/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210222.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 32

                            Headlines

4E BRANDS NA: Farooq Uses Over Contaminated Hand Sanitizer
7-ELEVEN INC: Court Tosses Haitayan Bid for Class Certification
79-11 COATZINGO: Huanetl Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
A&L HOME: Clark, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives
ACTAVIS PLC: TPPs Class Certification Partly OK'd in Namenda Case

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 26
AILY FOOT: Court OK's Conditional Collective Action Certification
ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of McVeigh Class Status Bid
ALLIANCE ONE: Court Strikes Class Status Bid Filing Deadline
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Appeal in CCERF Putative Class Suit Pending

ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
AMAZON.COM INC: Files Suit Against OAG Amid COVID-19 Class Action
AMERICAN EAGLE: Bowes Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court's Ruling
AMERICAN SECURITY: Forrester Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
AMERITALIA LLC: Status of Pending Bid for Conditional Cert. Sought

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Miners Still Await Silicosis Settlement Payout
BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
BEACH PIZZA: Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadline Terminated
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Moore Files Suit in N.D. New York

BLUEBIRD BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BMW FINANCIAL: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
BOOHOO GROUP: Fighting Proposed $100MM Class Action Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Grant of Class Certification in Celgene Suit Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: HIV Fixed-Dose Products Related Suit Underway

BUONGIORNO BAGELS: Fails to Pay Wages, Lanzetta Suit Claims
CAL CENTRAL: Mayen Suit Removed from Cal. State Court to E.D. Cal.
CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Sex Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Filing Due Date Extended to April 2
CARL M. FREEMAN: Williams Seeks Damages, Public Offering Statement

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Dismissed as Defendant in Ealy-Simon Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid for En Banc Rehearing in Ong Suit Denied
CHSLD HERRON: Family Launches Class Action Against Care Home Owners
CLOVER HEALTH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Selane Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
COUNTERPATH CORP: Golenkov Balks at Proposed $25.7M Sale to Alianza
DASCOR CORP: Faces Garcia Suit Over Plumbers' Unpaid OT Wages
DEACON 10: Class of Security Guard Gets Conditional Certification
DEMOULAS SUPER: Cohen Sues Over False Coffee Advertised Servings

DESJARDINS GROUP: Settles Insurance Class Action for $9.5 Million
DYCK-O NEAL: Rana Suit Removed to C.D. California
EAGLE LATH: Faces Sanchez-Cruz Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
EDWARD D. JONES: Harris Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
EPCON COMMUNITIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Stanley Claims

ESTIA HEALTH: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $11.7 Million
F&S MANAGEMENT: Curphey Conditional Certification Bid Partly OK'd
FIRST STUDENT: Court Won't Allow Extension of Class Status Filing
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Class Action
FISHER-PRICE: Certification of Classes Sought in Baby Sleeper Case

FISHER-PRICE: Cuddy Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Drover-Mundy, et al. Seek to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Fieker Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Flores Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Gamino Says

FORD MOTOR: Simmons, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes
FOREST RIVER: Fitzgerald Seeks to Certify Two FLSA Classes
FUSION CONNECT: May 20 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GATEWAY MORTGAGE: Class Status Bid Filing Due Oct. 4
GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Economic-Loss Suit Must be Filed in April

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Bolt EV Battery
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Kelly Claims
GETWELLNETWORK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Denied as Moot
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Faces Garcia Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
GOOGLE LLC: Shepherd Consumer Class Suit Goes to E.D.N.Y.

GRAND CANYON: Miller Seeks to Certify Class of University Students
GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY: Coleman BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GULFPORT ENERGY: Court Appoints Joseph Rotunno as Lead Plaintiff
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Bredberg Suit Says
HAXTON MASONRY: Jimenez Collective Actions Get Conditional Status

HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Breast Imaging Errors
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Bid to Amend Boynton Beach Suit Denied
HFM INC: Brigati Class Action Junked without Prejudice
HOBBY ENTERPRISES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HOBBYLINC.COM: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

HUSKY ENERGY: Class Cert. Schedule in Bruzek Tort Suit Stricken
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 22
INJURY FINANCING: Puckett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
INTERNET HOBBIES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Block & Leviton Reminds of April 2 Deadline

ITG INC: Mauthe Has Until July 23 to File Class Certification Bid
JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA: Hearing on Class Status Set for April 27
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Floyd & Nicholson Seek to Certify Class
KING CATERING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gonzales Suit Claims
KONING & ASSOCIATES: Willis Seeks Unpaid Regular and OT Wages

LALA HEALTHCARE: Limon Seeks Vocational Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
LEGACY HEALTH: Hunter Has Until Nov. 13 to File Class Cert. Bid
LINK FUND: Law Firm Leigh Day to Launch Investment Class Action
MARS INC: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Damages Over Child Slavery
MATTEL INC: Barton Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes

MATTEL INC: Black Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
MATTEL INC: Nabong Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
MATTEL INC: Shaffer Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
MDL 2979: Consolidation of Four Actions in N.D. Texas Tossed
METRODATA SERVICES: Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed in Wentworth

MG FREESITES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Child Sex Trafficking
MICHIGAN: Court Tosses Hailey Class Action
MOONSHADOWS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Lehman Opening Brief  To be Filed by March 31

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
NEW YORK CITY: Rosenfeld Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
NEW YORK TIMES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW ZEALAND: Settles Kiwifruit Growers' Lawsuit Over Psa Disease
NRA GROUP: Chamberlain Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania

NU CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Murillo Says
NYP HOLDINGS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OMNIMAX INT'L: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 6
PAPA JOHN'S: Briefing Date for Class Status Bid Set for July 1
PEARL RIVER: Underpays Production Workers, Perez Suit Claims

PEDIATRIC HOME: Berridge Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Misappropriates Photos in Website, Loendorf Says
PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
PINECREST BAKERY: Andres Gamboa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PRECISION 2000: Employee Collective Wins Conditional Certification

PRECISION CASTPARTS: May 7 Hearing Set on $21MM Class Settlement
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Bid for Class Status Must Be Filed by August 25
PURITAN'S PRIDE: May 7 Hearing on Revised Class Cert. Sought
QUICKEN LOANS: Hearing on Class Status Denial Bid Set for March 4

QVC INC: Faces Adams Suit Over Failure to Pay CSRs' OT Wages
REALPAGE INC: Saylor Must File Class Certification Bid by June 11
RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Certification Bid Due August 12
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Siruk Sues Over GME Stock Trading Control
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Says

SAUSALITO, CA: Homeless Union Files Civil Rights Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Guilbeau Claims
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Guilbeau Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SEPTEM COMA INC: Brady Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
SHAWMUT WOODWORKING: Bonett FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid Tossed

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Albright Class Action
SIERRA WES: Flores Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
SKANSKA KOCH: Court Dismisses Cortese et al. Suit with Prejudice
SKANSKA KOCH: Court Tosses Cortese Class Action with Prejudice
SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over DualSense Drift

SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Faces Falls Suit in Central Dist. of California
SOUTHWIRE COMPANY: Marquez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Pierce Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Faces Malone Employment Suit in California
SUMMER WWK: Film Crew Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages

SUNRISE DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bano Suit Alleges
SUNRISE SENIOR: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Status Response
SWITCHBACK ENERGY: ChargePoint Merger Related Suits Underway
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit

TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unethical Sales Practices
TEMPO RESTAURANT: Employees File Class Action Over Tip Skimming
TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert. Bid in Ontario Teachers Suit Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing

TEVA PHARMA: Watson Pharmaceuticals Settles with BCBSM
TOP FLIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Exotic Dancers, Suit Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: 4-Runners Frame Rot Class Action Pending
TRU TOP: Wolchko "Robocalling" Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
TWIN AMERICA: Court Approves Class Settlement Deal in Mirabel Suit

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Wage-Fixing Related Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit in Oklahoma Underway
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits
TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Pork Price-Fixing Ongoing

TYSON FOODS: Settles Poultry Buyers' Lawsuit for $221.5 Million
ULTRA SHINE: Car Wash Attendants Get Collective Class Status
UNITED FOOD: Nagel Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 8th Circuit
UNITED INSURANCE: Seeks Feb. 26 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
UNITED STATES: Kluge Third Amended Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Boley Savings Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class
VAIL RESORTS: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Oct. 20, 2022
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Ferrari Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dack Has Until March 21 to File Class Status Bid
WALGREEN BOOTS: Gray Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

WEST TOWN: Somerville Suit Wins Class Certification
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Diaz ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
WHIRLPOOL: Top-Load Washing Machine Model Suits Ongoing

                            *********

4E BRANDS NA: Farooq Uses Over Contaminated Hand Sanitizer
----------------------------------------------------------
Danish Farooq, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00663 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2021), seeks
restitution and injunctive relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation and for
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's
False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law.

4e Brands manufactures and sells hand sanitizers throughout the
United States and represents on its packaging that the products'
active ingredient is 70% Ethyl Alcohol. On or about June 23, 2020,
Plaintiff purchased two bottles of Blumen Hand Sanitizer at Costco
Wholesale. On July 8, 2020, the FDA added 4e Brands' products to
the list of hand sanitizer products that were contaminated with
toxic methanol. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      Alan Gudino, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: yana@kazlg.com
             alan@kazlg.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Court Tosses Haitayan Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGE HAITAYAN, et al., v.
7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07454-DSF-AS (C.D. Calif.), the
Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to
demonstrate class certification is appropriate under the Borello
test. The Court, therefore, denies certification for their Labor
Code claim. Additionally, in light of the individualized issues
needed to show franchisees are not exempt executives for purposes
of the Wage Order, Plaintiffs have not shown common issues will
predominate, and class treatment is therefore not warranted. Their
request for certification is denied."

On October 12, 2017, four 7-Eleven franchisees brought this
putative class action alleging that 7-Eleven improperly classified
them as independent contractors (Haitayan I). On February 7, 2018,
the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On March 14, 2018,
the Honorable John F. Walter granted 7-Eleven's motion for judgment
on the pleadings with prejudice, finding that 7-Eleven is not the
Plaintiffs' employer. Judge Walter then denied the motion for class
certification as moot. The Plaintiffs appealed. The named
plaintiffs in Haitayan I also filed a new lawsuit (later amended to
seek relief on behalf of a putative class) seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-05465-DSF (ASx) (Haitayan II), On October 10, 2018, this
Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and
corrective notice. Haitayan II. The Plaintiffs again appealed.

7-Eleven is the world's largest franchisor of retail convenience
stores, with more than 7,800 stores operating in the United States.
The Plaintiffs each own at least one 7-Eleven franchise. The
Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with 7-Eleven that governs the
franchise relationship.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OCrVsM at no extra charge.[CC]

79-11 COATZINGO: Huanetl Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM HUANETL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 79-11 COATZINGO RESTAURANT INC., and RUFINO
ZAPATA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00766 (E.D.N.Y., February 11,
2021) brings this complaint alleging the Defendant of violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress from on
or around June 14, 2012 until on or around February 9, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she was only compensated at a fixed hourly rate per
week regardless of the number of hours she worked each week.
Despite frequently working shifts that spanned more than 10 hours
per day, and regularly working more than 40 hours a per week, the
Defendant did not pay her "spread of hours pay" of one additional
hour at the minimum wage rate as well as overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours she worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges.

Allegedly, the Defendant failed to provide her with any notice at
the time of hire, or at any time thereafter containing her rates of
pay and the designated payday and other information, and failed to
provide her with wage statement with each wage payment.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful policies, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees have been damaged and are
entitled to recover from the Defendants all overtime wages due,
along with all reasonable attorneys' fees, interest, and costs, the
suit says.

Coatzingo Restaurant Inc. operates a restaurant that serves Mexican
cuisine. Rufino Zapata is a person in control of Coatzingo who
exercised significant control over its operations and its
employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Ave., Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


A&L HOME: Clark, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Collectives
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE CLARK, et al. for
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. A&L HOME CARE AND
TRAINING CENTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00757-MWM (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. Conditionally certifying their proposed FLSA collectives
      defined as:

      -- FLSA Travel Time Collective

         "All current and former hourly paid employees of
          the Defendants who, between February 11, 2018 and
          [the date Defendants changed their travel policy to
          include hourly payment for travel time], worked in
          excess of 40 hours per workweek and were required to
          travel between clients' homes;"

          -- FLSA Shift Differential Collective

          "All current and former hourly paid employees of
          Defendants who, between February 11, 2018 and the
          present, worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
          received shift differential pay;" and

          -- FLSA Minimum Wage Collective

          "All current and former hourly paid employees of
          the Defendants who, between February 11, 2018 and [the
          date Defendants changed their travel policy to include
          hourly payment for travel time], were required to
          travel between clients' homes using their own
          vehicle;"

   2. Implementing a procedure whereby a Court-approved Notice  
      of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-  
      mail), and a Court-approved Reminder Notice is sent (via   
      e-mail and text message) to their proposed FLSA   
      collectives; and

   3. Requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this   
      Court's order, identify all putative collective members by  

      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of   
      the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers,   
      dates of employment, and position(s) held, of all putative  

      collective members who meet any one or more of the above   
      collective definitions proposed by the Plaintiffs.

This is an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), filed as a
Collective and Class Action. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,
filed on January 13, 2021, asserts that Defendants violated the
FLSA and the OMFWSA by failing to pay their home health aides for
time spent traveling between clients' homes during their shift in a
single workday; failing to include shift differential pay in home
health aides' regular rates of pay for the purposes of calculating
overtime; and failing to reasonably reimburse home health aides for
the use of their own vehicle to travel between client homes.

The Plaintiffs are all former home health aides employed by
Defendants. The Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis throughout
their employment with the Defendants, and each Named Plaintiff was
paid at or slightly above the applicable Ohio minimum wage. In
addition, each Named Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek throughout their employment with the Defendants.
However, the Defendants failed to properly pay Named Plaintiffs
overtime compensation at the correct premium rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek throughout their employment
with Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Defendants are in the business of providing home healthcare
services to clients in the southern Ohio region.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M6Zjad
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com

ACTAVIS PLC: TPPs Class Certification Partly OK'd in Namenda Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, captioned as Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Actavis, PLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06549-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge C.J. McMahon
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class of third-party
payors ("TPPs") that reimbursed insureds for Namenda and its
generic equivalents in several states between June 1, 2012 and
December 31, 2017.

The Court certifies the following class with respect to SBA's
pay-for-delay theory of liability only:

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

Judge McMahon said, "Although SBA has not included the pro forma
class exclusion of all judges and the chambers staff of those
judges assigned to work on this case in their amended class
definition, I will exclude them. Thus: Excluded from the proposed
Class are: (a) Defendants and Defendants' parents, subsidiaries and
affiliates; (b) fully-insured health care plans (i.e., health plans
that purchased insurance from another third-party payor covering
100% of the insureds' prescription drug benefits on behalf of the
Plan's members and beneficiaries); (c)
all federal or state governmental entities, excluding cities, towns
or municipalities with self-funded prescription drug plans; (d)
Pharmacy Benefit Managers ("PBMs"); and (e) all judges presiding in
this case, their chambers staff, and any members of their immediate
families, and all counsel of record."

Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund (SBA)
commenced this antitrust lawsuit on behalf of itself and a putative
class of similarly situated indirect purchasers of the brand and
generic versions of Namenda -- a drug used to treat Alzheimer's
disease.

Actavis is a global pharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing, manufacturing and marketing branded pharmaceuticals,
generic and over-the-counter medicines, and biologic products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3boQWiN at no extra charge.[CC]

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holmes v. Adventist Health
System Sunbelt, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-01153 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered a scheduling order that:

   1. The class discovery deadline is extended to March 26,
      2021;

   2. The deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification is extended to April 26, 2021; and

   3. The deadline for Defendant's Response to the Motion for
      Class Certification is extended to May 26, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

AdventHealth is a faith-based, non-profit health care system
headquartered in Altamonte Springs, Florida, that operates
facilities within nine states across the United States.[CC]

AILY FOOT: Court OK's Conditional Collective Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YONG BIAO JI v. AILY FOOT
RELAX STATION, INC. d/b/a Foot Relax Spa Station; LINDA FOOT RELAX
SPA STATION, INC. d/b/a Foot Relax Spa Station; XIANG MAN ZHANG
a/k/a Ailing Zhang; and KE XUE ZHENG, Case No. 7:19-cv-11881-VB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order:

   1. granting the motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims;

      -- To the extent defendants' amended answer includes
         motions for relief, all such motions are denied;

   2. deferring the ruling on plaintiff's motion for sanctions;

      -- By no later than February 22, 2021, defense counsel
         shall show cause by letter, not to exceed three pages
         in length, and in accordance with the above
         instructions, why the Court should not impose monetary
         sanctions on defense counsel; and

   3. granting the motion for conditional collective action
      certification;

      -- The Court will separately sign and docket the proposed
         class notice;

      -- Discovery shall proceed as set forth in the Revised
         Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, dated
         November 24, 2020;

      -- The Court will hold a case management conference on
         March 22, 2021, at 2:45 p.m., by telephone conference,
         as previously scheduled; and

     -- The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motions.

Plaintiff Yong Biao Ji brings this putative class and collective
action against the defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dkX4vd
at no extra charge.[CC]

ALABAMA: Judge Recommends Denial of McVeigh Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS McVEIGH, v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PARDONS AND PAROLE, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00087-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Jerusha T. Adams entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification be denied.

Judge Adams said, "On or before February 23, 2021, the Plaintiff
may file an objection to the Recommendation. The Plaintiff must
specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions
contained in the Recommendation to which objection is made.
Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered
by the court. This Recommendation is not a final order and,
therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file a written
objection to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) shall
bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of
legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives
the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district Court's
order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted
or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error
or manifest injustice."

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation dated Feb. 8, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u8jBBe at no
extra charge.[CC]


ALLIANCE ONE: Court Strikes Class Status Bid Filing Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Susan Hau v. Alliance One
Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00150 (W.D. Wisc),
the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that the upcoming
deadline for filing a motion to certify class is struck, and will
be rescheduled if necessary after the court determines whether the
plaintiff has standing, and if so, decides the pending Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Judge Conley said, "In light of recent, Seventh Circuit cases
finding lack of standing for pursuing Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) claims like that at issue in this case, see
Kwasniewski v. Medicredit, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-701-WMC, 2021 WL
248442 (W.D. Wisc. Jan. 25, 2021), the court directs plaintiff to
submit a brief on or before February 22, 2021, explaining why she
has standing to pursue this action in light of these recent
cases."

The suit alleges violation of the FDCPA involving consumer credit.

Alliance One Receivables provides financial services. The Company
offers collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.[CC]

ALNYLAM PHARMA: Appeal in CCERF Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Plaintiff's
responsive appellate brief is due to be filed on or before March 3,
2021.

On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement Fund
(CCERF), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported securities class action complaint for
violation of federal securities laws against the company, certain
of its current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of its November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

On November 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, or the
New York Complaint. The New York Complaint is brought on behalf of
an alleged class of those who purchased the company's securities
pursuant and/or traceable to its November 14, 2017 public stock
offering.

The New York Complaint purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the results of our APOLLO
Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York
Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019. On November 2,
2020, the Court entered a Decision and Order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal of that decision on November
12, 2020, and filed their opening appellate brief on January 4,
2021. Plaintiff's responsive appellate brief is due to be filed on
or before March 3, 2021.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
seeking leave to file a further amended complaint in the class
action suit initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt, is still pending.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint, or the Complaint. In addition to the
originally named defendants, the Complaint also named as defendants
certain of the company's other executive officers, and purported to
be brought on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the
company's securities between September 20, 2017 and September 12,
2018 and sought to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the
company's motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.

Pursuant to a prior Order of the Court, on June 1, 2020, plaintiff
filed a motion seeking leave to file a further amended complaint.

Alnylam said, "We opposed the motion which was fully briefed on
June 22, 2020, and remains pending with the Court."

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

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

AMAZON.COM INC: Files Suit Against OAG Amid COVID-19 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Ajay, writing for Jurist, reports that Amazon has filed a
lawsuit against the Office of the New York Attorney General (OAG)
for allegedly unlawfully attempting to subject it to state
oversight of activities concerning its COVID-19 response and the
termination of its activist employee Christian Smalls.

In March, Amazon fired Smalls for repeatedly violating "social
distancing requirements and an order to quarantine and stay off
Amazon property" after coming into contact with a person who tested
positive for the virus. According to Smalls, upon learning of its
employees testing positive, Amazon failed to issue directives to
quarantine workers; he organized several protests and
demonstrations in this regard.

In light of this, Attorney General Letitia James called upon the
National Labor Relations Board to launch an investigation into the
incident. The OAG issued a statement:

It is disgraceful that Amazon would terminate an employee who
bravely stood up to protect himself and his colleagues. At the
height of a global pandemic, On Feb. 14, Chris Smalls and his
colleagues publicly protested the lack of precautions that Amazon
was taking to protect them from COVID-19. Chris Smalls was fired.
In New York, the right to organize is codified into law, and any
retaliatory action by management related thereto is strictly
prohibited. At a time when so many New Yorkers are struggling and
are deeply concerned about their safety, this action was also
immoral and inhumane. The Office of the Attorney General is
considering all legal options, and I am calling on the National
Labor Relations Board to investigate this incident.

In November, Smalls filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
African American and Latino workers, alleging that Amazon did not
follow basic precautions and endangered the health, safety and
survival of its workers and facilities.

Amazon is asserting in its lawsuit that it has taken
"extraordinary, industry-leading measures" to protect its employees
from COVID-19, and claims that the AG's office lacked "legal
authority to regulate workplace safety responses to COVID-19 or
claims of retaliation against workers who protest working
conditions." [GN]


AMERICAN EAGLE: Bowes Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court's Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE BOWES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EAGLE
OUTFITTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AEO MANAGEMENT CO., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-09004-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order:

   1. staying case pending the Supreme Court's decision in
      Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511; and

   2. directing the parties to submit a joint letter no later
      than 14 days after the Supreme Court's decision in
      Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid.

The Court said, "The Supreme Court's decision in Facebook will
resolve the current circuit split regarding what type of device
qualifies as an Automated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Specifically, the
Supreme Court will determine whether the definition of an ATDS
encompasses any device that can store and automatically dial
telephone numbers, even if the device does not use a "random or
sequential number generator." The answer to that question is
"pivotal" to the claims presented in this case and may
substantially resolve, or at the very least "shape the progress"
of, this case. Moreover, staying this case pending the Supreme
Court's ruling will conserve judicial resources. The Court rejects
Plaintiff's suggestion that the Court permit discovery to proceed
on two supposedly narrow issues but stay "all other proceedings" in
the case."

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., also known as American Eagle, is
an American lifestyle, clothing, and accessories retailer
headquartered at SouthSide Works in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qshCpr at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN SECURITY: Forrester Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA FORRESTER, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
SECURITY AND PROTECTION SERVICE LLC, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-00204-TBR (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. conditionally certify this collective action for unpaid
      wages, including overtime wages, under Section 16(b) of
      the FLSA;

   2. approving the court-supervised Notice and Consent to Join
      forms to the Putative Class members;

   3. directing the Defendants to identify potential opt-in
      plaintiffs (Potential Opt-Ins) within 14 days of the entry
      of the order by providing a list in electronic and
      importable format, of:

      "all current and former hourly security employees employed
      by the Defendants who at any time from December 22, 2017
      to the present worked 40 hours or more in a workweek and
      relieved a preceding shift and/or was relieved by a
      subsequent shift;"

      For each such person, the Defendants should include the
      person's name, job title(s), work locations, last known
      address, telephone number(s), e-mail address(es), and
      dates of employment (Roster);

   4. directing the Defendants to provide a Declaration
      certifying that the produced Roster fully complies with
      the Court's Order; and

   5. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
      or email addresses are found for one or more of such
      present or former employees.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 10,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZtZaRj
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

AMERITALIA LLC: Status of Pending Bid for Conditional Cert. Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY MARTINEZ, et al.,
v. AMERITALIA, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00410 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiffs file a motion inquiring into the status of the
pending motion for conditional certification as it is the
Plaintiffs' position that the relief sought is unopposed by the
Defendants.

On October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Kimberly Martinez and Desiderio
Sarmiento filed a Motion for Expedited Approval of 29 U.S.C. 216(b)
Court-Supervised Notice and Conditional Certification. The Motion
pursuant to the Court's Initial Case Management Order, Defendants
had 28 days, or until November 12, 2020, to respond to the
Plaintiffs'. The Defendants failed to respond to the Plaintiffs'
Motion.

Local Rule 7.01(c) provides: "Motions to Ascertain Status of Case.
At any time, an attorney for any party or any pro se party may file
a written motion inquiring as to the status of the case or to
pending motions, and may include in said motion a statement of
reasons why an expedited disposition of the case or motion is
necessary or desirable."

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.01(a)(3): "If a timely response is not
filed, the motion shall be deemed unopposed except for motions to
reconsider for which no response shall be permitted unless ordered
by the Court."

Ameritalia operates a casual pizza and pasta restaurant with a
small grocery selling imported foodstuffs and prepared meals.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 10,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k2pXxu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 851-1776
          Facsimile: (615) 859-7033
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lucas E.W. Jerkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA OFFUTT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2323 21st Avenue South, Suite 306
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 802-8912
          Facsimile: (615) 334-8259

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Miners Still Await Silicosis Settlement Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theto Mahlakoana, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that former
miners with silicosis -- who spent their adult lives digging for
gold in South Africa's mines -- still have not been paid more than
two years after a High Court-approved settlement between miners and
companies in an historic class action.

More than two years ago, the country celebrated the settlement
agreement after the landmark class-action suit against nine gold
mining companies, forcing them to compensate miners suffering from
the insidious respiratory disease. Drawn to Johannesburg and other
gold mining towns in South Africa in search of employment in the
1960s and 1970s, many of these former miners have since retreated
to their homes in remote villages locally and elsewhere in southern
Africa, while others have succumbed to the lung disease.

The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group represented AngloGold
Ashanti, Harmony, Sibanye-Stillwater, African Rainbow Minerals,
Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti and Gold Fields
against the claimants, which reached the historic settlement after
almost five years of negotiations.

Now, Eyewitness News has learned that the affected miners, facing
the inevitability of death, are losing hope of ever receiving
justice.

The disease usually affects people in jobs where they breathe in
dust that contains silica - a tiny crystal found in sand, rock or
mineral ores such as quartz. It causes scarring in the lungs, a
painful cough, and shortness of breath. Its symptoms show much
later than when a person is first exposed to it.

Mzawubalekwa Diya hails from the Eastern Cape. He told Eyewitness
News in these past two weeks that as an intended compensation
receiver, he was no longer concerned about his needs. He explained
that the silicosis ravaged his body and he knew the end was near.
But he would find peace if, by the time he is buried, there was
something to show for his suffering.

"What the Trust people have done so far is that they came to the
villages and said we must go to a meeting in town. They took our
documents and pictures and said we will be paid. We have been
waiting ever since," he said.

The Tshiamiso Trust is a byproduct of the 2012 class action lawsuit
against 30 gold mining companies for failing to take adequate
safety measures to protect miners from exposure to the dangerous
silica dust. The Trust said it did not call meetings with former
mine workers as yet, adding they were concerned there was
fraudulent activity in some areas.

"There has been a lot of fraudulent activity out there, with people
are trying to get money from these sick and poor mineworkers
telling them that they can claim on their behalf. We have been on a
very big fraud campaign since last year trying to get the message
out that please realise no one can claim on your behalf," said the
Trust's CEO, Daniel Kotton.

After the parties reached an agreement in May 2018, a settlement
was approved by the Johannesburg High Court in July 2019.

The Trust, formally constituted in February 2020, started setting
up operating systems last year. But more than a year after the
settlement was reached, no one can say when the first miners will
get the little that is due to them.

Balakisi Bangumuzi, also from the Eastern Cape, is one of many
miners who were not aware at the time of their retrenchments from
mines that they had contracted the illness - only to fall ill once
they returned home.

He worked on the gold belt in Randfontein from the 1970s till 1999
and said he verified that his name was among the hundreds of
thousands of former mineworkers eligible for payment.

However, with the Tshiamiso Trust yet to issue payments from the R5
billion agreement, which can amount to up to R500,000 per claimant
in exceptional circumstances, he wondered if he would live to see
the day his family's fortunes turned.

"It's hard to put our children through school or do anything,
really. We can't even afford to go to the doctor to have the
silicosis and other medical conditions we now suffer from . . .
[seen to]."

Mining activists, including civil society organisation Justice For
Miners, have slammed the slow pace of the rollout of compensation
payments to former mineworkers who suffer from silicosis, saying
this is sending them to their deaths early.

Justice For Miners chair Bishop Jo Seoka told Eyewitness News: "The
mandate is very clear. The judgment said the harm that has been
done cannot be reversed and the trustees must ensure that the
settlement is effected to help those who are meant to be assisted
with it."

Experts, meanwhile, described attempts to understand the depths of
the silicosis crisis in the country as amounting to unscrambling a
complex entanglement.

This was not only because there was very little communication from
relevant government and non-governmental institutions but because
the victims of the disease were also out of sight.

The activists described to Eyewitness News not only debilitating
health conditions that hit ex-mineworkers but also dire living
conditions as many were unable to take up any form of work due to
their weakened health.

Ziyanda Manjati has been working with the families of
ex-mineworkers since the early 2000s at the onset of preparations
for the historic class-action lawsuit that sought to hold mining
companies accountable for the suffering endured by their former
employees, as a result of silicosis. She says she has seen it all.

