discovery scheduling order:

   1. The parties shall serve all requests for discovery and
      provide the Court with a report on Alternative Dispute
      Resolution on or before March 5, 2021.

   2. Each party shall be permitted two depositions to be
      completed on or before May 14, 2021.

   3. The parties shall complete all discovery on or before May
      14, 2021.

   4. The deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification and
      Court Approved Notice is June 11, 2021.

   5. Upon disposition of any Motions for Class Certification
      and Court Approved Notice, the Court will enter another
      scheduling order to govern the remainder of this case.

Plaintiff Chisum filed suit against the Defendants on July 10,
2020, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Carrizo Oil is a Houston-based energy company actively engaged in
the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas from
resource plays located in the U.S. The company's current operations
are principally focused on proven, producing oil and gas plays in
the Eagle Ford Shale.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b2YGXI at no extra charge.[CC]

CHRISTIANBOOK LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christianbook, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Christianbook, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01283 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

Christianbook, LLC, formerly known as Christian Book Distributors
-- https://www.christianbook.com/ -- is a Christian catalog and
internet retailer.[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


CIRCLE K: Deadline to File Response to Class Status Bid Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL JAMES, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. CIRCLE K
STORES, INC., Case No. e 1:20-cv-00215-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order granting the motion to stay
deadline.

Judge Walker says, in accordance with this Court's order, to file
an expedited response to Defendant's "ex parte" motion to stay
deadline, the Plaintiff has indicated that it no longer opposes the
Defendant's requested relief. Accordingly, there being no
opposition to a stay of the Defendant's deadline to respond to the
Plaintiff's class-certification motion, the Defendant's motion
granted.

The Defendant's deadline to file its response to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is stayed until 28 days after the
Court resolves the Defendant's pending motion for summary
judgment.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard. Founded in
1951 in El Paso, Texas, the company filed for bankruptcy protection
in 1990 and went through several owners, before being acquired by
Alimentation Couche-Tard in 2003.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qoEAxt at no extra charge.[CC]

CSC SERVICEWORKS: Haynes-Glenn Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC ServiceWorks,
Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Haynes-Glenn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSC ServiceWorks,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01304 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

CSC Serviceworks, Inc. -- https://www.cscsw.com/ -- provides
laundry equipment services. The Company leases coin and debit card
operated laundry machines for multi-family apartment buildings,
university residence halls, and related residential complexes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


DOORDASH INC: Dow Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doordash, Inc. The
case is styled as Terry Dow, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Doordash, Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-01122-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2021).

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

DoorDash Inc. -- https://www.doordash.com/ -- is an American food
delivery service. It launched in Palo Alto, California in 2013. As
of January 2020, it had the largest food delivery market share in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


EASTLAND MALL: Court Approves Distribution of Proposed Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEJUANA BEAVER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
EASTLAND MALL HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00485-EAS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order
approving distribution of the Proposed Notice on Mansell Law's
website and social media platforms for the duration of the 45-day
notice period.

On January 8, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and ordered the Defendants to
provide Plaintiffs with the names, last known addresses, email
addresses, dates of employment, and positions of all individuals
currently and formerly employed by Defendants at Eastland Mall
during the three years prior to January 28, 2020.

The Defendants are in default in this action and have failed to
comply with the Court's January 8, 2021 order. The Plaintiffs have
therefore been unable to distribute the approved notice by mail and
email to potential opt-in Plaintiffs. Thus, the Plaintiffs move the
court to approve publication of an abbreviated notice to potential
opt-in Plaintiffs on counsel's website and social media accounts.

Given Defendants' default and lack of compliance with the Court's
order, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that publication on
counsel's website and social media accounts is the most effective
manner to notify potential opt-in Plaintiffs of their right to
participate in this action.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NbKuUh at no extra charge.[CC]

ENDO INTL: Appointment of JSLF, Motley Rice as Class Counsel Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE XYREM (SODIUM OXYBATE) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:20-md-02966-LHK (N.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiffs The City of Providence, Rhode Island and Self-Insured
Schools of California will move the Court on March 24, 2021 to
enter an order appointing The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. (JSLF)
and Motley Rice LLC as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.

The City of Providence, Rhode Island and Self-Insured Schools of
California respectfully submit that JSLF and Motley Rice should be
appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel because they are the only group
responsible for initially investigating and developing this case,
and consist of a small, nimble, and diverse team, experts in the
field with a long track record of success. If appointed, they will
effectively and efficiently prosecute this case to successful
conclusion, advancing the interest of justice, the Plaintiffs say.

JSLF and Motley Rice attorneys have served as sole lead counsel or
as co-lead counsel in numerous complex pharmaceutical and other
antitrust cases. They have represented Fortune 500 companies,
entrepreneurs, small businesses, public entities, health and
welfare plans, and consumers.

The Defendants include Endo International, PLC, Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries LTD, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceuticals LTD., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC,
and Mallinckrodt LLC.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion dated Feb. 5, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ddWJud at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Self-Insured Schools of California,
are:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
          Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
                  areddy@saverilawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, The City of Providence, Rhode Island,
are:

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          Jacob Onile-Ere, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 577-0050
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  mclerkin@motleyrice.com
                  jonileere@motleyrice.com

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Class Status Bid Optional Reply Due May 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Jeffery S. Frensley entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. The deadline for Defendants to substantially complete
      documents production is March 31, 2021.

   2. The deadline for any motions to amend or add parties is
      August 21, 2021.

   3. Fact discovery and fact depositions shall be completed by
      October 31, 2021.

   4. In consultation with Judge Campbell's chambers, the
      Defendants shall file their opposition the Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Class Certification by March 15, 2021.

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file any optional reply in support of
      their motion for class certification by May 7, 2021.

   6. By February 12, 2021, the Parties shall file a revised
      Joint Discovery Dispute Statement outlining their efforts
      to resolve the "Attorney's Eyes Only" designation issue
      and whether further action by the Court on that matter is
      required.

The Court has reviewed the Parties' submissions and proposals
regarding the scheduling order in this matter. Given the complexity
and volume of the discovery issues and disputes in this case, the
Court believes that an extension of the deadline for the Defendants
to complete document production and related case management
deadlines is appropriate, Judge Frensley says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ai9jXw at no extra charge.[CC]

GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Angus Class Action
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS ANGUS v. TIMOTHY
C. WARD, Commissioner, D.O.C.; DEPUTY WARDEN IRWIN; WARDEN BOBBIT;
J-PAY, SECIKUS TECHNOLOGIES; and GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE, Case
No. 6:20-cv-00108-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Epps
entered an order:

   1. dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
      a claim upon which relief can be granted;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining
      order; and

   3. closing the civil action.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits because the complaint allegations fail to
state a claim, as discussed above. Nothing in Plaintiff’s motion
for injunctive relief convinces the Court otherwise. Indeed, the
motion contains the same factual allegations as the complaint which
fail to state a valid section 1983 claim. For these reasons,
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is denied."

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aoywzH
at no extra charge.[CC]

GLOCK INC: California Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Johnson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants with leave to amend Glock's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
captioned STEVEN C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. GLOCK, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Johnson alleges, on behalf of himself and a proposed
class, that certain handguns designed, made, and sold by Defendants
Glock, Inc., and Glock Ges.m.b.H have a defect that can cause them
to damage reusable shell casings and "blow out" a piece of casing.
But he never pleads basic facts, like who he bought his Glock from,
when, or how he was injured by the alleged defect, District Judge
William H. Orrick notes. The Judge adds that this pleading failure
infects each of his causes of action.

Mr. Johnson is a resident of Oakland, California, who owns a .45
caliber gun made by Glock. He alleges that his firearm was
"designed, manufactured, assembled, to be tested, marketed,
imported, warranted, distributed, and sold by" Glock. He does not,
however, allege that he purchased the gun from Glock.  Nor does he
allege any information about how he acquired it, other than that it
was in Alameda County.

Mr. Johnson alleges that a certain group of Glock's hand guns
contain a defect. More specifically, he alleges that the defect
exists in several dozen models of Glock hand gun, as well as those
with similar chamber designs and feed ramp lengths and potentially
in other Glock models. This defect, as Johnson alleges it, stems
from the guns' "feed ramps." Feed ramps guide rounds into the guns'
chambers. According to Johnson, the feed ramps in these Glock
models are too long, resulting in insufficient "support" for a
round once it is in the chamber. He claims that this lack of
support causes undue pressure to be placed on the round when it is
fired in the "6 o'clock position."