"Most of these families don't have money to go to the medical
doctors. Yes, we do understand that silicosis is incurable but
there are ways, at least medical treatment, that they can use
because most of them who are suffering from silicosis are also
suffering from TB. In order to prevent those instances, the
claimants - if they were consulting medical doctors now and then -
at least they will be able to get the correct medication to make
the illness better and avoid suffering from TB."

Her plea is for the Tshiamiso Trust to do its work, saying that the
Trust should be proactive in the tracking and tracing of the
beneficiaries so that the gap of criminals posing as middlemen can
be eliminated.

"Payments can be faster than they are already trying to do. Its
almost two years after the trust was formulated. What they do each
and every time is that they say the Trust did, says this . . . We
feel that the judgment that was done in the High Court is not what
Tshiamiso is doing on the ground."

Janet Kahn has lived in Welkom most of her adult life. There she
and her husband, who is a doctor in the mines, have also witnessed
how the illness ravages healthy bodies of workers who had no idea
that signing up for jobs to put food on their families' tables
would ultimately cost them their lives.

She spent many years working to ease their pain - helping with
compensation applications and educating them about the incurable
disease that had riddled their lungs.

"It's a progressive disease. The families watch their loved ones
progressively getting weaker and sicker and battling more and more
to breathe. It has material implications because they are no longer
earning a salary. If they come from non-South African countries -
there is no real security in terms of security pension," she said.

Kotton explained to Eyewitness News last week that it would be
rolling out payments to the former mineworkers in the coming months
- adding that it had to ensure that extensive systems were in place
to ensure the process was carried out as per the Trust's deed,
which has specific stipulations on how the process can be carried
out.

"There is a big misunderstanding that ‘I have now submitted my
claim and why am I not being paid' but it's a step-by-step process
and we need to have all those sets of big infrastructure in place
for us to process the claims," he said.

The Trust will be paying out a maximum of R250,000 to the
ex-miners, while those with the most severe cases of silicosis can
be paid up to R500,000. [GN]


BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
the putative antitrust class action suit related to IV solutions
sales have not taken an appeal from the district court's decision
dismissing the case.

In November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February
2017.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on November
9, 2018.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice on April 3, 2020. The plaintiffs did not
file an appeal.

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Sues Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN DUNCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; AND TENKOZ INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00158 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2021)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by impairing
competition in the retail sales market for seeds and crop
protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides ("Crop Inputs"), and by excluding electronic platforms
from competing in that market, the Defendants have artificially
raised the prices paid by farmers for Crop Inputs, and ultimately
the prices paid by consumers for farm products, including corn and
grain.

Allegedly, the Defendants' conduct in boycotting and preventing
electronic platforms from competing in the retail sales market for
Crop Inputs lacks any procompetitive justification. Moreover, the
harm to competition and the resulting antitrust injury, suffered by
both farmers and other consumers of Crop Inputs, more than offsets
any procompetitive justifications the Defendants may offer, the
suit adds.

Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The
Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides,
traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
          Connor P. Lemire, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          231 North Main Street, Suite 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
          E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
                  lmp@mccunewright.com
                  cpl@mccunewright.com

               -and-

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com


BEACH PIZZA: Bid to Extend Class Certification Deadline Terminated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Small v. Beach Pizza, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01306 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J.
Davis entered an order granting unopposed motion to withdraw
plaintiff's motion and terminating plaintiff's motion to extend
class certification deadline and allow class discovery.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Beach Pizza was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[CC]

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Moore Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Company. The case is styled as Robyn Moore, Gabrielle Stuve, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Beech-Nut
Nutrition Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00183-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Feb.
16, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation -- https://www.beechnut.com/ -- is
a baby food company that is owned by the Swiss branded
consumer-goods firm Hero Grou.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE GESTEN MCDONAL PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton on Hudson, NY 10520
          Phone: (917) 983-9321
          Fax: (888) 421-4173
          Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com


BLUEBIRD BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

BLUE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-form?prid=12878&wire=1
SWI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=12878&wire=1
OTGLY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=12878&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUE)

BLUE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 11, 2020 -
November 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-form?prid=12878&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, bluebird
bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) data supporting bluebird's BLA
submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate
drug product comparability; (ii) Defendants downplayed the
foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic
on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD,
particularly with respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of
all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not
submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)

SWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 18, 2018
- December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=12878&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
SolarWinds Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020,
SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that
allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products
ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible
password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds'
customers, including, among others, the Federal Government,
Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as
a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm;
and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

OTGLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 16,
2020 - December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=12878&wire=1

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

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


BMW FINANCIAL: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAWLINGS, On behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES
NA, LLC, Case No. : 2:20-cv-02289-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Parties
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), jointly agree and ask the Court to enter an
order conditionally certifying the FLSA collective action and
providing notice to the putative class.

The Parties agree to conditional certification of the following
collective pursuant to the FLSA:

   "All nonexempt associates at BMW Financial Services' office
   in Hilliard, Ohio during the period of June 29, 2017 to
   present, who were required to boot up their computers, log
   into Citrix and have the toolbar open prior to the scheduled
   start of their shifts and who worked 40 or more hours in one
   or more workweeks."

The Parties further agree that granting conditional certification
moots previously filed motions by the Parties. The Parties will
jointly submit a proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms to be
authorized by the Court no later than February 19, 2021. If the
Parties cannot agree on the contents of the Notice Packet, they
will submit their respective positions on the disputed issues on
February 19, 2021.

BMW Financial provides financial services. The Company offers
leasing, retail, and wholesale financing services, as well as
offers credit card solutions.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M7yhQ1 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614-949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: 614-573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc J. Kessler, Esq.
          HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
          65 E. State St., Ste. 1400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 233-5168
          Facsimile: (614) 221-5909
          E-mail: mkessler@hahnlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Seasly, Esq.
          Ann E. Knuth, Esq.
          200 Public Sq., Ste. 2800
          Cleveland, Ohio 44114
          Telephone: (216) 274-2234
          Facsimile: (216) 241-2824
          E-mail: sseasly@hahnlaw.com
                  aknuth@hahnlaw.com

BOOHOO GROUP: Fighting Proposed $100MM Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Bayliss Wong, writing for Forbes, reports that fashion is not
what it used to be. Rewind only five or six years ago, when we had
just passed the peak of the fast fashion explosion. Boohoo had
recently gone public, snapping up eCommerce upstarts Pretty Little
Thing and Nasty Gal, adding gasoline to their online growth.
Established fashion giants were turning their Fashion Week venues
into stage shows, with Chanel displaying its latest collection in a
giant airline terminal and Tommy Hilfiger building an entire indoor
mini-beach, complete with boardwalk.

Now, this whole model is under intense scrutiny. The whole industry
is under a review of conscience, with consumers opening their eyes
to the sustainability problem. Last year, Boohoo was battling
allegations of modern slavery and now fighting a proposed $100
million class action lawsuit. The fashion industry itself has
resolved to change its operational mode, with the declaration of
Rewiring Fashion and updating industry practices to suit today's
digital age.

Finally, throw in a global pandemic and a switch to remote working,
and even the context for wearing fashion has changed. With no
social contact or special occasions, many of us haven't worn
anything that buttons up at the waist for some time, let alone make
decisive fashion choices when it comes to buying and wearing "an
outfit."

So what does this mean for the future of fashion?
The pandemic has highlighted the reliance of certain industries on
face-to-face contact and social occasions. Whilst the more obvious
affected industries lie within leisure and hospitality, fashion is
still far from unaffected. Even more interesting, the challenge
that fashion faces is a combination of two contrasting consumer
sentiments. Wear it once -- but also -- buy less.

Clothing utilization is on the decrease across the globe. According
to the Ellen McArthur Foundation, the average number of times a
garment is worn has decreased by 36% compared to 15 years ago and
even more so in high-income countries. In a world where we see each
other more online than face-to-face, an emerging 'wear it once'
culture is being bolstered by the rise of style-conscious social
media users. Pre-pandemic, stories were rife of Instagram
influencers buying items once for an outfit photo, before returning
them again.

Take aside the growing pressures of keeping your social media
"fresh," it is the months of limited contact that have led us to
acknowledge that most of the items in our closet have barely been
worn. Whilst trying to break from the monotony of a Zoom-friendly
top with sweatpants below, many consumers are also lacking an
'occasion' to dress up.

At the same time, people also want to buy less. We know consumer
spending has been hit due to Covid-19 but, even pre-pandemic,
buying patterns were also moving towards extending the life cycle
of clothing. According to Lyst, searches including sustainability
related keywords increased 75% year on year. In response, industry
giants like H&M have responded with conscious collections, in-store
recycling points and even the launch of COS Resell marketplace.
However, although these are great initiatives, all of these still
encourage a linear model of consumption and a continued purchase in
some form.

Is it possible to own more outfits, without creating more?
One of the fashion disruptors aiming to solve that question is By
Rotation, a social fashion rental app where users can rent their
own luxury clothes and accessories to other fashion lovers.

With a combination of reduced store access and increasing
sustainability awareness among consumers, the pandemic has actually
increased business for the company, which was founded in 2019 by
Eshita Kabra. By Rotation ticks a wealth of boxes for conscious
consumers, satisfying both the 'wear it once' phenomenon, whilst
also giving users a chance to reduce their impact on fashion
production, spend less AND earn their own money whilst doing it.

"We've created a social network for people to monetize and share
their style and wardrobes with each other," says Kabra. "Our
community has thoroughly enjoyed staying connected with us through
our marketing channels and they've also become far more conscious
about sustainable and circular fashion. We've seen a rise in user
acquisition and listings growth on a shoestring marketing budget."

With big social engagements and weddings currently on pause, one
may wonder if there is a business case for rental outside of
occasion-wear but with British consumers spending nearly £800
million on single-use wedding outfits alone, both the cost and
conscious element should not be underplayed. At By Rotation, it's
evident there is still a market for outfits, not limited to
weddings.

"Given the range of contemporary and designer labels listed by
users on the app, many rentals have actually been occurring for
smaller occasions such as dinners, birthdays, interviews or even a
walk in the park!" says Kabra.

The social nature of the app adds an extra level of service to the
user experience, with individuals often able to respond to tailored
requests, such as sending items on the same day. The online dynamic
between users also improves discovery for "rotators," who often
follow and rent from the same person multiple times -- essentially
a perfect style and size match.

The convenience and personalization elements make a clear case for
digital retail and it's no coincidence that digital-first players
were trading 35% higher, on average, than they did in December
2019, with locked-down customers turning to digital devices to
shop.

It's not just the services that are shifting toward digital
Renting and sharing clothes is one idea, but what if the clothes
don't exist in real-life at all? Don't worry, I'm not talking about
an Emperor's New Clothes situation but actually the concept of
digital fashion.

Digital fashion is essentially virtual clothing using 3D software
to build a true-to-life garment that can be visualized and
simulated to look and move like real clothing. Whilst you can't
physically wear it -- it currently leans more towards the category
of digital art -- there appears to be a genuine market for it. In
2019, Forbes reported The Fabricant's sale of the "Iridescence"
dress, which sold for $9,500.

The idea of digital fashion has been around for some time, albeit
not at these prices. Notorious for spawning innovation, the gaming
industry has been unknowingly seeding virtual fashion demand for a
while. From the basics of picking your hair color & style of the
infamous Nintendo Wii Mii's right through to Apple Memoji's and
customizing villagers in Animal Crossing. This has not gone
unnoticed in the fashion industry, with an upward trend of fashion
brands using gaming and e-sports to market their products through
in-game items, skins and wider brand partnerships.

Back in 2019, Louis Vuitton partnered with the long-running
multiplayer game League of Legends, which included both a physical
clothing capsule collection as well as in-game designer skins. A
year later, Valentino, Marc Jacobs and Anna Sui all released
in-game outfits in Animal Crossing, whilst Givenchy Beauty and
Gillette provided in-game beauty customizations.

After the success of these early steps into digital fashion, a
natural evolution would be to expand the end customer to a wider
audience and thus DressX, the first international digital fashion
multi-brand retailer, went live in 2020. Founded by Daria
Shapovalova and Natalia Modenova, the LA-based brand highlights
today's changing purpose of fashion in our lives.

With 60 designers on board and more than 700 items available on the
platform, DressX have served thousands of orders, all whilst still
only in beta. Similar to By Rotation, it provides a solution to
both the 'wear it once' culture and the intention to buy less.
Customers purchase a digital item and receive a custom image of
them wearing it. By purchasing digital fashion, consumers can
finally be seen in high-end looks that they otherwise may not have
access to, let alone afford. The world of couture fashion normally
revolves around a super elite club of less than 5,000 people.

DressX gives both 3D designers and traditional fashion brands a
platform to sell and distribute digital clothing, whether it's
existing digital assets or giving physical designs a new digital
life and a new revenue opportunity. The design and production
processes can take anything from a couple of days to several months
depending on the initial idea, designer experience, and the
complexity of the items. Not dissimilar to the construction of a
designer couture gown, except with far less waste, energy and air
miles. No water is used for the creation or usage of digital
fashion, and production of a digital garment, on average, leaves
97% less CO2 footprint compared to the production of a physical
garment.

The rise of the conscious consumer is certainly something fueling
the orders. Modenova says: "For the clients who care about our
planet and are striving to decrease the level of pollution created
due to overproduction, shopping digital fashion can become a great
way to reduce their negative environmental footprint, without
giving up the thrill of buying new clothes."

When it comes to the final product, the digital design method also
removes the constraints of both cost and physics. "The
possibilities digital fashion brings for creative expression are
endless," says Shapovalova. "Allowing fashion designers to create
without any boundaries makes this realm very appealing. Digital
fashion is an opportunity to give a second life to clothes which
are absolutely unsuited for being worn in our daily lives. While
such items could be seen as too bright or expensive for our daily
lives in the real world, we can look at the clothes in a completely
different way in the digital space."

Digital fashion is essentially designed to dress our digital selves
- which given the pandemic, are now more prominent than ever. It's
no surprise that the majority of DressX customers come from
Instagram and other content platforms, like TikTok and Twitter. "We
can definitely say that the pandemic made more people grow their
online presence and thus made them more prone to using digital
fashion for content creation." says Modenova. "We see more social
media influencers getting into the topic of digital fashion. Some
of them always used traditional fashion for content creation and
decided to make a switch to digital with us, while others are
coming from a purely digital perspective aiming to secure a niche
as digitally-native influencers."

The idea of digital-first influencers is certainly not implausible,
given that social media has also enabled the the rise of virtual
influencers like Miquela Sousa -- a.k.a. Lil Miquela -- Shudu and
Noonoouri who have millions of followers between them, and command
big paychecks from brands. (Yes, Lil Miquela is not a real person
and earned almost $12 million last year.)