This pressure, which Johnson labels a defect, has two purported
effects relevant in the case. First, Johnson alleges that the
defect causes damage to the brass casings of the rounds by creating
a "bulge" on them after they are fired. This bulge--which Johnson
alleges is a commonly known consequence of using many models of
Glock--renders brass casings "useless, nonfunctional, and
valueless." While consumers could normally reuse these casings to
make reloaded ammunition, the alleged damage from the defect makes
reuse impracticable and unsafe. Second, Johnson alleges that the
defect makes these models dangerous. He claims that it can (though
does not necessarily) create a "blow out" or "kaboom." A blow out,
Johnson asserts, is when the round or casing separates and
dislodges a piece of the casing. Johnson does not identify anyone
who has been harmed in this manner.

Mr. Johnson filed a complaint in California state court in October
2020 and filed the FAC in November 2020. Glock removed the case to
this Court in December 2020 under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"). The FAC alleges nine causes of action: (1) violation of
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (2)
negligence, (3) strict products liability, (4) breach of express
warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
(6) fraudulent omission, (7) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), (8) violation of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), and (9) violation of the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). Johnson brings all but the
MMWA action on behalf of himself and a proposed class; he brings
the MMWA claim only in an individual capacity.

Mr. Johnson seeks to certify a class defined as, "All current and
former owners of a Class Gun (as defined herein) that was purchased
in the State of California." "Class guns," in turn, are defined in
the FAC as "certain hand guns," and later elaborated on as
including but not being limited to several dozen specific models
and those with "similar" chamber and feed ramp designs. He does not
put any temporal limits on the class. He also does not allege that
any of his casings have ever been damaged by the defect or that his
gun has suffered a blow out. He alleges that had he and the other
members of the California Sub-Class known of the Unsupported
Chamber Defect within the Class Guns, they would not have purchased
the Class Guns or would have paid less for the Class Guns. He
claims that his gun shares the defect.

Glock now moves to dismiss Johnson's claims and strike his class
allegations. A hearing on the motion was held on February 3, 2021.

As an initial matter, and separate from its arguments about any
particular cause of action or element, Glock contends that
Johnson's pleading does not meet Rule 8 and the standard under Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and/or Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It argues that though each cause
of action depends on the existence of a defect, the Plaintiff does
not allege that he has actually experienced one.

That is incorrect; the FAC alleges that Johnson "owns a Class Gun,"
which is defined as guns that have the defect, Judge Orrick opines.
Indeed, Johnson explicitly alleges that it is defective and was at
the time of purchase. At most, Glock's argument is that Johnson has
not experienced the effects of that defect--the damaged brass
casings or the blow out.

Glock contends that Johnson's CLRA, UCL, FAL, and fraudulent
omissions claims should be dismissed under Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading standard. Both parties agree those claims sound in fraud.

Judge Orrick notes that Johnson does not make much of an effort in
his Opposition to establish that he pleaded the "who, what, when,
where, and how" of his claims that sound in fraud. Instead, he
largely focuses his defense of his claims on the elements of his
various state law causes of action. While showing that each claim
has been adequately pleaded is also necessary, the question whether
each element of California law is adequately pleaded is distinct
from (though related to) whether Rule 9(b)'s pleading requirements
are met.

The only "where" that Johnson concretely identifies--though he does
not explicitly put it forward as satisfying Rule 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--is Glock's website, which he says
contained various misleading statements, Judge Orrick observes.
Johnson also does vaguely say that he purchased the gun in Alameda
County, but his Opposition makes clear that he is intentionally
choosing to withhold any further fundamental details.

Mr. Johnson's failure to adhere to Rule 9(b) has consequences,
Judge Orrick holds. For present purposes, though, neither the Judge
nor Glock have even an approximate picture of the circumstances in
which Johnson allegedly would have encountered misrepresentations
or omissions.

Accordingly, Johnson's FAC is not adequately pleaded and his
misrepresentation claims will be dismissed with leave to amend.
Because dismissal of these claims is with leave to amend, Judge
Orrick addresses several issues in the alterative to streamline
future proceedings.

Judge Orrick finds that Johnson has adequately pleaded that the
defect here can result in a safety hazard. The allegation is that
guns that suffer the defect can "blow out," resulting in a piece of
the casing being dangerously dislodged. A piece of metal being
dislodged from a handheld object at force is plausibly an
unreasonable safety hazard.

Glock seeks to circumvent this conclusion, but none of its
arguments are persuasive at the pleadings stage, Judge Orrick
opines. Glock contends that the alleged safety hazard is merely
"conjectural" or "hypothetical." Relatedly, it argues that any
causal connection between the defect and blow outs is also
speculative. But, as alleged, Judge Orrick notes, the blow outs are
a potential natural result of the feed tube defect. Additionally,
at least some other consumers appear to have experienced the
"bulge" effect of the defect, illustrating the plausibility of the
defect itself. At this point, Johnson's well-pleaded allegation
must be taken as true, Judge Orrick holds.

Judge Orrick agrees with Glock to the extent that there is a worry
that the safety hazard may not end up being "unreasonable." Johnson
is not as specific as would be ideal about the mechanics of the
blow out, nor does he point to any injuries that anyone has
suffered from one. At this stage, Johnson must only show that the
existence of an unreasonable safety hazard is plausible.

It is not clear that Johnson has adequately pleaded that Glock had
knowledge of the defect at the time of sale, Judge Orrick notes.
This is largely due to Johnson's refusal to plead when he purchased
his gun. One of Johnson's arguments about pre-sale knowledge, for
example, is that consumers filed complaints about the defect. Yet,
his pleading failure means it is impossible to determine whether
those complaints were filed before or after he purchased the gun.
Because his claims are already being dismissed with leave to amend,
remedying this pleading failure will permit resolution of this
issue as well, Judge Orrick states.

Glock also argues that Johnson has not shown he possesses Article
III standing to pursue injunctive relief, or that he has shown a
lack of adequate remedies at law. Judge Orrick agrees that Johnson
has not yet pleaded a future injury that would create standing to
pursue an injunction.

As presently pleaded, Johnson has not demonstrated standing to
pursue injunctive relief under Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, Judge Orrick opines. The FAC does not contain any
allegation that Johnson would consider purchasing a Glock or a
competitor product in the future.

Judge Orrick rejects Glock's position to the extent that it argues
Johnson has foreclosed any possible future standing. Glock argues
that one of Johnson's allegations "conclusively destroys standing
to seek injunctive relief" because he pleaded that "he would not
purchase the product knowing now what he claims he did not know
earlier."

Because Johnson has not yet pleaded facts sufficient to show that
he possesses standing, however, his request for injunctive relief
is dismissed with leave to amend.

Mr. Johnson concedes that, to bring his negligence and strict
liability claims, he must show physical injury or damage to
property. He has pleaded neither, Judge Orrick observes. He argues
only that the class guns can cause physical injury or can cause
damage to brass casings, but he conspicuously does not allege that
either has ever happened to him. Indeed, his pleading implies that
neither has happened to him because it repeatedly discusses unnamed
"consumers" being damaged. Johnson has not pleaded that he was
injured or that his property was harmed. These claims are dismissed
with leave to amend, Judge Orrick rules.

Glock also argues, among other things, that the express warranty
claims must be dismissed because Johnson has failed to show (1)
that any warranty applies, (2) how any warranty was breached, and
(3) that he attempted to use the avenues open under the warranty.
It also argues that, because of Johnson's pleading deficiencies,
there is no way to know when Glock's own express limited warranty
applied, if it did at all.

Given the confused state of this issue, Johnson's apparent request
to amend, and his lack of substantive argument in support of his
claims, Judge Orrick will dismiss this claim with leave to amend.
The net result of the confusion Johnson has created is that there
is no way to determine that he has adequately pleaded a breach of
any express warranty. In an amended complaint, Johnson must make
plain what warranties he believes apply and how he satisfies the
elements of a warranty claim.

Glock separately moves to strike the class allegations for various
reasons. Because no individual claims remain, there is no need to
address the class allegations now, especially because an amended
complaint will need to clear up numerous areas of uncertainty.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss and strike is granted with leave
to amend. Any amended complaint will be filed within 30 days of the
date of the Order.

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


HAIN CELESTIAL: Micks Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Marla Micks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00835 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. -- http://www.hain.com/-- is an
American food company whose main focus is foods and personal care
products. Their products range from herbal teas, offered through
their Celestial Seasonings brand, to chickens from the FreeBird
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that on August
17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in
the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.;
and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August
4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September
7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities
between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017.

The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain
of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's
business, prospects, financial results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.


Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 6, 2019. The Second Amended Complaint again named
as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the
Amended Complaint, including materially false or misleading
statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial
results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August
5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019. On
April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2020
indicating their intent to appeal the Court's decision dismissing
the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their appellate
brief on August 18, 2020. Defendants filed their opposition brief
on November 17, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on
December 8, 2020. Accordingly, Co-Lead Plaintiffs' appeal is fully
briefed.

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.

HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the case
entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class
and Derivative Litigation, has been stayed.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the former Board of Directors and
certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v.
Simon, et al. and Barnes v. Simon, et al., respectively.

Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation
of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board
of Directors and certain former officers of the Company.

The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and
certain former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint
also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law
by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and
includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and
corporate waste.

On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case
and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al., and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver
Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action.

The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under
seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed
to stay Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days
after a decision was rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, described above.

On March 29, 2019, the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action
granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its
entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Securities Action filed the Second Amended Complaint
on May 6, 2019. The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants'
time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated
amended complaint through 30 days after a decision on Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated
Securities Action.

On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action,
with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in
the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until
May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint
in this matter. This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action
Complaint on June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs' opposition due August
7, 2020.

On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand
on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to
those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and
Derivative Action.

On August 10, 2020, the Court vacated the briefing schedule on
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in order to give the Board of
Directors time to consider the demand. On each of September 8 and
October 8, 2020, the Court extended its stay of any applicable
deadlines for 30 days to give the Board of Directors additional
time to complete its evaluation of the demand.

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of
Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other
things, that the demand should be rejected. On November 6, 2020,
Plaintiffs and Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiffs were
evaluating the rejection of the demand, sought certain additional
information and were assessing next steps, and requested that the
Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days, to on or around
December 7, 2020.

Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a joint status report on December
7, 2020 requesting that the Court enter an order staying any
applicable deadlines until January 15, 2021 to allow for the
production of certain materials by the Board of Directors for
review by Plaintiffs.

On January 15, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a joint status
report requesting that the Court enter an order extending the stay
of any applicable deadlines to February 26, 2021, which the Court
so-ordered.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.

HERCULES INC: Libman Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Libman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hercules, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00829 (S.D. N.Y., January 29, 2021), seeks redress for
Hercules' practice of misrepresenting the value of reloadable cash
cards designed for use in laundry machines that are also provided
by and serviced by Hercules. Libman seeks redress for violations of
New York general business laws.

Hercules only allows users to fill their laundry card with the
amounts of $10, $25, $50, and $75 while charging various fees for
different size washer and dryers. Fee amounts vary, but include
$2.20, $2.60, $2.75, and $3.75. Libman claims that Hercules
represents that it will refund the balance of the card at the
user's request. He says that Hercules requires a $5 "processing and
handling fee" to receive said refund, in effect making the consumer
pay more than the value of the balance in order to receive their
refund.

Libman has at least two Laundry Cards that were provided by
Hercules. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 837-7150
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com


HONIG & GREENBERG: Giovinazzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honig & Greenberg,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Joseph Giovinazzo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Honig & Greenberg,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-00809 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2021).

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

Honig & Greenberg, LLC -- http://honigandgreenberg.blogspot.com/--
is a law firm in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[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


HOPKINS MANUFACTURING: Haass Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hopkins Manufacturing
Corporation. The case is styled as Thomas Haass, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hopkins Manufacturing
Corporation, Case No. 7:21-cv-01290 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Hopkins -- https://www.hopkinsmfg.com/ -- is a manufacturer and
marketer of specialized towing products and functional accessories
for the automotive aftermarket.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7127
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hundreds Is Huge,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Hundreds Is Huge, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01331 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021).

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

The Hundreds -- https://thehundreds.com/ -- is a community-based
streetwear brand and media platform with an emphasis on People Over
Product.[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


IRHYTHM TECH: Habelt Slams Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------
Mark Habelt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. and Kevin M.
King, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00776, (N.D. Cal., February 1,
2021), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

iRhythm is a digital healthcare company that uses wearable
biosensing technology with cloudbased data analytics to provide
ambulatory cardiac monitoring services on its platform, called the
Zio service. iRhythm common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock
exchange under the ticker symbol "IRTC."

iRhythm receives revenue for its Zio service primarily from
third-party payers, which include commercial payers and government
agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS).

iRhythm allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to
investors that its business would suffer as a result of the CMS'
December 1, 2020 announcement of a rate cut. Shares opened on
December 2, 2020 at $183.00 each, down from the December 1, 2020
close of $240.64. iRhythm's common stock closed at $168.42, down
approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00.
Shares traded intraday as low as $135.65 each. The 33% drop
represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of approximately
$2.4 billion. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Whitney E. Street, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 968-1852
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     Email: whitney@blockleviton.com

            - and -

     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     Email: jake@blockleviton.com


LABCORP EMPLOYER: Class Status Bid Filing Due August 23
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shannon Williams v.
LabCorp Employer Services, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-10146-JAK-JEM (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John A.
Kronstadt entered a scheduling order setting pretrial deadlines
based on a review of the parties' January 29, 2021 Joint Report, as
follows:

   March 5, 2021       Deadline to file joint report regarding
                       agreed upon private neutral. If the
                       parties are not able to agree, the joint
                       report shall include three nominees from
                       each party. A resume and hourly rate for
                       each nominee shall be attached to the
                       joint report. The Court will select a
                       private neutral from the nominees
                       proposed by the parties.

   May 28, 2021        Last day to amend or add parties.

   August 23, 2021     Deadline to file motion for class
                       certification.

   September 20, 2021  Deadline to file opposition to motion for
                       class certification.

   October 4, 2021     Deadline to file reply in support of
                       motion for class certification.

   October 18, 2021    Hearing on motion for class
   at 8:30 a.m.        certification.

   January 12, 2022    Last day to participate in a settlement
                       conference/mediation.

   January 14, 2022    Last day to file notice of settlement /
                       joint report re settlement.

   January 24, 2022    Post Mediation Status Conference
   at 11:30 a.m.

   February 28, 2022   Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off.

   March 14, 2022      Initial Expert Disclosures.

   March 28, 2022      Rebuttal Expert Disclosures.

   April 11, 2022      Expert Discovery Cut-Off.

   April 11, 2022      Last day to file All Motions
                       (including discovery motions)

The Court said, "The parties will be invited to submit proposed
dates for the final pretrial conference and trial, if necessary,
upon the final ruling on all motions pending as of the last day to
file motions. The trial estimate will be set at the final pretrial
conference. The Court grants the parties' request to participate in
a settlement conference with a private neutral. The parties are
ordered to have a representative with authority to make final
decisions as to this matter present at the settlement conference.
If a settlement is reached, the parties are ordered to file a
notice of settlement, with a proposed date by which the matter will
be dismissed. On January 24, 2022 if such notice is filed on or
before January 14, 2022. If a notice of settlement is not filed,
counsel shall file a joint report by January 14, 2022 regarding the
status of the settlement process and whether a second session would
be productive. The joint report shall not disclose the substantive
contents of any settlement communications between the parties."

LabCorp offers services designed to complement employee wellness.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 5, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pni4UD at no
extra charge.[CC]

LISTENING SYSTEMS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Listening Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Listening Systems, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01291 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

Listening Systems, Inc. -- https://www.odorxit.com/ -- is a company
that sells odor control & elimination products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDWEST RECOVERY: Class Status Partly OK'd in Franklin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michell T. Franklin, et
al., v. Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC, et al., Case No.
8:18-cv-02085-SB-DFM (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Stanley
Blumenfeld, Jr., entered an order granting in part and denying in
part motion for class certification:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the
      Restitution Subclass is granted. The Court certifies this
      class under Rule 23(b)(3).

   -- The Courts finds -- and Defendants do not dispute -- that
      class counsel is qualified to prosecute this case. The
      Court thus appoints Jeffrey Wilens and Jeffrey Spencer as
      class counsel.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following class:

   "all California residents whose SUBJECT LOAN DEBT INFORMATION
    was furnished by the Defendant Midwest to consumer credit
    reporting agencies during the past two years from filing of
    the original complaint."

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a "Restitution Subclass"
comprised of:

    "all members of the Main Class who paid money to Defendant
    Midwest after Midwest furnished the SUBJECT LOAN DEBT
    INFORMATION to consumer reporting agencies."

The Plaintiffs allege that payday loan companies made "tens of
thousands of loans to California residents" between 2009 and 2014
that were illegal and void. In 2011 and 2012, the Plaintiffs
obtained payday loans from two companies, and the resulting debt
was ultimately transferred to Cooper Financial, LLC. Mark Gray, the
owner and sole manager of Cooper Financial, LLC, hired Midwest to
collect the debt "using whatever means were necessary", the
Plaintiffs add.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants implemented a
scheme to extort money from borrowers whose debt was not legally
valid. The Defendants used "the leverage of credit-reporting" to
collect the debt by furnishing the Plaintiffs' information to
credit reporting agencies, including Equifax, Experian, and
TransUnion. As a result, Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals were forced to pay otherwise uncollectible debt to
remove negative information from their credit reports or suffer
damage to their creditworthiness.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

Midwest Recovery is a debt collection agency located in Florissant,
Missouri.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 5, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rZoSJN at no
extra charge.[CC]

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Akhter Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nurul Akhter, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00247 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

Northstar -- https://www.thenorthstarcompanies.com/ -- provides a
full-service receivables debt collection solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 281-7601
          Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


OPPOSUITS USA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opposuits USA Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Opposuits USA Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01294 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

Opposuits USA Inc. -- https://www.opposuits.com/ -- is located in
New York and is part of the Men's Clothing Manufacturing
Industry.[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


OREGON DOE: Court Certifies Class of Disabled Students
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.N., et al., v. OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00096-AA (D.
Ore.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all students with disabilities aged 3 to 21 residing in
      Oregon who are eligible for special education and related
      services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
      Act (IDEA) and are currently being subjected to a
      shortened school day or are at substantial risk of being
      subjected to a shortened school day due to their
      disability-related behaviors;" and

   2. appointing the plaintiffs' counsel, Ira A. Burnim, Lewis
      Bossing, Selene Almazan-Altobelli, Seth Galanter, Alice Y.
      Abrokwa, Thomas Stenson, Joel D. Greenberg, and Michael W.
      Folger, as counsel for the class.