If the industry can digitize human beings, there's no question that
the clothing can't also be digitized but if it's just an image,
does this mean this product is only for influencers? Modenova makes
a clear differentiation about our online and our offline selves,
having already become "the avatars of ourselves" across social
media channels, digital messaging and streaming services. This is
not just limited to content creators, it's ultimately anyone who's
used a face filter and shared the photos. The global augmented
reality market was valued at $12 billion in 2020, with consumers
expected to spend over $6 billion on this industry that is still
far from achieving its full potential. DressX believe that anyone
who shares content regularly, anyone with an online brand whether
personal, or professional, can become future customers.

"We already see more specific cohorts emerging," says Shapovalova.
"Digital clothing is especially useful for micro influencers of all
kinds -- from language coaches to financial advisors, active
travelers, tech people -- they all see the value in digital assets.
Micro influencers share content in their social media at least once
a week and for each 'public appearance' like this they would need
new clothes that could be easily replaced with digital clothes."

Gone are the days of wearing a beautiful, expensive and impractical
item for an occasion. An outfit that is picture-perfect until the
sun goes down, or the wind picks up. Shapovalova also identifies an
opportunity for selfie-loving travelers and party-goers. "Instead
of packing outfits for every special occasion, they can now travel
with the most comfortable and practical basics, make pictures in
the most incredible place and still elevate their photos with
fashionable digital clothes."

Will no-ownership ever become mainstream?
DressX are certainly seeing traction -- so much so that they're
planning to launch a subscription model shortly, with users making
multiple purchases for their digital wardrobe. Pricing is a key
obstacle that will be critical to tempt users away from a life-time
of physical, unethical fashion -- both for digital purchases and
circular sharing. With competitive price points, the concept of a
rotating wardrobe can be an every-day occurrence.

"It's essential to make our community as socioeconomically
inclusive as possible," says Kabra. "There's a reason fast fashion
has been able to engage and include people of all backgrounds, and
I believe low price points have been vital to their strategy. With
By Rotation, we want people to realize and embrace the fact that
it's far better to share a higher quality fashion item from someone
within our community, as opposed to buying a fast fashion knockoff
and/or an item that they will not wear more than 10 times."

The digital shift is here to stay but, like traditional retailers,
there will be post-pandemic behaviors for these disruptors to
address. Consumers may not feel the same about sharing clothes, as
they do about sharing hotel towels -- when they are, in reality,
the same.

The biggest challenge for DressX is that there is no playbook and
no rules for digital fashion. "Being one of the pioneers of the
digital fashion movement we have to explore the field from scratch.
At the same time, this is also the most exciting challenge. To
create something completely new, which never existed before, but
only lived in our imagination." [GN]


BRISTOL-MYERS: Grant of Class Certification in Celgene Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal
on the grant of class certification is pending.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene Contingent Value Rights and certain of its officers
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia.

The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.

In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to
dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged
misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.

In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with
respect to the remaining claims. In December 2020, the defendants
sought leave to appeal the Court's class certification decision.

No trial date has been scheduled.

In April 2020, certain Schwab management investment companies on
behalf of certain Schwab funds filed an individual action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting
largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action
against the same remaining defendants in that action. In July 2020,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint
in full.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

BRISTOL-MYERS: HIV Fixed-Dose Products Related Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to its agreements to
develop and sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment
of HIV, including Atripla and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws.

The company (BMS) and two other manufacturers of HIV medications
are defendants in related lawsuits pending in the Northern District
of California.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants' agreements to develop and
sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV,
including Atripla and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws.

The currently pending actions, asserted on behalf of indirect
purchasers, were initiated in 2019 in the Northern District of
California and in 2020 in the Southern District of Florida.

The Florida matter was transferred to the Northern District of
California. In July 2020, the Court granted in part defendants'
motion to dismiss, including dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs'
claims as to an overarching conspiracy and plaintiffs' theories
based on the alleged payment of royalties after patent expiration.


Other claims, however, remain. A trial on the indirect purchasers'
claims is scheduled for August 2022.

In September and October 2020, two purported class actions have
also been filed asserting similar claims on behalf of direct
purchasers.

Defendants' motions to dismiss and compel arbitration in those
matters are scheduled to be heard in February 2021. A trial on the
direct purchasers' claims has not been scheduled.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

BUONGIORNO BAGELS: Fails to Pay Wages, Lanzetta Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMILIANA LANZETTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUONGIORNO BAGELS AND CAFE INC.,
and GINO LEONE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00797
(E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2021) brings this collective action
complaint seeking to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress from
November 2, 2017 until October 2, 2019.

The complaint alleges the Defendants of tip pooling by taking tips
and/or gratuities received by him and other food service workers
from the Defendants' customers and unlawfully shared it to
non-tipped employees, such as the managers and non-service staff.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged illegal tip scheme, the
Plaintiff and other food service workers were paid less than the
mandated minimum wages. In addition, the Defendant never paid the
Plaintiff overtime hours worked at one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay, as well as spread of hours premium pursuant to
the NYLL when her workdays lasted 10 or more hours, added the
suit.

The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant failed to provide
her with a written notice of her rate of pay and failed to keep
proper payroll records as required under the NYLL.

Buongiorno Bagels and Cafe Inc. operates as a restaurant. Gino
Leone is the owner and operator who exercises control over the
restaurant's day-to-day operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Tel: (212) 344-9022
          Fax: (212) 344-0301


CAL CENTRAL: Mayen Suit Removed from Cal. State Court to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned ass JULIO MAYEN, an individual,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-20-102532, was removed rom the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Fresno) on Feb. 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00145-AWI-JLT to
the proceeding.

Cal Central is located in Shafter, California and is part of the
farm support services industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Cal Central Harvesting, Inc., are:

          Thomas E. Campagne, Esq.
          CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
          Airport Office Center
          1685 North Helm Avenue
          Fresno, CA 93727
          Telephone: (559) 255-1637
          Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
          E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com

CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Sex Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Marden, writing for yourcentralvalley.com, reports that the
Fresno State lacrosse team began its season on Feb. 14 with a 20-12
loss at UC Davis. The bigger story is the fact that several players
are currently suing the university.

Five of them are named in a sex discrimination class action lawsuit
that was filed on Feb. 12.

And what they want is simple: to prevent the sport from being
eliminated, and to be treated equally with other varsity teams
while the case proceeds.

"It is truly sad and disappointing that we have to sue Fresno State
to make it comply with Title IX, treat women equally and preserve
our team," said co-captain Megan Walaitis in a news release from
Bailey & Glasser, LLP. "But we have to stand up for our rights and
fight. Fresno State actively recruited us. We love being here and
playing. But it's trying to eliminate our team, already treating us
like we're not a varsity team and discriminating against women
throughout its intercollegiate athletic program."

Fresno State announced back in October that lacrosse, men's tennis
and wrestling were all being eliminated. The lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
[GN]


CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Class Cert. Filing Due Date Extended to April 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LONGO, et al., v.
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02651-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mezille entered an order granting
the plaintiffs' motion to extend the class- certification
deadline.

Judge Mezille said, "The plaintiffs' deadline to move for class
certification is now April 2, 2021. The plaintiffs provide good
cause for extending the class-certification deadline. The
plaintiffs began this action on November 12, 2020. Campus Advantage
appeared in this case on December 7, 2020. Shortly after Campus
Advantage appeared, the plaintiffs served their first discovery
request, which Campus Advantage responded to in late January 2021.
Without addressing the merits of what appears to be a possible
discovery dispute between the parties, the Court finds that the
plaintiffs have diligently pursued this case yet seek additional
information to file their motion for class certification. Keeping
the plaintiffs to the current class-certification deadline on
February 10, 2021, would be inappropriate, particularly as the new
Local Rules do not impose the mandatory 90-day deadline."

Campus Advantage operates as a real estate investment management
firm. The Company provides student housing management, development,
acquisition, and consulting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvRo3U at no extra charge.[CC]



CARL M. FREEMAN: Williams Seeks Damages, Public Offering Statement
------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carl M. Freeman Communities LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2021-0072 (Del. Ch., January 27, 2021), seeks a
mandatory permanent injunction directing Carl M. Freeman
Communities, the developer of Bayside, to provide all buyers of
units in Bayside with a public offering statement as described in
the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act and substantial
monetary damages and other relief for all homeowners who bought
properties in Bayside since 2009.

According to the complaint, Carl M. Freeman Communities has not
complied with the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act by
not providing to the Plaintiff the required public offering
statement in violation of Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act.

Bayside development consists of single-family homes and
multi-family units where Williams is the owner of a Bayside
property located in 22104 Seaport Square, Selbyville, Delaware. He
purchased his home and property in Bayside on August 29, 2018.
Williams claims that Carl M. Freeman Communities continues to allow
the sale of new properties in Bayside without providing buyers with
the required public offering statement. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Valihura, Jr., Esq.
      MORTON, VALIHURA & ZERBATO, LLC
      3704 Kennett Pike, Suite 200
      Greenville, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 426-1313
      Fax: (302) 426-1300


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Dismissed as Defendant in Ealy-Simon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE EALY-SIMON and
KRISTIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00521 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson
entered an order that:

   1. In accordance with the Stipulation, Change Healthcare
      Technology Enabled Services, LLC is substituted as the
      Defendant for Defendant Change Healthcare Operations, LLC.

   2. The class certification previously granted is amended to
      read:

      "all similarly situated current and former Patient
      Services Representatives (PSRs) and similar job titles who
      work or have worked for Change Healthcare Technology
      Enabled Services, LLC at any of its call center facilities
      at any time during the three years preceding the filing of
      the Complaint through judgment."

   3. The Defendant Change Healthcare Operations, LLC is hereby
      dismissed as Defendant to this action, with leave for the
      Plaintiffs to later move to add Defendant Change
      Healthcare Operations, LLC after discovery.

   4. The Court approves the opt-in notice and consent to join
      form.

   5. The Court approves the text message notice.

   6. The Court approves the other stipulations by the Defendant
      and the Plaintiffs contained in the Joint Notice:
      Defendant will provide Plaintiffs' counsel the names,
      personal email addresses (if available), and postal
      addresses of potential plaintiffs within 30 days of this
      Order. If Defendant cannot locate a potential plaintiff’s
      postal address or personal email address, the Defendant
      will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel the phone number of the
      potential plaintiff, if available.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ppJxEZ at no extra charge.[CC]

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid for En Banc Rehearing in Ong Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court
in the putative class action suit initiated by Susie Ong has denied
the plaintiffs' motion for an en banc rehearing.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.

The complaint purports to state claims against us, each of the
co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period
and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related rules,
based on the company's alleged failure during the claimed class
period to disclose material information about the company's quality
controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee
health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees, and other costs.

On March 22, 2018, the court granted our motion to dismiss, with
prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion.


On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on October 1, 2020,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for an en banc rehearing.  


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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.

CHSLD HERRON: Family Launches Class Action Against Care Home Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rukavina, writing for CBC News, reports that the presiding
coroner at the public inquiry into Quebec's long-term care homes
was set deliver a decision on Feb. 16 as to whether the inquiry
should proceed as planned.

The owners of CHSLD Herron in Montreal's West Island filed a motion
Monday to have the inquiry delayed until prosecutors decide whether
to lay criminal charges against them.

The inquiry was to begin Feb. 15, but the day was taken up with
arguments for and against the motion.

The lawyer for the owners argued that if the inquiry goes ahead as
planned, it would be unfair to her clients, given that Quebec's
Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DCPC) hasn't made a
decision on whether to file criminal charges against them.

"The surrounding media attention to be paid during the present
public inquiry is likely to create a risk that possible juries will
be influenced by the testimony heard during the inquiry," Nadine
Touma, the lawyer representing Samantha Choweiri and Andrei Stanica
of Groupe Katasa, told the inquiry at the Montreal courthouse.

Touma asked the inquiry be delayed until a decision is made.

If the request to delay the hearing is refused, Touma asked that
the subpoenas for her clients be rescinded or that a publication
ban be placed on the proceedings.

Families argue against publication ban
Lawyers representing families of those who died argued that
delaying the inquiry or imposing a publication ban was unnecessary
and would make it difficult for their clients to follow along.

"Many families don't have the luxury of spending the full 11 days
to listen to the virtual meeting, and many of them do not speak or
understand French," Patrick Menard, a lawyer representing four of
the families, told reporters outside the courtroom.

"So the reporting of these proceedings will be a key part of these
families getting answers," Menard said.

Lawyers for several media outlets including the CBC also argued
against the idea of a publication ban, stressing the public
interest and the importance of transparency.

A lawyer for the DCPC told the inquiry it was hard to say when a
decision on charges could be made, but argued the inquiry could
proceed without prejudicing a possible criminal trial.

After hearing the arguments, the presiding coroner, Gehane Kamel,
said she needed time to consider her options, and that she would
have a decision at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

"This is a decision that has extremely important issues for
families and the population," Kamel told the hearing.

"I prefer to make a decision that will be informed and well
reflected upon," she added.

In an opening statement earlier on Feb. 15, Kamel said the inquiry
would look at how 47 people died at Herron as the first wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic intensified.

Kamel described the conditions in which the people died as
"indecent" and "inhumane."

The inquiry can be watched live on Microsoft Teams.

Staff shortages meant many residents were left undernourished,
neglected and stranded in soiled beds.

Their families, barred from the home because of public health
restrictions, received little or no information about what was
going on inside.

As part of the inquiry, Kamel will come up with recommendations
aimed at preventing such tragedies in future.

One family has launched a class-action lawsuit against Herron's
owners. It has yet to be approved by the courts. [GN]


CLOVER HEALTH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Clover Health
Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV). The case is currently in the lead
plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased CLOV stock or other
securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021 or
traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger, may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover to submit their information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover

The complaint alleges that Clover Health and its senior executives
made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose
that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the Department
of Justice for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to
undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation
presented an existential risk to Clover, since it derives most of
its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were not driven by
its purported "best-in-class" technology but rather misleading
marketing practices that targeted the elderly; and (4) a
significant portion of Clover's sales derived from an undisclosed
relationship between Clover and an outside brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales.

Interested Clover investors have until April 6, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover [GN]


CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PHILIP SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNC OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-00023-NDF (D. Wyo., February 12, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver from
November 2018 until July 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was compensated by the
Defendant on an hourly basis and was paid the same rate for all
hours he worked despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a
week. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay him proper overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, added the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and/or penalty
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation, pre-
and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law, and
other relief a may be necessary and appropriate.

CNC Oilfield Services, LLC offers oilfield support operations,
including transportation of fluids and materials to and from drill
sites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1601 Capitol Ave., Ste. 310 #A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Tel: (970) 999-4225
          E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com

                - and –

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Selane Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SELANE PRODUCTS, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Selane Products, Inc. v.
Continental Casualty Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-07834-MCS-AFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendant's refusal to cover the Plaintiff's loss
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit seeks damages to compensate the Plaintiff for the
Defendant's contractual breaches, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief: confirming that the Plaintiff's losses are
covered, prohibiting the Defendant from denying coverage for
losses, and requiring the Defendant to publicly correct
misstatements it made and its corporate affiliates regarding the
availability of insurance coverage for losses attributable to
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and associated actions and orders of civil
authorities.

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the District Court's Order
dated February 8, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and
Judgment dated February 10, 2021, dismissing the action in its
entirety with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Selane Products, Inc. v.
Continental Casualty Company, Case No. 21-55123, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 16, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Selane Products, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire is
due on February 23, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 15, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on April 13, 2021;

   -- Appellant Selane Products, Inc. opening brief is due on May
24, 2021;

   -- Appellee Continental Casualty Company answering brief is due
on June 24, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant SELANE PRODUCTS, INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jay L. T. Breakstone, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 466-6500  
          E-mail: jbreakstone@yourlawyer.com

               - and -

          Shaun Hamilton Crosner, Esq.
          Kirk Pasich, Esq.
          PASICH LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 313-7860
          E-mail: scrosner@pasichllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Stephen Gehrt, Esq.
          PASICH LLP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690
          Manhatten Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (424) 313-7855
          E-mail: mgehrt@pasichllp.com  

Defendant-Appellee CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY is represented by:


          Geoffrey David Godwin, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          E-mail: david.godwin@squirepb.com

COUNTERPATH CORP: Golenkov Balks at Proposed $25.7M Sale to Alianza
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GOLENKOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COUNTERPATH CORPORATION, TERENCE MATTHEWS, OWEN
MATTHEWS, CHRIS COOPER, BRUCE JOYCE, LARRY TIMLICK, and STEVEN
BRUK, Case No. A-21-828751-B (D. Nev., Feb. 2, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and and on behalf of other public
shareholders of CounterPath Corporation against the CounterPath
Board of Directors together with the Company for breaching their
fiduciary duties owed to the class in connection with Alianza,
Inc.'s proposed acquisition of CounterPath.

On December 7, 2020, CounterPath and Alianza announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to
which Alianza, through its various subsidiaries, will acquire all
the outstanding shares of CounterPath in an all-cash deal (the
"Proposed Merger"). Each CounterPath shareholder will receive $3.49
in cash per share for each share of CounterPath common stock they
own (the "Merger Consideration"), implying an approximate market
value of $25.7 million.

According to the complaint, the Merger Agreement appears to be the
result of a conflicted sales process intended to benefit certain
CounterPath insiders, whose end goal was a sale of CounterPath to
Alianza. Aliana and CounterPath "were familiar with each other," as
the parties entered into a Master Service Agreement on April 11,
2018, pursuant to which Alianza supplied CounterPath with
communication services, and, on July 7, 2020, during the purported
sales process that resulted in the Proposed Merger, the parties
entered into a commercial arrangement, under which Alianza
purchased a 36-month software subscription and certain related
professional services from CounterPath.

On January 22, 2021, in order to convince CounterPath shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, CounterPath filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a materially incomplete and
misleading proxy statement (the "Proxy"). The Proxy provides
materially misleading information and omits material information
regarding  the process that culminated in the Proposed Merger and
the financial forecasts prepared by the Company's management, the
suit says.

Unsurprisingly, in light of these material omissions, the Merger
Consideration allegedly undervalues CounterPath, given its
capitalization on recent trends and strong growth prospects. The
$3.49 share price represents a discount from the Company's 52-week
high of $5.55 per share and its share price of $5.44 as recently as
July 20, 2020, the day the Company announced its financial results
for 4Q 2020 and FY 2020. The results for 4Q 2020 reported 42%
growth in revenue, a 79% increase in billings, and 25% growth in
subscription, support, and maintenance revenue (i.e., recurring
revenue) in 4Q 2020, as compared to 4Q 2019. When this growth is
combined with CounterPath's 85% reported gross margins, $3.49 per
share represents inadequate compensation for CounterPath's
shareholders.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants exacerbated their
breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to unreasonable
deal-protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that all but
foreclose potential bidders from submitting a superior offer to
acquire CounterPath, including a provision that requires
CounterPath to pay Alianza a total termination fee of 1.5 million
if the CounterPath Board terminates the Merger Agreement to accept
a superior proposal.

The special meeting of CounterPath shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Merger is currently scheduled to be held on February 22,
2021. It is imperative that the material information omitted from
the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the
forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Merger
and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger or, in the
event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith, and fair dealing.

The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
shareholder of CounterPath.

CounterPath CounterPath designs, develops, and sells software and
services that enable enterprises and telecommunication service
providers to deliver Unified Communications ("UC") services,
including voice, video, messaging and collaboration functionality,
over their Internet Protocol, or IP, based networks. CounterPath
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker
symbol "CPAH". The Individual Defendants are directors of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Mark Albright, Esq.
          Jorge L. Alvarez, Esq.
          ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT
          801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
          Las Vegas, NE 89106
          Telephone: (702) 384-7111
          Facsimile: (702) 384-0605
          E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com
                  jalvarez@albrightstoddad.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118

DASCOR CORP: Faces Garcia Suit Over Plumbers' Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DASCOR CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 9:21-cv-80325 (S.D. Fla., February 12, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking to
recover unpaid compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt
plumber/plumber's helper from 2017 until November 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, he and other similarly situated plumbers were required
by the Defendant to work more than 40 hours a week and to work on
call for emergency and after-hours plumbing calls. However, the
Defendant did not compensate them for all hours they worked by
failing to include those overtime hours they worked as compensable
time and directing them to exclude from their time sheets, and by
automatically deducting time for a meal break, regardless of
whether or not the break was taken, the Plaintiff adds.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices, the
Plaintiff and other plumbers were deprived of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the law.

Dascor Corporation provides plumbing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Tel: (954) 617-6017
          Fax: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


DEACON 10: Class of Security Guard Gets Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTWANE CLEMMONS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DEACON 10,
LLC d/b/a PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Case No. 1:19-cv-02549-SO
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification;

   2. conditionally certifying the following class:

      "all former and current security guards that were/are paid
      on an hourly basis and employed by Deacon 10, LLC d/b/a
      Premier Protective Services at any time between October
      30, 2016, and the present."

   3. directing the parties to meet and confer, through counsel,
      regarding the content and form of the Plaintiff's proposed
      notice to be given to the putative class members and to
      submit, within 10 days of the date of this Order, a joint
      proposed judicial notice apprising potential plaintiffs of
      their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to
      opt-in as parties to this litigation.

The Court said, "After considering the relevant case law, the
pleadings, and the parties' arguments, the court finds that
Plaintiff's position is well-taken. Indeed, the Plaintiff has
provided ten declarations, which identify the same policy and
practice -- namely, the Defendant's failure to pay its security
guards for all hours worked. Moreover, the Plaintiff's allegations
in the Complaint coupled with the statements in the above-mentioned
declarations, specifically aver that Plaintiff is similarly
situated to the putative class because the class is comprised of
security guards who performed the same or substantially similar job
duties. Lastly, the court rejects the Defendant's argument that the
class period should be limited to two-years. Consequently, the
court finds that for purposes of the Notice, the class period is
limited to three years prior to the date the Complaint was filed,
which is October 30, 2016. Accordingly, because the court finds
that the Plaintiff has made the requisite 'modest factual showing'
required at this initial stage, conditional class certification is
appropriate."

The Plaintiff commenced this purported collective and class action
on October 30, 2019, against the Defendant for alleged violations
of the FLSA, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA).
Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had a policy
and practice of "not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees,
including the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage for all of the
hours they worked and overtime compensation for all of the hours
they worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendant offers armed, unarmed guards and private-duty police
for security needs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bm87S9 at no extra charge.[CC]

DEMOULAS SUPER: Cohen Sues Over False Coffee Advertised Servings
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED V. DEMOULAS SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10177-IT
(D. Mass, Feb. 2, 2021) is a class action suit against against
Demoulas for falsely advertising, marketing, and selling certain
coffees marketed under the Market Basket brand.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased Market Basket
House Blend Medium Roast Ground Coffee (House Blend) and Market
Basket House Blend Medium Roast Decaffeinated Coffee (House Blend
Decaf). The front of the package prominently described the coffee
as "House Blend, Ground Coffee and "House Blend, Decaf Ground
Coffee and indicates only that it was a medium roast able to make
79 and 76 cups, respectively, leaving the Plaintiff and fellow
consumers to reasonably believe that the coffee contained enough
ground coffee to provide 79 and 76 cups. In truth, however, the
Products do not have the quantity of servings in the container sold
to the consumers and Plaintiff, the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that the Products are advertised, marketed,
and sold as containing an amount of coffee grounds capable of
brewing, respectively, 79 and 76 six fluid ounce cups of coffee, or
servings, when in fact the contents of the Products are not capable
of brewing anywhere close to 79 and 76 servings. The Products are
comprised of ground coffee, provided to consumers for the purpose
of brewing cups of coffee.

Plaintiff Cohen is currently, and has been throughout the Class
Period, a resident of Weymouth, Massachusetts. During the Class
Period, Cohen purchased both the House Blend and House Blend Decaf
based on the representation and reasonable belief that the Products
contained enough quantity to make the advertised servings. Contrary
to the representation on its label, however, the Coffee did not
contain enough servings, but rather, was able to produce 49% of its
advertised servings. Had Cohen known that the Products' labels were
materially inaccurate, and that the Products were not capable of
brewing its advertised servings, he would not have purchased the
products, the suit contends.

Demoulas Super Markets Inc. Is a chain of supermarkets broadly
specializing in the sale of food and beverages. The Defendant has
over 80 supermarkets located in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Maine in the United States, with headquarters located in Tewksbury,
Massachusetts. While it has added a variety of food and beverage
products to its portfolio, Demoulas has maintained a significant
position in the manufacture and sale of coffee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. LONGO
          177 Huntington Avenue, 17th Fl., Suite 5
          Boston, MA 02115
          Telephone: (617) 863-7550
          E-mail: jtlongo@jtlongolaw.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Aaronson, Esq.
          AARONSON LAW FIRM
          7362 Remcon Circle
          El Paso, TX 79912
          Telephone: (915) 533-0110
          Facsimile: (915) 533-7227
          E-mail: mikeaaronson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joel Oster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr. Apt. 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

DESJARDINS GROUP: Settles Insurance Class Action for $9.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that Desjardins clients can recover all
premiums collected for loan, life and disability insurance that
were automatically included in the repayment of their student
loans.

The bank and Option consommateurs reached an agreement of $9.5
million in compensation to end a class-action lawsuit.

The consumers' rights organization took Desjardins to court for
having imposed an insurance plan on students who began paying their
loans, without informing them of this in the six months following
the end of their studies.

"It's important to ensure consent of people affected before making
them pay for an insurance plan," said Sylvie De Bellefeuille,
lawyer for Option consommateurs.

The deal must be approved by the court on May 13. If it receives
the green light, affected people who paid insurance premiums
between Aug. 2, 2014, and March 31, 2021, would be compensated 100
per cent of what they paid.

De Bellefeuille said for most clients, no action will be necessary
to be reimbursed. "It's hard to get a better settlement."

Desjardins clients will get the compensation directly into their
accounts, while former clients will get a cheque in the mail.

To qualify, clients must have taken out a student loan guaranteed
by the Quebec government from a Desjardins bank, have received a
default repayment agreement, which took effect after Aug. 2, 2014,
and whose terms were not modified before the first payment. The
insurance premium has to have been automatically added by
Desjardins and the client must not have made a claim under the
insurance plan.

The settlement does not automatically cancel the insurance plan, De
Bellefeuille added.

In 2017, Desjardins Securite Financière reached an agreement with
the Autorite des marches financiers, Quebec's financial regulator,
to pay a $1-million fine for this practice. There was no agreement
for compensation to clients until now.

For details on the settlement, go to option-consommateurs.org.
[GN]


DYCK-O NEAL: Rana Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Talwinder Rana, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated or entities v. Dyck-O Neal, Inc., Does
1-100, Case No. 30-02021-01177692-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the
Superior Court, State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00323-JLS-DFM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Dyck O'Neal Inc. -- https://dyckoneal.com/ -- operates as a debt
collection law firm. The Company focuses on consumer complaints to
law firms for debt harassment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake J Lindemann, Esq.
          Donna Rebecca Dishbak, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM APC
          433 North Camden Drive 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 279-5269
          Fax: (310) 300-0267
          Email: blake@lawbl.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Martin Schannong, Esq.
          CARLSON AND MESSER LLP
          5901 West Century Boulevard Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 242-2200
          Fax: (310) 242-2222
          Email: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
                 schannongm@cmtlaw.com


EAGLE LATH: Faces Sanchez-Cruz Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Lath & Plaster,
Inc. The case is captioned as Manuel Sanchez-Cruz vs. Eagle Lath &
Plaster, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00293739-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 2,
2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

Eagle Lath is located in North Highlands, California. The
organization primarily operates in the Commercial and Office
Building Contractors business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com

EDWARD D. JONES: Harris Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward D Jones And Co
LP. The case is styled as Tanya Harris, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Edward D Jones And Co LP D/B/A Edward Jones,
Case No. 16-2021-CA-000963-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Feb. 17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil."

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., simplified as Edward Jones --
https://www.edwardjones.com/ -- is a financial services firm
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gentile Angelica Marie, Esq.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132-2411


EPCON COMMUNITIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Stanley Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EPCON COMMUNITIES, LLC; and ROMANELLI AND
HUGHES BUILDING COMPANY, Defendants, Case: 2:21-cv-00597-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, Feb. 10, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

Epcon Communities, LLC offering construction of single-story living
communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian T. Giles, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES LLC
          1470 Apple Hill Rd.
          Cincinnati, OH 45230
          Telephone: (513) 379-2715
          E-mail: Brian@GilesFirm.com

               -and-

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


ESTIA HEALTH: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $11.7 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Estia Health will pay
$11.7 million to settle a shareholder class action over what the
company told investors while having difficulty with an
acquisition.

After the share market closed on Feb. 15, Estia said it agreed to
settle the 2019 class action, which alleged executives did not
properly inform the market between August 2015 and October 2016.

At the time, shareholders were assured the company was "on track"
despite troubles integrating Kennedy Health Care, which Estia
bought in late 2015.

Shares soared to $7.33 after Estia upgraded its FY16 guidance
following the purchase of Kennedy.

However Estia then gave a poor FY17 outlook, and downgraded
guidance, which sent the share price down by more than 45 per
cent.

The company will not admit liability as part of the settlement.

Estia will report the $11.7 million settlement contribution as an
expense in its first-half accounts.

Estia said the remainder of the settlement, $37.75 million, was
insured.

The Federal Court must approve the settlement.