The Court finds that the plaintiffs have satisfied all requirements
of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are four Oregon public
school children with disabilities and a non-profit advocacy group.
They allege that a lack of state-level monitoring, enforcement, and
assistance for school districts has led to a statewide pattern
among school districts of misusing shortened school day schedules
for students with disability-related behaviors, which violates
their rights under the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act.

The Department of Education of the U.S. state of Oregon is
responsible for implementing the state's public education policies,
including academic standards and testing, credentials, and other
matters not reserved to the local districts and boards.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qhu8rD at no
extra charge.[CC]

ORGANIFI LLC: California Court Narrows Claims in Liou Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled GLENN LIOU, Plaintiff v. ORGANIFI,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1077-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal.).

The matter is before the Court on Defendants Organifi's and Andrew
Canole's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and motion
to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims and stay litigation
pending the outcome of arbitration.

Plaintiff Liou filed the putative consumer class action complaint
against Defendants Organifi and Canole in San Diego Superior Court
on August 30, 2019.

The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on
January 6, 2020. The FAC asserted five claims under California law
based on Organifi's allegedly false and misleading statements about
its product Organifi Green Juice ("Green Juice" or "Product"): (1)
Breach of Implied Warranties of Merchantability and Fitness for
Particular Purpose; (2) Breach of Express Warranty; (3) Violation
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California
Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; (4) Violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (5) Restitution, Money Had and
Received, Unjust Enrichment, and/or Quasi-Contract and Assumpsit.

The Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 12, 2020.
After removal, they filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, while the
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court. The
Court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss
with respect to the Plaintiff's breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability claim, CLRA and UCL claims premised solely on
Defendants' Benefit Statements, and request for injunctive relief,
and denied it otherwise. As permitted by the Court's order on the
motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") on October 22, 2020, asserting the same five claims. The
Defendants now move to dismiss the SAC or to compel arbitration.

As for the motion to compel arbitration, the Defendants contend
that by making a purchase on www.organifi.com, the Plaintiff agreed
to certain Terms & Conditions ("T&C") linked on the site. According
to the Defendants, these T&C include a valid and binding
arbitration agreement that encompasses the present dispute and
requires the Court to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his
claims.

As for the motion to dismiss, the Defendants generally argue that
the SAC does not remedy the defects articulated by the Court in its
order dismissing some of the FAC's claims and asks the Court to
dismiss those claims with prejudice.

The T&C that the Defendants allege was linked on www.organifi.com
begins: "Welcome to www.organifi.com or www.fitlife.tv (each a
'Site'), an online website operated by Fit Life TV LLC, a Florida
limited liability company ('FLT', 'We', 'Our', or 'Us')." The
contract defines "FLT," "We," "Our," and "Us" to refer to Fit Life
TV LLC and makes no mention of the corporate entity Organifi, LLC
or of Andrew Canole as parties to the contract. The T&C, therefore,
is a contract between FLT and any user of the two websites listed
("www.organifi.com or www.fitlife.tv"), District Judge Dathy Ann
Bencivenge holds.

The Defendants argue that by making a purchase on
www.organifishop.com, the Plaintiff agreed to the T&C, and is,
therefore, bound by the class action waiver and arbitration
agreement in Paragraph 16 of the T&C. The Defendants further argue
that based on Paragraph 16, even the threshold issue of
arbitrability must be decided by an arbitrator.

Judge Bencivenge holds that the Defendants are not party to the T&C
and have no contractual right to compel arbitration. She explains
that construing all provisions of the contract together, the T&C
appears to be an agreement between FLT (the website provider) and
the consumer browsing the website hosted by FLT ("www.organifi.com
or www.fitlife.tv") governing the terms and conditions of the
consumer's use of the website. Interpreting the contract as a
whole, she finds that FLT is the drafting party to the T&C
agreement, not Organifi, LLC.

The use of the plural pronouns "We," "Our," and "Us" in the T&C
does not preclude the possibility that such words refer to solely
one business entity--FLT, Judge Bencivenge notes. Nor does it
necessarily mean that the plural refers to Organifi, LLC, which is
not mentioned until the final sentence of the nine-page agreement.
Because the T&C is an agreement between the consumer and FLT, Mr.
Canole and Organifi's relationship is irrelevant to this inquiry.

For these reasons, the Court finds that neither Organifi nor Andrew
Canole is a party to the T&C. Accordingly, neither Defendant is
entitled to invoke the T&C's class action waiver and arbitration
provision, and no binding agreement to arbitrate exists between the
parties.

The Defendants also argue that under Paragraph 16 of the T&C, the
parties delegated the threshold issue of whether they agreed to
arbitrate their dispute to an arbitrator. However, the Defendants
ignore a crucial aspect of the rule under Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796
F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015)--the arbitration agreement must be
between contracting parties, Judge Bencivenge states.

The Defendants cannot assert a contractual right arising from a
contract to which they were not a party, Judge Bencivenge holds.
Whether Paragraph 16 of the T&C designates jurisdiction to an
arbitrator is, thus, irrelevant to this dispute, as the T&C does
not involve the Defendants.

Even if the parties were bound by the T&C and this dispute fell
within the scope of the T&C's arbitration provision, the Court
finds that Defendants nevertheless waived their right to compel
arbitration in this matter.

The right to compel arbitration arises from a contract alleged to
be between the parties, and like other contractual rights, can be
waived. However, a waiver of a contractual right to arbitration is
not favored, and "any party arguing waiver of arbitration bears a
heavy burden of proof."

Judge Bencivenge also notes that the Defendants have spent
approximately 15 months litigating the case from when the Plaintiff
filed his initial complaint in August 2019 until the filing of the
present motion in November 2020. Since removing the case to federal
court, they have spent approximately seven months litigating before
raising their alleged right to compel arbitration, including
defending against a motion to remand and bringing two motions to
dismiss.

Additionally, the Defendants have actively litigated the case by
filing four separate motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims
between state and federal court. While in state court, the
Defendants filed two demurrers to the Plaintiff's complaint and
FAC, respectively. After removal, the Defendants then brought two
additional motions to dismiss the FAC and the SAC, and have not
once raised their alleged right to arbitrate.  Based on this
record, the Defendants' conduct constitutes "an intentional
decision to forgo arbitration in favor of a judicial forum" and
merits a finding of acts inconsistent with any alleged right to
compel arbitration.

Judge Bencivenge also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff
was prejudiced as a result of the Defendants' actions.

Because the Defendants had knowledge of their alleged right to
arbitrate and engaged in various acts inconsistent with that right
across 15 months of litigation, and because the Plaintiff would
suffer prejudice should the Court now compel arbitration, the Court
finds that the Defendants waived any purported right to arbitrate
the present dispute.

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is
denied.

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's breach of implied
warranty of merchantability claim, CLRA and UCL claims premised
solely on the Defendants' Benefit Statements, and request for
injunctive relief, granting the Plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint. Upon review of the SAC and the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, the Court finds that the Plaintiff partially remedied the
deficiencies identified in the Court's previous Order.

Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach
of implied warranty of merchantability claim is denied. The
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims
based solely on the Benefit Statements identified in the SAC is
denied. The Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims premised solely on the
Benefit Statements are dismissed with prejudice as lack of
substantiation claims.

Finally, the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief in the FAC
was dismissed for lack of standing because the Plaintiff did not
allege a "sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a
similar way." Specifically, the Plaintiff failed to allege facts
suggesting that he intends to purchase Green Juice again in the
future, and, thus, failed to establish any threat of future harm as
required to warrant injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is
denied.

For the reasons set forth, the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration is denied. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC is
granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL
claims based solely on the fourteen Benefit Statements identified
in the SAC are dismissed with prejudice, and the Defendants' motion
to dismiss is denied as to all other claims at issue. The
Defendants will file an answer to the SAC by February 26, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/13yubwdd from Leagle.com.