Shares closed higher by 3.57 per cent to $2.03. [GN]


F&S MANAGEMENT: Curphey Conditional Certification Bid Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Curphey v. F&S
Management I LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05904-JJT (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      Motion for Conditional Certification;

      -- The Court grants conditional certification for weekly
         salary No. 1 Managers and No. 2 Assistant Managers at
         the 12 locations: Avondale, Peoria Avenue, Mesa, 51
         st Avenue, Greenway, 19th Avenue, Arizona Avenue, Ray
         Road, Bell Road, Thunderbird, Baseline, and Kyrene
         Road;

   2. approving the Plaintiff's Notice and Consent forms; and

   3. directing the parties to submit a proposed case management
      schedule within 21 days of the date of this Order.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff meets the requirements for the 2
initial stage of class certification with his assertion that
Defendants had a policy and practice of deducting pay for
partial-day absences. From the substantial allegations before the
Court, it is reasonable to infer that Ehab, Hisham, and the
Defendant entities utilized the complained of practice throughout
all twelve locations and that employees are "victims of a single
decision, policy, or plan."

The Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify the following classes
of individuals:

   "all current and former individuals employed as No. 1
   Managers and/or No. 2 Assistant Managers (or in other
   positions with similar job titles or job duties), who were
   paid a weekly rate of pay, and who worked for any of
   Defendants’ Francis & Sons Car Wash location three years
   before the Complaint was filed up to the present."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified him and
other No. 1 Managers and No. 2 Assistant Managers as overtime
exempt under the Fair Labor Standard's act (FLSA's) executive
exemption. More specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants violated the exemption standard by following a "policy
and practice of deducting his pay for partial-day absences." Thus,
although he was paid a weekly salary, he claims Defendants failed
to follow the salary basis test under 29 C.F.R. section 541.602, he
adds.

The Plaintiff Kevin Curphey worked first as a No. 2 Assistant
Manager and later as a No. 1 Manager at several Francis & Sons Car
Wash locations in Arizona. The Defendant entities each own one or
more of the 12 car washes located across the Phoenix metro area.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37saK3A at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRST STUDENT: Court Won't Allow Extension of Class Status Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN and CYNTHIA
PROVENCIO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRSTGROUP
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
unlikely to grant further extension absent exigent circumstances on
joint stipulation to extend time to file class certification motion
and continue class certification briefing.

The Court sets a telephonic case management conference for April 2,
2021 at 1:30 p.m. A case management statement following the
instructions in the Court's April 24, 2020 order.

The Parties enter a stipulation respectfully seeking an order to
further continue the deadlines for the class certification briefing
schedule as follows:

                               Current          New Deadline
                              Deadline

   Motion for Class         February 18, 2021   May 20, 2021
   Certification:

   Opposition to            April 15, 2021      July 22, 2021
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

   Reply to                May 12, 2021         August 26, 2021
   Opposition to
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

on April 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint alleging that the Defendants failed to: (1)
provide legally required meal breaks and (2) rest breaks; (3) pay
all hourly wages; (4) indemnify; (5) provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and (6) timely pay final wages at the time of
separation.

First Student Management is a professional education consultancy
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3blDFYB at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Barbara Galvan are:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Nolan Dilts, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, California 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  nolan@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Cynthia Provencio are:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  aburton@lelawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants First Student Management, LLC,
Firstgroup America, Inc. and First Transit, Inc., are:

          David J. Dow, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: ddow@littler.com

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN BERNARDEZ AND TAWANNA
PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of a class Plaintiffs of
persons similarly situated, v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC D/B/A
MEDASSIST, Case No. 3:17-cv-00613-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon.
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Filing of Plaintiffs'
      First Amended Complaint, For Equitable Tolling, and To
      Sever and Consolidate Missouri Opt-in Plaintiffs' Claims
      is granted in part, denied in part. The Clerk is directed
      to file on the docket Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
      to the Plaintiff's Motion;

   2. For the identified opt-in plaintiffs, the Court will toll
      the statute of limitations from June 19, 2018 until
      September 12, 2019;

   3. The Defendant's Motion to Strike Five Opt-In Plaintiffs
      Outside the Conditionally Certified Collective  is granted
      in part, denied in part;

   4. The Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is
      denied;

   5. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain Opt-in
      Plaintiffs for Failure to Respond to Discovery Requests is
      granted; and

   6. Opt-in plaintiffs Nancy Palma, Tammy Virgin, Deanna
      Marroquin, Loretta Arguello, Rollace Burton, Gail Greene,
      Emily Holland, Jamie Marquez, Melissa Monroe, Bridget
      Morris, Jada Nicholson, Veronica Robinson, and Temisha
      Tyree are dismissed without prejudice and stricken from
      this case.

The Court said, "The Defendant has not established that the
Plaintiffs acted in bad faith, and there have not been repeated
failures to cure deficiencies by previous amendments. For these
reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs may amend their
complaint."

In October 2017, Plaintiffs Alan Bernardez and Tawanna Pittman sued
Defendant Firstsource Solutions, seeking relief for alleged
violations of Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Acts. Three
months later, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional class
certification of a nationwide collective of

    "all current and former Patient Service Representatives,
    Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by the
    Defendant Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist at
    any time during the period of three years preceding the
    commencement of this action through the date on which
    conditional certification is granted."

On September 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion in part
and conditionally certified a collective of:

    "all current and former Patient Service Representatives,
    Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by Defendant
    Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist in the
    Durham, North Carolina and Birmingham, Alabama regions at
    any time from October 4, 2014 through present."

In November 2019, Defendant moved to amend its answer to assert an
additional defense related to arbitration agreements signed by some
opt-in plaintiffs. In March 2020, this Court granted the
Defendant's motion to amend to its answer.

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3udPPvh
at no extra charge.[CC]

FISHER-PRICE: Certification of Classes Sought in Baby Sleeper Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

      3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
         Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bfQWBR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FISHER-PRICE: Cuddy Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No.  1:19-cv-00787 (WD.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37gBqo7at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FISHER-PRICE: Drover-Mundy, et al. Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy, et al., v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D.N.Y.),  the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NBEpAg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FISHER-PRICE: Fieker Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fieker v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00295 (N.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class" (each a "Statewide Class" and,
      collectively, the "Statewide Classes");

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher- Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The suit involves contract product liability.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jTu8vD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FISHER-PRICE: Flores Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Flores v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01073 (C.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class" (each a "Statewide Class" and,
      collectively, the "Statewide Classes");

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

      3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2N6ffdw
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

FLO HEALTH: Illegally Shares Private Health Data, Gamino Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLO HEALTH, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00198-JWH-SHK (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 2, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff after
knowledge that her personal identifying information has been
tracked, collected, and shared by the Defendant to dozens of third
parties for targeted advertising and other commercial exploitation,
in direct violation of California state laws and without limiting
what these companies could do with the users' information.

The third parties include Google, LLC; Google's separate marketing
service, Fabric (Fabric); Facebook, Inc., through its Facebook
Analytics tool ("Facebook"); marketing firm AppsFlyer, Inc.
("AppsFlyer") and analytics firm Flurry, Inc.

The Plaintiff contends that personal information was provided to
the third parties despite the Defendant promising users that it
would keep their health data private. The collection and sharing of
her private health data presents an egregious invasion of her
privacy. Furthermore, the transfer of data by the Defendant to
third parties harmed her by diminishing the value of her personal
information and the privacy violation caused when the extracted
data is used to target and profile her with unwanted and/or harmful
content, the Plaintiff says.

Defendant Flo has developed, advertised, offered for sale, sold,
and distributed, the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, a mobile
application ("app") powered by artificial intelligence that
functions as an ovulation calendar, period tracker, and pregnancy
guide ("Flo App").

Millions of women use the Flo App, giving Defendant private details
of their menstruation and gynecological health in hopes it will aid
in ovulation and aid in pregnancy and childbirth.

The Flo App is available for download for free in online stores,
including Google's "Play Store" and Apple's "App Store." Flo App
users also have the option of purchasing subscription plans for a
monthly fee. The Flo App is one of the most popular health and
fitness apps available to consumers.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the Defendant's unlawful
practices and sequester its unlawfully obtained information, an
award of reasonable damages for the violations, and attorneys' fees
and costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

FORD MOTOR: Simmons, et al. Seek to Certify Four Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE SIMMONS, et al.,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 9:18-cv-81558-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the following
Classes:

   -- Unfair or Deceptive Design Defect Class

      "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
      2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford
      Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a
      Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;"

   -- Unfair or Deceptive Warranty Class (Ineffective Repair)

      "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
      2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford
      Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a
      Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;"

   -- Unfair or Deceptive Warranty Class (Perforation)

      "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
      2013-2015 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2015 Ford
      Expedition, or model year 2013-2015 Ford Explorer from a
      Ford dealership in California, Florida, or New York;"

   -- Unjust Enrichment Class

      "All current owners who purchased a new or used model year
      2013-2016 Ford Mustang, model year 2013-2017 Ford
      Expedition, or model year 2013-2018 Ford Explorer from a
      Ford dealership in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
      New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania."

In this case, each of the Plaintiffs bought a Class Vehicle from a
Ford dealer. In each instance, Ford did not disclose -- indeed, it
concealed -- the Design Defect before purchase.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold Ford liable for other related deceptive
and unfair acts and practices as well. In two distinct ways, Ford
provided deceptive, unfair, and otherwise unconscionable warranty
coverage to consumers.

Ford is an American multinational automaker that has its main
headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bkTrmp
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:

          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Gordon, Esq.
          Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
          Daniel G. Williams, Esq.
          GORDON & PARTNERS, Esq.
          4114 Northlake Blvd., Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
          E-mail: rgordon@fortheinjured.com
                  scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
                  dwilliams@fortheinjured.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  minnes@carellabyrne.com
                  zbower@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Adam m. Schachter, Esq.
          Brian W. Toth, Esq.
          GELBER SCHACHTER &
          GREENBERG, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2010
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 728-0950
          E-mail: aschachter@gsgpa.com
                  btoth@gsgpa.com
                  efilings@gsgpa.com

FOREST RIVER: Fitzgerald Seeks to Certify Two FLSA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER R. FITZGERALD, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER
MANUFACTURING LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01004-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   A. Conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
      action under Section 216(b) against the Defendant Forest
      River Manufacturing LLC on behalf of Plaintiff and others
      similarly situated consisting of the following classes:

      -- FLSA Piece-Rate Class

        "All current and former employees of the Defendant who
         work/worked for the Defendant as non-exempt
         manufacturing employees in the United States, are/were
         paid on a piece rate basis, and who worked 40 or more
         hours in at least one workweek during the three years
         preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing
         through the final disposition of this case;" and

     --  FLSA Deduction Class

         "All current and former employees of the Defendant who
         were subjected to one or more wage deductions taken by
         Forest River on employee pay stubs in at least one
         workweek when they were worked 40 or more hours during
         the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and
         continuing through the final disposition of this case;"

   B. Directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to all members of the forgoing classes;

   C. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form
      informing such present and former employees of the
      pendency of this collective action and permitting them to
      opt in to the case;

   D. Directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days one or
      two Roster(s) of the foregoing class members including
      their full names, dates of employment, last known home
      addresses, and personal email addresses. Additionally,
      directing Defendant to produce such Roster(s) in Excel or
      similar exportable/importable format if such format is
      available;

   E. Directing that Notice, in the form approved by the Court,
      be sent to such present and former class members within 14
      days of Plaintiff's receipt of the Roster(s) using the
      information containing the same;

   F. Directing the Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
      produced Roster(s) fully complies/comply with the Court's
      Order;

   G. Directing a Notice Period of ninety (90) days; and

   H. Providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event that new, updated, or corrected mailing
      addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of
      such present or former employees.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that she and those similarly
situated are common victims of a piece-rate wage scheme that
results in unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff adds that
without providing an agreement, an explanation, or a formula for
calculating wages, Forest River paid her and those similarly
situated some piece-rate or ambiguous formulaic wage in a
circumstance where they (1) worked both productive and
non-productive hours; (2) were paid by the Defendant on a
piece-rate basis only for their productive hours (e.g., time spent
engaged in manufacturing work); and (3) were not regularly paid for
their non-productive hours (e.g., wait time and time spent
cleaning). Non-productive time consisted of significant amounts of
time waiting for their units so that they could perform their
manufacturing duties as well as being required to clean.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Feb. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aDdYUe
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Robi Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                 rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry St.
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

FUSION CONNECT: May 20 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 15 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Fusion
Connect, Inc. (OTCMKTS: FSNN):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED FUSION CONNECT, INC. ("FUSION")
COMMON STOCK FROM MAY 11, 2018 THROUGH APRIL 2, 2019, INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on May 20, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. before the
Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse,
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 705, New York, NY 10007 for the purpose
of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims
in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum
of $800,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to 28% plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $35,000 and an incentive payment of no
more than $10,000 in total to Lead Plaintiff, should be approved;
and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
June 8, 2020 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the
right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other
virtual means.

If you purchased Fusion common stock during the period from May 11,
2018 through April 2, 2019, both dates inclusive, your rights may
be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in Fusion common stock. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: Fusion Connect, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the
Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
electronically or postmarked no later than April 29, 2021 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than April 29, 2021, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who
have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
April 29, 2021, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Ave
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Lead Counsel

David Kistenbroker, Esq.
Dechert LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60601

Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
info@rosenlegal.com

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

DATED: JANUARY 21, 2021  
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]


GATEWAY MORTGAGE: Class Status Bid Filing Due Oct. 4
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer M. Langston v.
Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01902-VAP-KK (C.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillip entered an order
setting dates as follows:

   Last date for hearing motions to         Aug. 30, 2021
   amend pleadings or add parties:

   Last date to conduct settlement          Sept. 13, 2021
   conference:

   Last date for filing motion              Oct. 4, 2021
   for class certification:

   Opposition to motion for                 Nov. 15, 2021
   class certification deadline:

   Reply to motion for class                Dec. 13, 2021
   certification deadline:

   Hearing on motion for                    Jan. 17, 2022
   class certification deadline:

The Court declines the parties' request to have a magistrate judge
conduct the settlement conference, and directs the parties to
notify the Court no later than February 25, 2021, of the identity
of the private mediator selected. The Court will set further dates,
including the trial date, at or after the hearing on the motion for
class certification.

Gateway Mortgage is one of the largest privately-held mortgage
lenders in the country.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OFItQB at no
extra charge.[CC]


GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Economic-Loss Suit Must be Filed in April
-------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that deadline for class
members to file claims in the economic-loss related suit is April
2021.

The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions that were
filed against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that
consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or
Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) had been economically harmed by
one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle
conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.

Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District).

These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal
and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles
manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability
relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.

In August 2017, the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the
other nine states.

In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an
additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of
material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other
states. In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain
portions of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment
ruling. That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing
plaintiffs' successor liability claims in any state where New York
law applies.

In September 2018, the Southern District granted the company's
motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied our
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule.