OXFORD HEALTH: Briefing Schedule for Class Status Bid Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA MOHR-LERCARA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., OPTUM, INC., and OPTUMRA, INC., Case
No. 7:18-cv-01427-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L.
Briccetti entered a schedulng order:

   -- A pre-motion conference, in this case, is scheduled for
      March 4, 2021, at 2:30 p.m;

   -- By February 18, 2021, the defendants shall file a letter
      setting forth the basis for their anticipated motion for
      summary judgment;

   -- By February 25, 2021, the plaintiff shall respond to  
      defendants' pre-motion conference letter;

   -- The briefing schedule for the plaintiff's anticipated
      motion for class certification is stayed pending further
      order of the Court; and

   -- The Clerk is instructed to terminate the letter motion.

The Court said, "By letter motion dated February 5, 2021, the
parties request a modification of the briefing schedule for
plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification to first
resolve defendants' motion for summary judgment. The parties
propose a schedule for the summary judgment motion or, in the
alternative, request a pre-motion conference. Pursuant to Paragraph
2.B.ii of the Court's Individual Practices, a pre-motion conference
is required before making a motion for summary judgment."

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rUfg2P at no extra charge.[CC]

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Kahn Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled RICHARD
KAHN and AARK ENTERPRISE LLC d/b/a MAULDIN'S, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENNSYLVANIA
NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-781 (M.D. Pa.).

The case arises from the economic havoc wrought by the COVID-19
pandemic. The Plaintiffs operated a restaurant that, like far too
many businesses across the country, had no choice but to close its
doors soon after the virus reached the United States last spring.
The Plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurance company, hoping
that their business losses would be covered in their all-risk
policy. Unfortunately for them, their insurance company rejected
their claim. Like thousands of similarly situated business owners,
the Plaintiffs challenged that denial in federal court.

District Judge John E. Jones, III, notes that the vast majority of
courts analyzing these claims have sided with the insurers, largely
agreeing that the commercial insurance policies unambiguously
foreclosed coverage where the business property suffered no
physical damage or any tangible injury other than pure economic
loss.

The Plaintiffs formerly owned and operated a restaurant named
"Mauldin's," named for the South Carolina town in which it was
located. In September 2019, they obtained an "all-risk" commercial
insurance policy from the Defendant, which is headquartered in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. An "all-risk" insurance policy covers all
risks of loss unless expressly excluded. The Plaintiffs' Policy was
intended to provide a full year of coverage, to expire on September
19, 2020. Six months later, however, the COVID-19 crisis spread to
the United States.

South Carolina officials reported the first instances of COVID-19
in the state on March 6, 2020. The following week, on March 13,
Governor Henry McMaster declared a state of emergency and closed
schools in two counties. On April 6, Governor McMaster issued a
statewide order requiring all residents to limit movement outside
their homes or places of work to only essential activities.

Because South Carolina residents were advised to stay home,
Mauldin's suffered a significant loss of business. By late March,
the Plaintiffs "were forced" to close the restaurant. Hoping that
their loss of business income would be covered by the Policy,
Plaintiffs submitted a claim to the Defendant. On March 31, 2020,
Defendant denied the claim.

The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action on May 12, 2020.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 19. On June 25, the
Plaintiffs moved for a stay of proceedings pending resolution by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") of their
motion to transfer the action, along with hundreds of other related
cases, to centralized pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407. To avoid against any potential prejudice to the
Defendant, the Court ordered a limited (45-day) stay of proceedings
and instructed the parties to alert the Court of the JPML's ruling
on Plaintiffs' motion to transfer.

Before the Court so ruled, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint, which is now the operative pleading in the action. The
Amended Complaint asserts three causes of action arising out of the
Defendant's denial of insurance coverage: breach of contract (Count
I), breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count II),
and declaratory relief (Count III).

On August 14, 2020, the Defendant advised the Court that the JPML
denied transfer to a centralized proceeding. Accordingly, the
Defendant re-filed its Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") on
September 2, with a brief in support on September 8. The Plaintiffs
filed their brief in opposition to the Motion on September 30, to
which Defendant replied on October 14.

Judge Jones holds that the legal sufficiency of all three of the
Plaintiffs' claims depends on whether the Defendant's denial of
coverage pursuant to the Policy was reasonable. The Defendant
asserts that coverage was properly denied for two main reasons.
First, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
insufficient to bring their claim within the Policy's coverage
grant for "direct physical loss of or damage to property," as is
required. Because the Plaintiffs did not plead any "physical loss
of or damage to" their property, the claim was appropriately
denied.

The Defendant argues that the Civil Authority provision was
inapplicable because property damage must have been the cause of
the Civil Authority action, because the Plaintiffs did not allege
"physical loss of or damage to" nearby property, and/or because
access to the insured property must have been entirely prohibited,
none of which occurred here. Second, even if the Plaintiffs' claims
did fall under either category of coverage, they would be barred by
the Policy's Virus Exclusion.

Upon careful review of the Policy, the parties' well-briefed
arguments, and the numerous decisions the Court's colleagues within
the Third Circuit have issued concerning these exact issues, Judge
Jones finds that the Defendant did indeed properly deny coverage
and that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint must, therefore, be
dismissed.

Overall, the Court concludes that the Defendant properly denied
coverage under the Business Income coverage provision--the policy
unambiguously required "physical loss of or damage to property,"
which must mean some physical alteration to or issue with the
structure, or some physical contamination inside the building,
neither of which are alleged in the case.

In the Civil Authority coverage provision, the Defendant agreed to
pay "for the actual loss of Business Income the Plaintiffs sustain
and necessary Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority
that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct
physical loss of or damage to property, other than at the described
premises, caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss."
This provision, like the Business Income coverage provision,
expressly requires some nexus to "direct physical loss of or damage
to property," Judge Jones notes.

Unlike the Business Income provision, however, the Civil Authority
provision requires "a covered cause of loss [that damages or causes
a physical loss of] another property in the immediate area of the
insured property, prompting a civil authority to respond to the
covered cause of loss," Judge Jones opines, citing ATCM Optical,
Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. CV 20-4238, 2021 WL 131282, at
* 6 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021). The Plaintiffs do not allege any loss
of or damage to another property caused by any "covered cause of
loss" that triggered an action of civil authority. Rather, they
only allege that South Carolina's orders to avoid public spaces
"constituted a prohibition of access to Plaintiffs' business
property." But a plain reading of the Civil Authority coverage
provision unambiguously requires an allegation that another
property, besides the insured premises, suffered some "physical
loss" or "damage," Judge Jones explains.

Even if South Carolina's various orders did prohibit access to
Mauldin's, there is no allegation that the orders arose due to
direct physical loss of or damage to nearby property, Judge Jones
holds. As with the Business Income and Extra Expense provisions,
the shutdown order does not constitute a 'Covered Cause of Loss'
for purposes of invoking the Civil Authority provision. This
finding alone forecloses coverage under the Civil Authority
provision. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Defendant
properly denied coverage under the Civil Authority provision.

According to Plaintiffs, the Defendant's denial of their claim for
insurance coverage heavily relied on the Policy's Virus Exclusion,
which stated that the Defendant would not "pay for loss or damage
caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other
microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical
distress, illness or disease." They argue that the Virus Exclusion
is inapplicable to their claims. The Plaintiffs also assert that
regulatory estoppel precludes the Defendant from invoking the
exclusion because the Defendant, through the Insurance Service
Office, "made statements to insurance regulators that the adoption
of virus exclusion provisions was solely to clarify coverage and
not reduce it, yet now it is invoking that exclusion to limit
coverage."

Because it concluded that the Defendant properly denied coverage
under the Business Income and Civil Authority provisions, the Court
need not decide whether coverage would have nonetheless been
precluded under the Virus Exclusion. The Court does observe,
however, that "several courts within the Circuit have concluded the
language of the provision is not only unambiguous, but
unambiguously bars coverage for COVID-19-related losses, citing
Frank Van's Auto Tag, LLC, 2021 WL 289547, at *8 (citing Humans &
Res., LLC v. Firstline Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 20-CV-2152, 2021 WL
75775, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2021)).

Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs were ineligible for
insurance coverage under the Business Income and Civil Authority
coverage provisions in the Policy, even a successful argument that
the Virus Exclusion was not intended to apply to COVID-19 cannot
rescue the Amended Complaint, Judge Jones points out. The Defendant
properly denied coverage, and so the Plaintiffs cannot state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss and
dismisses the Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yqzeadx4 from Leagle.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: Blais Class Action Underway in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian
manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald
Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005.

The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and
found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled
approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $12.1 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to the company's subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.4 billion)).

In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately
$70,250) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately
$23,400) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at
99,957 members.

RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the
Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $176.4 million) to cover both the Letourneau
and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March
2017.

The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish
security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $592 million) in
installments through June 2017.

JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in
accordance with plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeal ordered
that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of
Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order
of the Court of Appeal.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the
compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total
amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion
including interest (approximately $10.5 billion) due to the trial
court's error in the calculation of interest.

The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with
an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.11 billion)).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by
conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of
smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs
either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults
were a cause of the class members' injuries.

In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit
their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the
Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion
(approximately $859 million), into trust accounts within 60 days.
RBH's share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million
(approximately $194 million).

PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated
results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco
litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019.

The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment
that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the
deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit
required by the judgment.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD,
emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of
profits.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010,the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January
1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative shareholder class action suit
entitled, In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities
Litigation.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris
International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International
Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.  

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that
the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations,
financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of,
and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's Platform 1
product. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including
damages.

In November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder
class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in
the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police
and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et
al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed
in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
due to similar allegations in these proceedings.

On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion in its
entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.  

The court noted that one of plaintiffs' claims (allegations
relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's Platform 1 product)
did not state a viable claim but allowed plaintiffs to replead that
claim by March 3, 2020.  

On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision; this motion
was denied on September 21, 2020.

On September 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking to replead allegations relating to four non-clinical
studies of PMI's Platform 1 product.

Philip Morris said, "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and will continue to defend it vigorously."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the
use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PREMIERE CREDIT: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Echols FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit
styled CHAMPAINE ECHOLS, Individually and on behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Consumers v. PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Case No. 19-4125 (E.D. Pa.).

The case is a putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff Echols alleges that Premiere
sent her a deceptive notice in order to collect a credit card debt.
The notice stated that the debt listed was current as of the date
the notice was sent, but further claimed that the debt could
"increase or decrease." A toll-free number was listed for the
recipient to call and confirm the payoff amount.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's notice created "a false
sense of urgency" to repay the debt and that it failed adequately
to convey "the amount of the debt," in violation of the FDCPA. The
Defendant responds that the notice was both accurate and adequate,
and points to persuasive authority from the Seventh Circuit as
endorsing its approach.

The parties agreed to submit the case on cross-motions for summary
judgment. The Plaintiff now seeks to create a factual dispute under
Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450, 453 (3d Cir. 2006)
regarding the frequency of the balance adjustments.

District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh finds that the record in the
case indicates that balance adjustments occur as a matter of
course. The Plaintiff attempts to create a dispute of fact by
arguing that the deposition testimony shows that adjustments are
rare. However, the portion of the record invoked by the Plaintiff
does not support her claim that adjustments are infrequent; it
merely describes the types of actions that would qualify as
"adjustments." Furthermore, regardless of frequency, Premiere was
specifically authorized by Synovus Bank to collect all amounts due,
and indisputably did so. There is no material issue of fact with
respect to this issue, the Judge opines.

Under the FDCPA, a debt collector must send the consumer a notice
that contains "the amount of the debt" within "five days after the
initial communication with a consumer in connection with the
collection of any debt." Here, the Plaintiff contends that
Premiere's notice violated the statute as a matter of law because
it states a balance but then directs the consumer to call for any
change in that balance.

Whether the notice is misleading depends upon the role Premiere was
asked to play by the holder of the debt, Synovus, Judge McHugh
finds. If Premiere could not collect anything beyond the amount
stated in the notice, then the direction to call could be
misleading in violation of Sections 1692g(a)(1) and (e). This claim
fails because, as noted, Premiere was empowered to collect
fluctuating balances.

For the reasons set forth, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1prp2rvg from Leagle.com.


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Hastings Files ERISA Suit in S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Principal Life
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as David J. Hastings,
on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Principal
Life Insurance Company, Benefits Plans Administrative Committee,
Benefits Plans Investment Committee, Case No. 4:21-cv-00047-RGE-HCA
(S.D. Iowa, Feb. 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as filed under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 .

Principal Financial Group -- https://www.principal.com/ -- is a
global financial investment management and insurance company
headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Siobhan Briley, Esq.
          PUGH HAGAN PRAHM PLC
          425 E. Oakdale Boulevard, Suite 201
          Coralville, IA 52241
          Phone: (319) 351-2028
          Fax: (319) 351-1102
          Email: sbriley@pughhagan.com

REGIONS BANK: Haggard Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------
J. Haggard, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Regions Bank, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00013, (E.D. Tex., February
1, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work for which
Plaintiff did not receive overtime premium pay. The Plaintiff
further seeks liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under
the common law of Texas.

Haggard worked for Regions Bank performing clerical work. He claims
to be uncompensated for pre-work activities performed prior to
clock-in.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
              mmiller@swartz-legal.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Juncadella Sues for Stock Market Interference
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Juncadella, Patrick Young, Omar Alsaedi, Ethan Arellano,
Travis Elliott, Jessica Hines, Michelle del Valle, Michael Ridpath,
Charles Fellows, Bryan Joyner, Christine Bukowski, Carolyn Collier,
Amanda Giuliani, Chastity Woodward, Matt Scime, and William
Urrutia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood
Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets, Inc., Citadel LLC, d/b/a
Citadel Securities, Point72 Asset Management, L.P. and John Does
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-20414, (S.D. Fla., January 30,
2021) seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief resulting from
breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, detrimental reliance,
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and
for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based and aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

Citadel is in the financial services industry and partners with
Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on its platform.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in stocks with symbols AAL,
BB, BBBY, CTRM, EXPR, GME, KOSS, NAKD, NOK, SNDL, TR, and TRVG
began to rise, causing their stock prices to increase. Until
January 28, 2021, Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in
these securities, both buying and selling. Upon information and
belief, many Robinhood customers purchased these stocks in reliance
on the continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing
the customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so.
However, on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained
widespread media coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from
buying these stocks. Robinhood has announced it will allow limited
transactions of these securities starting on January 29, 2021. This
action artificially deflated the price of the effected stocks,
harming all investors who held the stock, to the benefit of those
holding short positions. Robinhood's and Citadel's interference in
free trade left customers and retail investors with only two
choices, either sell immediately at the rapidly falling price, or
hold, and risk losing their entire investment.

Plaintiffs used the Robinhood app to trade securities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James L. Ferraro, Esq.
     Sean A. Byrstyn, Esq.
     Natalia Salas, Esq.
     THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
     600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 375-0111
     Facsimile: (305) 379-6222
     Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
            seanburstyn@gmail.com
            nms@ferrarolaw.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey E. Kwatinetz, Esq.
     15821 Ventura Blvd., Suite 370
     Encino, CA 91436-2909
     Tel: (213) 625-3900
     Email: jek@prospectpk.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krasowski Sues Over Stock Market Interference
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patryk Krasowski and Nick Parker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial LLC
and Robinhood Securities LLC, Citadel Securities LLC and Citadel
Enterprise Americas LLC (f/k/a Citadel LLC), Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00758, (N.D. Cal., January 30, 2021) seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract, breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty,
detrimental reliance, intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage and intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

Citadel is in the financial services industry and partners with
Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on its platform.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in stocks with symbols AAL,
BB, BBBY, CTRM, EXPR, GME, KOSS, NAKD, NOK, SNDL, TR, and TRVG
began to rise, causing their stock prices to increase. Until
January 28, 2021, Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in
these securities, both buying and selling. Upon information and
belief, many Robinhood customers purchased these stocks in reliance
on the continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing
the customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so.
However, on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained
widespread media coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from
buying these stocks. Robinhood has announced it will allow limited
transactions of these securities starting on January 29, 2021. This
action artificially deflated the price of the effected stocks,
harming all investors who held the stock, to the benefit of those
holding short positions. Robinhood's and Citadel's interference in
free trade left customers and retail investors with only two
choices, either sell immediately at the rapidly falling price, or
hold, and risk losing their entire investment.

Krasowski and Parker used the Robinhood app to trade securities.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
     Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
     CERA LLP
     595 Market St. Suite 1350
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: (415) 777-2230
     Fax: (415) 777-5189
     Email: scera@cerallp.com
            pmarkert@cerallp.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
     Amir Alimehri, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     2 International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY
     Telephone: (914) 934-9200
     Fax: (914) 934-9220
     Email: jak@klafterolsen.com
            amir.alimehri@klafterolsen.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lagmanson Sues Over Stock Market Interference
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Lagmanson and Anthony R. Reyes, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Markets,
Inc., Robinhood Financial, LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC, TD
Ameritrade, Inc. and E*Trade Financial Corp., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00541, (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2021) seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract, breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty
and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Sherman Act.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

TD Ameritrade and E*Trade are brokerage firms and partners with
Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on its platform.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in AMC Entertainment,
Blackberry, Bed Bath and Beyond and Nokia stocks began to rise,
causing their stock prices to increase. Until January 28, 2021,
Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in these securities,
both buying and selling. Upon information and belief, many
Robinhood customers purchased these stocks in reliance on the
continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing the
customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so. However,
on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained widespread media
coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from buying these stocks.
Robinhood has announced it will allow limited transactions of these
securities starting on January 29, 2021. This action artificially
deflated the price of the effected stocks, harming all investors
who held the stock, to the benefit of those holding short
positions. Robinhood's, TD Ameritrade's and E*Trade's interference
in free trade left customers and retail investors with only two
choices, either sell immediately at the rapidly falling price, or
hold, and risk losing their entire investment.

Lagmanson and Reyes used the Robinhood app to trade securities.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Tamara de Silva, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF R. TAMARA DE SILVA, LLC
      980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Tel: (312) 913-9999
      Email: tamara@desilvalawoffices.com

             - and -

      Jonathan Lubin, Esq.
      8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
      Skokie, IL 60077
      Tel: (773) 954-2608
      Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lavin Sues Over Stock Market Interference
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew M. Lavin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Financial, LLC,
Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets, Inc., Citadel
Securities, LLC, Citadel Enterprise, Americas LLC, and Melvin
Capital Management, LP, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00115, (E.D.
Cal., January 29, 2021) seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief resulting from breach of contract, breach of covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and for
violation of Virginia Code Sec. 18.2-499 and the Sherman Act.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based and aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

Citadel and Melvin are in the financial services industry, and
partners with Robinhood to effectuate the trades make on its
platform.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in AMC Entertainment Holdings
Inc. began to rise, causing stock prices to increase. Until January
28, 2021, Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in these
securities, both buying and selling. Upon information and belief,
many Robinhood customers purchased AMC and NOK in reliance on the
continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing the
customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so. However,
on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained widespread media
coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from buying several
stocks, including AMC. Robinhood has announced it will allow
limited transactions of these securities starting on January 29,
2021. This action artificially deflated the price of the effected
stocks, including AMC, harming all investors who held the stock, to
the benefit of those holding short positions. Robinhood's and
Citadel's interference in free trade left customers and retail
investors with only two choices, either sell immediately at the
rapidly falling price, or hold, and risk losing their entire
investment.

Lavin uses the Robinhood app to trade securities, including those
of AMC. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Parker J. Lavin, Esq.
      ROBERTS TATE, LLC
      2487 Demere Road, Suite 400
      St. Simons Island, GA 31522
      Tel: (912) 638-5200
      Fax: (912) 638-5300
      Email: plavin@robertstate.com


S&P GLOBAL: Federman Trust Files Suit Over IHS Markit Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William B. Federman Living Trust Trust No. 1, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S&P Global
Inc., Richard E. Thornburgh, Marco Alvera, William J. Amelio,
William D. Green, Charles E. Haldeman, Jr., Stephanie C. Hill,
Rebecca Jacoby, Monique F. Leroux, Ian Paul Livingston, Maria R.
Morris, Douglas L. Peterson, Edward B. Rust, Jr., and Kurt L.
Schmoke, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00791 (N.D. Cal., February 2,
2021), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger
of S&P Global with IHS Markit Ltd. through S&P's wholly owned
subsidiary, Sapphire Subsidiary, Ltd., rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each IHS Markit
stockholder will receive 0.2838 shares of S&P common stock for each
share of IHS Markit common stock they own. Upon completion of the
merger, IHS Markit stockholders will own approximately 32.25% of
the common stock of the combined company and S&P Global
stockholders will own approximately 67.75% of the common stock of
the combined company. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $44.5 billion.

According to the complaint, S&P's Form 424B3 Prospectus failed to
provide company stockholders with IHS Markit's and S&P Global's
financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the
valuation analyses performed by Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC -- in
particular, the adjusted net income, adjusted diluted earnings per
share, quantification of the terminal year free cash flow used in
each of the analyses, Goldman's basis for using free cash flow as
opposed to unlevered free cash flow to derive the terminal values
and quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the
discount rates ranging from 6.0% to 6.5%, used in each of the
analyses and the net debt figures and the number of fully diluted
outstanding shares used in each of the analyses.  The Prospectus
also failed to disclose the potential conflicts of interest faced
by Goldman.

S&P Global and Goldman Sachs provides for a transaction fee of $45
million plus an additional fee of up to $7.5 million which may be
payable at the sole discretion of S&P Global, all of which is
contingent upon consummation of the merger.

S&P provides credit ratings, benchmarks and analytics in the global
capital and commodity markets, offering ESG solutions, deep data
and insights on critical business factors. S&P's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange.

IHS Markit provides critical information, analytics and solutions
for major industries and markets worldwide delivering
next-generation information, analytics and solutions to customers
in business, finance and government, improving their operational
efficiency and providing deep insights that lead to well-informed,
confident decisions. IHS Markit's common stock trades on the New
York Stock Exchange. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


SENTINEL INSURANCE: Protege Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PROTEGE RESTAURANT PARTNERS LLC, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINEL
INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, d/b/a THE HARTFORD, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03674-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.

The case arises from a dispute over the application of a "business
interruption" insurance policy to measures taken in response to
recent public health orders that required businesses to operate at
a limited capacity. Plaintiff Protege, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated entities, brings the class action
against Defendant Sentinel for the Defendant's refusal to pay
COVID-19 related claims based on the insurance policy it sold to
Plaintiff and the Class.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for a declaratory judgment and for
breach of contract based on Business Income coverage (Counts I,
II), Civil Authority coverage (Counts III, IV), Extra Expense
coverage (Counts V, VI), Sue and Labor coverage (Counts VII, VIII),
Virus Endorsement coverage (Counts IX, X), and Breach of Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Counts XI, XII).

The Defendant brings the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of personal
jurisdiction.

The Court determines that the motion is appropriate for disposition
without oral argument and, thus, is deemed submitted. Accordingly,
the hearing set for February 28, 2021, is vacated.

Plaintiff Protege owns and operates a New American Cuisine
restaurant in Palo Alto, California. The Plaintiff purchased a
"business interruption" insurance policy from the Defendant "to
protect itself against unexpected risks." The Policy was in effect
from January 2020 through January 2021.

The Policy covers interruption of business caused by an order from
a civil authority, business income losses sustained due to the
necessary suspension of operations, and expenses incurred to
minimize the suspension of business, subject to limitations,
including a "Virus Exclusion." Under certain conditions, the Policy
provides that the policyholder can be reimbursed for expenses
incurred while "taking all reasonable steps to protect the Covered
property from further damage" ("Sue and Labor" coverage).

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a
global health pandemic, and the CDC issued guidance restricting
gatherings of individuals in an attempt to stop the spread of the
virus through surface transmission and through the air.

On March 17, 2020, Santa Clara County issued a county-wide
stay-at-home order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, on the basis
of a confirmed outbreak in the area. On March 19, 2020, Governor
Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order and Public Health Order that
directed Californians to stay at home, and close businesses not
deemed "essential." Collectively, these orders are referred to as
the "Closure Orders." Although the Plaintiff, whose restaurant was
categorized as an "essential business," was only required to stop
in-person dining and could continue to operate its kitchen to
prepare take-out orders, the Plaintiff chose to completely shut
down its operations.

On March 30, 2020, the Plaintiff made a claim under the Policy,
seeking coverage caused by COVID-19 and the Closure Orders. In
response, the Defendant requested additional information from the
Plaintiff, and subsequently denied coverage.

Citing to recent cases in the Circuit that have interpreted nearly
identical provisions, the Defendant argues that the Virus Exclusion
and the plain language of the Policy do not trigger coverage under
any of the alleged provisions. Accordingly, because all of the
Plaintiff's claims are premised on the Policy covering its losses,
the Defendant contends that all of the claims must fail. The
Plaintiff replies in opposition that the Virus Exclusion does not
apply, and that the Policy's plain language provides coverage for
all of the Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff alleges in its First and Second Claims that it is
entitled under the Policy's "Business Income" coverage to income
lost through the suspension of its business operations due to the
Closure Orders. It further alleges in its Fifth and Sixth Claims
that it is entitled under "Extra Expense" coverage to expenses it
incurred to break-down and clean its property.

The Defendant moves to dismiss these claims on the ground that the
Virus Exclusion bars coverage for COVID-19 business income losses,
and in the alternative that the Plaintiff failed to allege any
"direct physical loss of or physical damage to" its property.

District Judge Beth Labson Freeman agrees with the Defendant that
the Plaintiff has failed to allege physical loss of or damage to
its property and accordingly does not need to address the scope of
the Virus Exclusion.  She opines that the Plaintiff does not
adequately plead that it suffered a loss under the unambiguous
"direct physical loss of or damage to" language of the Policy. The
Plaintiff's claim that the Closure Orders prohibited customers'
access to its property is not sufficient to show permanent
disposition. Judge Freeman points out that the Plaintiff was never
disposed of its property, as it was the customers, and not the
Plaintiff, who were prohibited from access. Under these pleadings,
there is no Policy coverage, the Judge holds.