In August 2019, the Southern District granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' economic loss "benefit of the
bargain" damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion).

The Southern District held that plaintiffs' conjoint analysis-based
damages model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered
difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs'
difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three
bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas.

Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary
judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if
reconsideration is denied.

In December 2019, the Southern District denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted the
plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.

On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second
Circuit) granted the bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave
to appeal the August 2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the
bellwether plaintiffs and GM filed a Stipulation to withdraw the
appeal from the Second Circuit based on the class settlement
agreement described below.

In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' remaining economic loss claims that were not
addressed in the Southern District's August 2019 Opinion and
renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of
plaintiff's expert on plaintiffs' alleged "lost time" damages
associated with having the recall repairs performed.

In March 2020, GM, plaintiffs and the MLC GUC Trust (GUC Trust)
reached a settlement agreement to resolve on a national basis the
economic loss claims of the proposed settlement class and proposed
sub-classes, consisting of consumers who purchased or leased GM
vehicles covered by the seven 2014 safety recalls at issue in the
Southern District and the Bankruptcy Court.

The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of
approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which
GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund
the remaining $50 million. GM will also pay attorneys' fees and
costs that may be awarded by the Southern District to plaintiffs'
counsel up to a maximum of $35 million.

In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM and plaintiffs
reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will pay an
insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party to the
Class Settlement Agreement. During April and May 2020, the Southern
District entered orders granting preliminary approval of the Class
Settlement Agreement.

In December 2020, the Southern District conducted a final fairness
hearing and issued an order granting final approval of the Class
Settlement Agreement in its entirety. The order granting final
approval became final, effective and binding in January 2021. The
deadline for class members to file claims is April 2021.

General Motors Company designs, builds and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Bolt EV Battery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that GM claims
that the Bolt EV's 65 kWh battery pack will enable 259 miles of
range on a single charge, while the slightly heavier Bolt EUV will
have 250 miles of range -- basically the same as the current year
model. The original 2018 Bolt had 238 miles of range, but typically
got less due to cold weather or other external factors. Neither
vehicles' range has yet been certified by US or European
regulators.

Chevy is also including an active thermal management system that
uses coolant to maintain the battery's temperature. Late last year,
General Motors was forced to recall over 68,000 Chevy Bolts
manufactured between 2017-2019 after several battery fires were
reported. Federal regulators are investigating and a class action
lawsuit was filed alleging that the Bolt's battery is "prone to
burst into flames."

According to Jesse Ortega, chief engineer at Chevy, the new Bolts
utilize a different battery chemistry that will help prevent future
incidents, the same chemistry that allowed the automaker to
increase the range from 238 miles to 250 miles.

Both versions of the Bolt come with a single-motor drive unit that
can deliver 200 horsepower thanks to 150 kW of power, and 266
pound-feet (360 Newton meters) of torque. Like previous models, the
new Bolts will have regenerative braking and a one-pedal driving
mode that is fairly common among EVs today.

The Bolt EUV and redesigned Bolt EV share an architecture, but
their designs are unique. No exterior sheet metal parts are shared
between the two vehicles, after some owners complained about
lackluster sheet metal in previous versions. The EUV is
approximately 6 inches longer and will have about 3 inches of extra
rear legroom than the Bolt EV.

The grille has been tweaked, swapping the dual-tone look of the
previous Bolt with a more monochromatic fascia. Chevy is keeping
small ventilation panel rather than embrace the completely flat
front-end of other EVs like the Tesla Model 3.

The Bolt's interior has always been more practical than inspiring,
with hard plastic abound. Now the Bolt EV and EUV's interior has
been redesigned to include more screens and sensors, mostly to help
power Super Cruise's promise of "hands-free" driving. Chevy has
even ripped out the Bolt's oft-criticized seats and replaced them
with seats that feature a triangular geometric pattern and
contrasting color stitching, which the automaker claims is a
"premium design that gives a consistent and upscale atmosphere."
Not words you typically see used to describe a $30,000 vehicle.

The main 10.2-inch infotainment screen is still embedded in the
dashboard, but is integrated more seamlessly into the center
console than the original Bolt's design. The physical buttons are
smoother and less chunky. And Chevy swapped out the gear shifter
for a series of electronic buttons to free up more interior space.
There's also a new one-pedal driving button that keeps the system
active between drive cycles.

Other new additions include the light bar in the top of the
steering wheel and the infrared sensor on the steering column.
These are components of GM's Super Cruise assisted driving system,
which uses cameras, radar, and mapping data to allow users to drive
hands-free on divided highways. Super Cruise is not a self-driving
system, in that it still requires drivers to keep their eyes on the
road and engaged enough to be able to take over at a moment's
notice. Notably, the Bolt EV and Bolt EUV will only come with the
standard version of Super Cruise, not the enhanced version that
includes automatic lane-changing.

EV charging in the US is a bit of a mess, and while Chevy can't
solve some of the more intractable problems, it is doing what it
can to make charging a little less of a headache. A dual-level
charge cord is included with the Bolt, which Chevy said will
eliminate the need for many people to purchase a separate charger
for their home. The changeable plug allows customers to plug into a
standard 120-volt three-prong outlet for Level 1 charging and a
240-volt outlet for Level 2 charging up to 7.2 kilowatts. Both
vehicles are also capable of 11 kW Level 2 charging, but separate
charging equipment is required.

As an added perk, anyone who buys or leases a Bolt EUV or Bolt EV
will get free installation of a Level 2 charger in their home
through GM's partnership with Qmerit, a home charger installer. For
charging on the go, GM is partnering with public charging station
operator EVgo to include over 80,000 public chargers in the My
Chevrolet app.

But charging times will still be subject to the power levels of
each individual charger. When plugged into a normal 120-volt system
(ie, most home outlets), the Bolt EV and EUV will only get four
miles of range for every hour of charging. Plugged into a 240-volt
outlet will get the Bolt to a full charge in seven hours. And a DC
fast charger will add up to 100 miles in 30 minutes for both
vehicles.

Affordability has always been the Bolt's strongest selling point,
offering a decent size battery and adequate range for under
$35,000. Chevy wanted to ensure the Bolt stayed affordable even as
it added new features, like Super Cruise, or leveled up to
crossover status, said Steve Majoros, vice president of Chevy
marketing. Keeping the price low will help spur EV adoption from
its current status of only 2 percent of US sales to upwards of
15-20 percent of the overall car market, he said.

"ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles will be around a long
time," Majoros said. "But the EV movement is real." [GN]


GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Kelly Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA  KELLY; and COLE MILLICAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 121277972 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 11,
2021) is an action against the Defendant's manufacturing,
distributing, marketing, labeling, and sale of baby food products
that contained unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the baby food products
manufactured by the Defendant contain significant dangerous levels
of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and
mercury. The Defendant knew that the presence of toxic heavy metals
in its baby food products was a material fact to consumers yet
omitted and concealed that fact from consumers, the Plaintiffs
say.

As a result, the Defendant's baby food products' labeling is
deceptive and misleading, the suit added.

Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well
as offers life and health insurance products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cody L. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK  LAW  FIRM, P.A.
          75 Miracle Mile, Suite 3
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (954) 815-3224
          E-mail: cody@codyfrank.com


GETWELLNETWORK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA KATHLEEN RICHEY, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. GETWELLNETWORK, INC., a foreign corporation; SEAN THOMPSON, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-02205-BEN-BLM (S.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Roger T.
Benitez entered an order denying joint motion to dismiss as moot.

The Court said, "Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), the Parties jointly
move to dismiss this action without prejudice as to the putative
class claims. Having read and considered the Joint Motion submitted
by Plaintiff and Defendants, and good cause appearing, the Joint
Motion is denied as moot. Although this case was filed as a
putative class action, the Plaintiff did not seek class
certification, and as such, the Court did not certify the class.
Therefore, with no certified class claims having come into
existence, any dismissal would not affect putative class members'
claims. The Parties may seek dismissal of the only claims currently
alive in this case (e.g., Plaintiff's individual claims) by either
a court order, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), or without a court order,
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)."

GetWellNetwork provides healthcare services. The Company offers
interactive patient care, clinical practice designing, medical
research, and hospital information system integration services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u7JSQo at no extra charge.[CC]



GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Faces Garcia Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Golden 1 Credit
Union. The case is captioned as Alecia A. Garcia, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Golden 1
Credit Union, a California corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00293831-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 3,
2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

Golden 1 is a credit union headquartered in Sacramento, California.
Golden 1 currently serves consumers throughout California with more
than 70 branches and over 30,000 CO-OP ATMs nationwide. Founded in
1933 as California State Employees Credit Union No. 1, it changed
its name to Golden 1 in 1977.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin Sullivan, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Shepherd Consumer Class Suit Goes to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACQUELINE SHEPHERD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; BUNGIE, INC.; and ID
SOFTWARE LLC, Case No. 719703/2020, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 12,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00799 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged material misstatements
about Google Stadia online gaming subscription service.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products based in
Menlo Park, California.

Bungie, Inc. is an American video game developer based in Bellevue,
Washington.

id Software LLC is an American video game developer based in
Richardson, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         William P. Deni, Jr., Esq.
         J. Brugh Lower, Esq.
         GIBBONS P.C.
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10119
         Telephone: (212) 613-2000
         Facsimile: (212) 290-2018
         E-mail: wdeni@gibbonslaw.com
                 jlower@gibbonslaw.com

                  - and –

         Margaret Esquenet, Esq.
         Anna B. Naydonov, Esq.
         FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
         901 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 408-4000
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
         E-mail: margaret.esquenet@finnegan.com
                 anna.naydonov@finnegan.com

GRAND CANYON: Miller Seeks to Certify Class of University Students
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIANE MILLER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GRAND
CANYON UNIVERSITY, INC. and GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00652-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying the following class:

   "all Grand Canyon University students who have been enrolled
   in an online professional graduate degree or certificate
   program that is not accredited in the state where they are
   employed or, if not employed, where they reside;"

   Excluded from any class or subclass are Defendants Grand
   Canyon University, Inc. and Grand Canyon Education, Inc., any
   entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest,
   and the Defendants' legal representatives, predecessors,
   successors, assigns, and employees. Also excluded is this
   Court and its employees.

According to the complaint, all Class members allege losses from
the Defendants' improper practice of enrolling students in
professional degree programs that are not accredited. The Plaintiff
and the entire Class have the same interests in recovering the
damages caused by the Defendants' fraudulent omissions and
fraudulent and intentional misrepresentations to its students.
Therefore, the interests of Plaintiff and Class members are
aligned. The Plaintiff can and will adequately represent the
interests of the Class.

Grand Canyon University is a for-profit, private, Christian
university in Phoenix, Arizona. Based on student enrollment, Grand
Canyon University was the largest Christian university in the world
in 2018, with 20,000 attending students on campus and 70,000
online.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NAQ8PW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com

               - and -

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 675-8603
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          E-mail: allen@vaughtfirm.com

GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY: Coleman BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIANNA COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. 2021 CH 00066, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on February 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00806 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act including: (1) failure
to institute, maintain, and adhere to a publicly-available
retention schedule pursuant to Section 15(a); (2) failure to
obtained informed written consent and release before obtaining
biometric identifiers or information pursuant to Section 15(b); and
(3) disclosure of biometric identifiers and information before
obtaining consent pursuant to Section 15(d).

Greenwood Hospitality Management, LLC is a hospitality management
company based in Greenwood Village, Colorado. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Kevin S. Simon, Esq.
         Franklin Z. Wolf, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 346-8061
         E-mail: ksimon@fisherphillips.com
                 fwolf@fisherphillips.com

GULFPORT ENERGY: Court Appoints Joseph Rotunno as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. WOODLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, DAVID M. WOOD, KERI CROWELL, and
QUENTIN R. HICKS, Case No.1:20-cv-02357-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order:

   1. granting Joseph Rotunno' motion for appointment as lead
      plaintiff and approving Kaplan Fox as lead counsel; and

   2. staying case as to Gulfport in light of its bankruptcy
      petition.

The Court said, "Because Rotunno has timely filed his motion for
lead-plaintiff status, has the largest financial interest in the
relief sought, and satisfies the relevant requirements under Rule
23, he is entitled to the presumption that he is the "most adequate
plaintiff" to serve as lead plaintiff. Given the lack of opposition
to Rotunno's motion, the Court has been presented with no proof
that he "will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class" or is "subject to unique defenses that render [him]
incapable of adequately representing the class."

On March 17, 2020, this putative class action was brought under
federal securities laws against Gulfport and its top officers.
Robert F. Woodley claims to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Gulfport securities between May 3,
2019 and February 27, 2020, and seeks to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Gulfport engages in the exploration, development, acquisition, and
production of natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids in
the United States.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pt0wXd at no
extra charge.[CC]

HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Products Contain Arsenic, Bredberg Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALLY BREDBERG; and REBECCA BROMBERG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00758 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11,
2021) is an action arising out of the Defendant's deceptive
marketing practices in connection with its sale of Earth's Best
rice cereal (the "Product").

According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently advertises
its Earth's Best rice cereal as wholesome, safe food to feed to
infants and small children. In reality, though, the rice cereal
product contains high levels of arsenic, higher than those allowed
by the Food and Drug Administration, the suit says.

The Defendant allegedly omitted information on the levels of
inorganic arsenic in its rice cereal products allowing it to charge
a premium by selling the product that the Plaintiffs and the Class
believe to be a safe, wholesome cereal to feed to infants and small
children, rather than a dangerous, toxic product for which
consumers would pay less for or not buy at all.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a natural and organic beverage,
snack, specialty food, and personal care products company. The
Company's product line include grocery store foods such as organic
cookies, cooking oils, sugar free products, kosher foods, snacks,
and frozen foods, as well as organic skin, hair, and body products.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
                  kcooper@whafh.com

               -and-

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


HAXTON MASONRY: Jimenez Collective Actions Get Conditional Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID JIMENEZ v. HAXTON
MASONRY, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-07109-SVK (N.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and class certification under
Rule 23.

The Court conditionally certifies the following collective actions:


   "All hourly workers residing in Arizona who traveled to
   remote job sites in California from November 21, 2015 to the
   present"; and

   "All hourly workers residing in Arizona who were not paid for
   loading time at the Haxton yard from November 21, 2015 to the
   present."

   The Court also entered an order:

   1. directing the parties to meet and confer and submit a
      joint proposed notice by no later than February 26, 2021.

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's
      counsel the list of potential plaintiffs within 21 days of
      the date of this Order;

   3. certifying the following class:

      "All Haxton hourly workers residing in Arizona who
      incurred lodging expenses for work in California from
      November 21, 2014 to the present;"

   4. appointing the Plaintiff David Jimenez as class
      representative and appointing Granahan Law, P.C. as class
      counsel; and

   5. setting a case management conference for March 9, 2021 at
      9:30 a.m.