Even if the Plaintiff could prove that the virus was present on and
physically damaging its property, the Plaintiff has not claimed
that this physical damage is what caused it to suspend operations
or incur extra expense, as is required under the plain language of
the Policy, Judge Freeman further opines.

The Plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to business income losses
in its Third and Fourth Claims under "Civil Authority" coverage
because the "Closure Orders directly resulted from the risk of
direct physical loss caused by COVID-19 and have caused Plaintiff
to lose use of its premises for their intended purpose."

Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately
allege that access to its restaurant was "prohibited." The
Plaintiff has additionally failed to sufficiently allege that the
Closure Orders were issued as a "direct result of a risk of
physical loss to the property," as required under the plain
language of the Policy.

In its Seventh and Eighth Claims, the Plaintiff alleges that it is
entitled under the "Sue and Labor" provision to expenditures made
to protect and repair its property in response to Closure Orders
and COVID-19. The Defendant responds that Plaintiff is not entitled
to such expenses as there was no "loss of or damage to" its
property. The Court agrees with Defendant.

The Court finds as a matter of law that the plain language of the
Sue and Labor provision unambiguously requires that the Plaintiff
suffer direct physical loss of or damage to its property. Because
it finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged direct physical loss of
or damage to its property, the "Sue and Labor" provision is not
applicable.

The Plaintiff, in its Ninth and Tenth Claims, alleges that it has
suffered a loss under the "Virus Endorsement" coverage due to the
COVID-19 virus. The Defendant argues, and the Court agrees, that
the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to trigger coverage under
this provision.

Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged
that it nevertheless qualifies for coverage under the plain terms
of the Virus Endorsement. The Plaintiff has not alleged any facts
in its First Amended Complaint that indicate that COVID-19
qualifies as a "specified cause of loss."

In its final Eleventh and Twelfth Claims, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant breached its implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing due to the Defendant's unreasonable denial of coverage
without investigation. The Defendant responds that because the
Plaintiff's claims were not covered, the Defendant did not owe the
Plaintiff any benefits, and accordingly no benefits were wrongly
withheld. The Court agrees with the Defendant.

Under the unambiguous terms of the Insurance Policy, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficiently
demonstrating that any of its alleged losses are covered under the
Policy. Accordingly, the Court also dismisses the Plaintiff's
putative class actions claims. The Court need not consider whether
the Plaintiff has standing to bring claims on behalf of the Class.

While it does not seem likely that the Plaintiff will be able to
cure the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint, the Court
recognizes that litigation regarding business interruption coverage
in the COVID-19 context is only beginning, and will allow the
Plaintiff the opportunity to amend in accordance with Rule 11
obligations should it find new support for its claims in the
developing law. The amended complaint will be filed within 21 days
of the date of the Order. Thus, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
is granted with leave to amend as to Claims One through Twelve.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1ikqos22 from Leagle.com.


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Cooper Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMM ASSOCIATES,
INC.. The case is styled as Alex Cooper, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00356 (S.D. Ind., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- are Accounts
Receivable Management Specialists working with creditors to recover
outstanding consumer credit accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPARKFUN ELECTRONICS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sparkfun Electronics
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Sparkfun Electronics Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01296 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2021).

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

SparkFun Electronics -- https://www.sparkfun.com/ -- is an
electronics retailer in Niwot, Colorado. It manufactures and sells
microcontroller development boards and breakout boards.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPINSTER SISTERS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spinster Sisters,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Spinster Sisters, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01318 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021).

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

Spinster Sisters -- https://spinstersistersco.com/ -- offers all
natural skin care, handcrafted in Golden, Colorado using the finest
natural ingredients and sustainable practices.[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


STEPHEN HERETICK: Class Certification Hearing Set for March 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY G. DOCKERY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STEPHEN E.
HERETICK, et al., Defendants And NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al., Nominal Defendants, Case No. e 2:17-cv-04114-CFK (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney entered an order that oral
argument on the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification
is scheduled for March 23, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. via video
conference.

The Court said, "All attorneys, court staff, and other case
participants must review the Video Conference Instructions, which
are attached to this Order. Counsel must be familiar with the video
conferencing platform. On the day of the proceeding, all attorneys
and case participants shall access the video conference at least 30
minutes prior to the start time. Furthermore, counsel are advised
to wear professional business attire, as this will be an official
proceeding with a court reporter taking the record."

The suit alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jOmfYn at no extra charge.[CC]

STOCK ROVER: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stock Rover LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Stock Rover LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01326 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021).

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

Stock Rover -- https://www.stockrover.com/ -- excels in stock and
ETF comparison, screening, and portfolio analytics. It also
provides a myriad of other capabilities such as advanced charting,
real-time alerts, stock ratings, earnings calendars, brokerage
integration and much much more.[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


TESORO REFINING: Class Status Bid Filing Due August 9
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MCGHEE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC; ANDEAVOR; ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS LP; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-05999-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order regarding joint stipulation
extending deadlines for class certification briefing as follows:

   1. Deadline for filing class                 August 9, 2021
      certification motions:

   2. Deadline for filing oppositions           Sep. 8, 2021
      to class certification motions:

   3. Deadline for filing replies:              Sep. 22, 2021

   4. The Deadline for the parties to           Feb. 5, 2021
      complete mediation shall be three
      months after the Court's ruling on
      any class certification motion:

Tesoro Refining refines and markets petroleum products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZhZH8R at no extra charge.[CC]


TOTAL LIFE CHANGES: Friday Disputes THC Content in Raspberry Tea
----------------------------------------------------------------
D'Etta Friday, an individual, and Mary Grace Jasmin, an individual,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Total Life Changes, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-10231 (D. Mich., February 2, 2020), seeks damages and other
relief against Total Life Changes for deceptive and unfair business
practices in the advertisement and sale of its raspberry flavored
Iaso (R) Instant Tea in violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act.

Total Life Changes allegedly misrepresented that the Raspberry Tea
contained "0.0% THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), a controlled substance,
when in fact the Raspberry Tea contains at least 0.875 mg of THC
per serving, and may contain more. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Enrico Schaefer, Esq.
     Mark Clark, Esq.
     TRAVERSE LEGAL, PLC
     810 Cottageview Dr., G20
     Traverse City, MI, 49684
     Telephone: (231) 932-0411
     Email: enrico.schaefer@traverselegal.com
            mark@traverselegal.com

            - and -

     TRAVERSE LEGAL, PLC
     440 Burroughs St.
     Detroit, MI 48202
     Telephone: (866) 936-7447

            - and -

     Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Katherine E. Hollist, Esq.
     KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
     150 Post Street, Suite 520
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 955-1155
     Email: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
            jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
            kate@KRInternetLaw.com


TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Yancey Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lillie Yancey, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trumbull Insurance Company, Case No. 2020 CH
07364 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb.
12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00827 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Trumbull Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides fire and casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael John Duffy, Esq.
          Joseph J Stafford
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60603-5001
          Phone: (312) 704-0550
          Email: michael.duffy@wilsonelser.com
                 Joseph.Stafford@wilsonelser.com


USHIP INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uship, Inc. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Uship, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01328
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021).

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

uShip, Inc. -- https://www.uship.com/ -- is an Austin, Texas-based
Internet company that operates uShip.com, an online marketplace for
shipping services. Individuals and businesses post items they need
shipped in a variety of categories, including auto transport, boat
shipping, moving services, and the transport of heavy industrial
equipment.[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


USMS: Court Dismisses Gess Class Action without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GESS v. USMS and
10TH CIRCUIT DISTRICT COURT, , Case No. 1:20-cv-01790-PAB-STV (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order:

   1. dismissing the case without prejudice;

   2. denying as moot the plaintiff's motions for preliminary
      injunction; and

   3. denying as moot the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Because the Court has denied the motions to amend, the only relief
plaintiff seeks is an emergency hearing and “[i]mmediate release
on pretrial detention.” The Court cannot grant this relief
because plaintiff has pled guilty in his criminal case, thus
rendering this case moot. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the
case without prejudice. See Lewis v. Burger King, 398 F. App’x
323, 325 n.3 (10th Cir. 2010) (stating that dismissal due to
mootness must be without prejudice).

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pgg5Bm at no extra charge.[CC]

ZACHARY PRELL: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zachary Prell Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Zachary Prell Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01330 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2021).

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

Zachary Prell Inc. -- https://www.zacharyprell.com/ -- sells
sportswear and apparel. The Company provides shirts, outerwear, and
swimming shorts.[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



                            *********

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 ***