In this Order, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of
Rule 23(a). The Court also finds that class counsel is adequate.

The Plaintiff David Jimenez brings this lawsuit on behalf of
himself and similarly situated former and current employees against
the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay wages and
overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, failed to pay travel
expenses, including rental cars, gas, meals, and lodging, failed to
pay all wages when due, and failed to provide accurate itemized
statements, a violation under the Private Attorney General Act, and
unfair business practices.

The Defendant is a concrete and masonry contractor with a main
office and work yard in Yuma, Arizona.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NMw7Wk at no extra charge.[CC]

HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Breast Imaging Errors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan D. Assaraf, Esq., of Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that on December 14, 2020,
Gluckstein Lawyers commenced a class action naming Sudbury's main
hospital, Health Sciences North (HSN), and their senior
administrators. This class action lawsuit follows the revelation of
systemic errors in breast imaging performed at the hospital over
several years, including missed cancerous lesions, which have led
to near-catastrophic outcomes for patients.

A 2018 internal letter obtained by the law firm documents
"countless missed lesions" and "overt misreads." The surgeons at
the hospital warned of an "overwhelming decline below the standard
of care for contemporary breast imaging," which was significantly
impacting their ability to manage patients to an appropriate
standard.

The leadership of HSN, including Dr. John Fenton, HSN's chief of
staff and Dr. Evan Roberts, the former chief of radiology, were
repeatedly told of the poor quality of breast imaging and the
potential for patient harm. They did little to fix the problems.
They imposed major roadblocks to quality improvement. Healthcare
professionals at HSN seeking to raise concerns in radiology and
elsewhere at the hospital were subject to bullying and other
punitive action. The hospital did not attempt to notify patients or
the community of the quality problems.

The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of patients and their family
members by Shannon Hayes, a former HSN patient, who alleges that
her breast cancer was missed. It would take another year before her
breast cancer was diagnosed following imaging performed at another
hospital. By then, cancer had spread. She is currently battling
metastatic cancer.

"There needs to be a fundamental change in the culture of safety
and quality at HSN," said Ms. Hayes. "I was outraged to learn that
HSN administration knew about problems for months before my
imagining was misread but did nothing and kept the problems at the
hospital under wraps."

The lawsuit seeks compensation for affected patients and a court
order requiring the hospital to have all affected breast imaging
reviewed by a specialist for errors. The class includes all
patients who had breast radiology performed or interpreted at HSN
from 2008 until 2020.

"I fear that Shannon's story is just the tip of the iceberg," said
Jordan Assaraf, Shannon's lawyer. "It is apparent that there have
been serious systemic quality problems at HSN which the management
have failed to address. Shockingly, a hospital funded by taxpayers
would punish whistleblowers rather than taking prompt action to
avoid harm to patients. This tragic loss will cause these patients
to lose trust in their healthcare institution, which is there to
care and protect them at these vulnerable times."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]


HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Bid to Amend Boynton Beach Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
amend the putative class action suit entitled, Boynton Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., has been denied.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc., and
certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal
securities laws. The suit asserted claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
alleged that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act
that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the class action motion to
dismiss.

On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
the Court's judgment to permit amendment of the complaint, and on
November 30, 2020, the Court denied Co-Lead Plantiff's motion.
Co-Lead Plantiffs have not appealed the dismissal and denial of
leave to amend their complaint.

Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified
real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real
estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing
and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California.

HFM INC: Brigati Class Action Junked without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BRIGATI, et al., v.
HFM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-14208-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order dismissing class action
without prejudice.

Judge Martinez said, "This case is closed, and all pending motions
are denied as moot."

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37pyLIV at no extra charge.[CC]

HOBBY ENTERPRISES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobby Enterprises
LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Hobby Enterprises LLC d/b/a Megahobby.com,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00834 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

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

Megahobby.com -- https://www.megahobby.com/ -- is the USA's largest
online hobby shop with over 50,000 products in stock for same-day
shipping, including plastic model kits, model railroading, also
stocks a wide variety of paints, supplies, detailing sets, and
books.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOBBYLINC.COM: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobbylinc. com, LLC.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Hobbylinc. com, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00830
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

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

Hobbylinc.com -- http://www.hobbylinc.com/-- carries over 100,000
hobby products at savings up to 60% including plastic model kits,
model trains and railroads, model rockets, arts and crafts and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUSKY ENERGY: Class Cert. Schedule in Bruzek Tort Suit Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasen Bruzek, et al., v.
Husky Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00697 (W.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that the remainder of
the existing class certification schedule is struck in light of the
still-pending motion for class certification and the pending motion
for partial summary judgment.

Judge Conley said, "after the court has ruled on class
certification, we will hold a telephonic conference to re-set the
schedule in this case. Discovery may continue during this time."

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.

Husky Energy is a Canadian-based integrated energy company.[CC]

IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOCKE,
and SULEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI) LLC, IMPERIAL
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD., and IDS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
& CONSULTANCY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (D.N. Mar. I.), the Hon.
Judge Ramona V. Manglona entered a briefing order that:

   1. the Defendants IPI respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion no
      later than Monday, February 15, 2021, and Plaintiff shall
      file a reply to IPI's Response no later Monday, February
      22, 2021;

   2. A hearing for this matter will be held on Wednesday, March
      17, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the Third Floor Courtroom;

   3. the Plaintiffs to file a brief discussing whether the 29th
      putative collective action and class member, Fuat Mert
      Oztuna, is to be properly considered part of the FLSA
      collective action and the Rule 23 class action by Friday,
      February 12, 2021; and

   4. The Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on the IPI
      defendants, and a proof of service thereafter.

On November 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated this action against
the Defendants asserting three causes of action: (1) a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") claim for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
compensation; (2) an FLSA retaliation claim; and (3) a breach of
contract claim.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs indicated they would seek
recovery on the first two claims through an FLSA collective action.
The putative collective action was to include at least Turkish
individuals. The Complaint did not mention that the Plaintiffs
would be seeking to certify a class action based on Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 for their breach of contract claim.

Imperial Pacific International Holdings Limited is a Chinese
investment holding company. It was founded with headquarters in
Hong Kong and originally named First Natural Foods Holdings until
it was renamed in May 2014. It is majority-owned by Cui Lijie
through her investment vehicle Inventive Star Limited.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aovv2i at no extra charge.[CC]

INJURY FINANCING: Puckett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Injury Financing LLC.
The case is styled as Myllette Puckett, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Injury Financing LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00675-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Capital Financing -- https://injuryfinancing.com/ -- is a
nationally recognized Pre Settlement company that stands behind the
mission of helping clients when there is financial stress, without
taking advantage of their situation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 513-6651
          Fax: (404) 549-4654
          Email: shkoval@aol.com


INTERNET HOBBIES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Internet Hobbies,
LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Internet Hobbies, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00832
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

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

Internet Hobbies -- https://internethobbies.com/ -- is the world's
oldest online hobby shop specializing in plastic models, model
trains, RC cars and trucks, wooden ships, hobby paints, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Block & Leviton Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockleviton.com), a national securities
litigation firm, reminds investors that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders against iRhythm Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) and one of its former executives for securities
fraud. Investors who purchased IRTC shares between August 4, 2020
and January 28, 2021 and who lost money are strongly encouraged to
contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at
cases@blockleviton.com, or visit our website at
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/irtc for information on the
case. The deadline to move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff is April 2, 2021.

iRhythm Technologies provides wearable biosensor devices to detect
and monitor heart arrythmias. On December 2, 2020, iRhythm issued a
press release stating that new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) physician fee guidelines would change how payments
for its Zio XT remote cardiac monitoring services would be
calculated. On this news, IRTC shares dropped approximately 20%.
Then on January 29, 2021, a Baird research analyst noted that
Medicare Administrative Contractor rates affecting heart monitors
are "way lower" than those published in the Medicare Physician Fee
Schedule. On this news, IRTC shares closed down approximately 33%,
wiping out billions of dollars in market capitalization.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, and has been assigned to Judge Edward M.
Chen, located in Courtroom 5 on the 17th Floor of the San Francisco
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The
case is captioned Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., et al., No.
3:21-cv-00776-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The class period is August 4, 2020
to January 28, 2021.

If you purchased or acquired IRTC shares between August 4, 2020 and
January 28, 2021 and have questions about your legal rights or
possess information relevant to this matter, please contact Block &
Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at
cases@blockleviton.com, or visit our website at
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/irtc.The deadline to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the matter is April 2, 2021.

Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors
and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets.
The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional
investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation
throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered
billions of dollars for its clients.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP
www.blockleviton.com [GN]


ITG INC: Mauthe Has Until July 23 to File Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D.,
P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. ITG
INC., ITG INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., and M SCIENCE, LLC, Case No.
5:18-cv-01968-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Parties submit a joint
stipulation modifying the current scheduling order as follows:

              Event                 Current           New
                                   Deadline        Deadline

   Fact Discovery:             Feb. 18, 2021    March 31, 2021

   Expert Reports:             March 18, 2021   April 21, 2021

   Rebuttal Expert Reports:                     May 19, 2021

   Expert Discovery:           May 7, 2021      June 9, 2021

   Summary Judgment and        July 23, 2021    July 23, 2021
   Class Certification
   Motions:

ITG was a United States-based multinational agency brokerage and
financial markets technology firm aimed at a hedge fund and asset
management clientele.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OSFPHx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Reilly, Esq.
          SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC
          115 N. Jackson St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 556-9222
          E-mail: areilly@swartzcampbell.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Jonathan A Piper, Esq.
          Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

Counsel for the Defendant ITG Inc., are:

          Francis J. Earley, Esq.
          Esteban Morales, Esq.
          MNTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
          GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C.
          The Chrysler Center
          666 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          E-mail: fjearley@mintz.com
                  emorales@mintz.com

Attorneys for the Defendants ITG Investment Research, Inc.
and MScience, LLC, are:

          Craig D. Mills, Esq.
          Patrick D. Doran, Esq.
          BUCHANAN , INGERSOLL &
          ROONEY, PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th St., Ste. 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          E-mail: craig.mills@bipc.com
                  patrick.doran@bipc.com

JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA: Hearing on Class Status Set for April 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, ET AL.,
v. JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., Case No.
4:09-cv-03495-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered a briefing scheduling order:

                   Event                         Date

   The Defendant's Supplemental                March 2, 2021
   Brief Addressing Relevant
   Developments in the Law Since
   October 2019 (not to exceed 10 pages):

   The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support            March 23, 2021
   of Class Certification; The Plaintiffs'
   Reply in Support of Motion for
   Summary Judgment and Opposition to
   the Defendants' Cross-Motion
   (not to exceed 35 pages); and Reply
   in Support of Motion to Exclude
   Defendants' Expert:

   Hearing on class certification              April 27, 2021
   and summary judgment:

Jani-King of California Inc was founded in 1969. The company's line
of business includes building cleaning and maintenance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qB0IVI at no extra charge.[CC]

JEFFERSON COUNTY: Floyd & Nicholson Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI FLOYD and CHERI
NICHOLSON On behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated,
v. HON. ANNETTE KAREM, in her offcial capacity as Chief Judge of
the Jefferson County District Court, Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-DJH
(W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2):

"all defendants in forcible detainer actions pending before the
Jefferson District Court who have not received notice "reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances to afford them an
opportunity to present their objections.""

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3jXooB7at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben Carter, Esq.
          KENTUCKY EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          222 South First Street, Suite 305
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 303-4026
          E-mail: ben@kyequaljustice.org

KING CATERING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gonzales Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, LUIS GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING CATERING CORP., and KEVIN
METZGER, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00763 (E.D.N.Y., February 11,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful corporate policy
of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook from in or around
1998 until in or around August 2020.

Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff
regularly worked a total of approximately 55 hours per week.
However, he was only paid at a fixed hourly rate for all hours he
worked, including those in excess of 40 per week. Purportedly, the
Defendant denied him of overtime compensation of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 per
week. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide the
Plaintiff with any notice at the time he was hired or at any time
thereafter, and with wage statement with each wage payment.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks for all unpaid overtime wages due to them,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.


King Catering Corp. provides catering services to businesses in the
Long Island area. Kevin Metzger is a person in control of King
Catering who exercises significant control of its operations and
its employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Ave., Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


KONING & ASSOCIATES: Willis Seeks Unpaid Regular and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
TROY WILLIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
aggrieved v. KONING & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation; CHRIS
KONING, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-00819-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
regular and overtime (including double-time) wages; compensation
for missed meal and rest periods; and wages at termination and
waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

On August 20, the Plaintiff was hired as a general adjuster for
Koning & Associates, reporting to Mary Ann Johnson. His
compensation was $35 per hour with a "guarantee" of 150 hours per
month. He did not meet the monthly hour mark just a few times, and
on those occasions the difference between his compensation for
hours worked and the 150-hour "guarantee" was "advanced." Said
amounts appeared on his wage statements as "pay advances." He
alleges that Koning & Associates manipulated client billings to
offset the pay advances.

The Plaintiff added that Koning & Associates knowingly engaged in a
fraudulent compensation scheme that denied adjusters wages to which
they were legally entitled. Specifically, he and putative class
members created time and expense logs which were submitted to
supervisors who, in turn, would make manual adjustments in effort
to reduce the amount billed to clients. However, Koning &
Associates compensated him and putative class members only for
hours billed to clients, not hours actually worked, he contends.

Koning & Associates is a multiline insurance adjusting company
providing Property and Liability investigations to the insurance,
legal, and self-insured.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
         Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
         Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
         MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
         1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
         Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
         Telephone: (310) 531-1900
         Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
         E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                cbennett@maternlawgroup.com

LALA HEALTHCARE: Limon Seeks Vocational Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAJANDRA LIMON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LALA HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC and CHANTAL
TORRAIN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00132 (E.D.
Tex., February 11, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants for its alleged failure to pay overtime
premiums in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a licensed
practical/vocational nurse from October 2020 through February 4,
2021.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff consistently
worked more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay
her overtime premiums at one and one-half times of her regular rate
of pay for all hours she worked over 40. Instead, she only received
straight time for all hours she worked in a workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated licensed practical/vocational nurses
seeing to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, litigation costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
that may be necessary and/or appropriate.

Lala Healthcare Solutions, LLC operates a home health care company
that provides patients with nursing care in their homes. Chantal
Torrain is the owner and director who exercised managerial
responsibilities and substantial control over the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberly, TX 78676
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com


LEGACY HEALTH: Hunter Has Until Nov. 13 to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hunter v. Legacy Health,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02219 (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge John V
Acosta entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling
order.

The current scheduling order is modified as follows:

   1. The parties are to complete discovery related to
      certification of a class action under Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23, and decertification of any
      conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      collective, by October 13, 2021.

   2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and
      the Defendants' Motion for FLSA decertification are to be
      filed on or before November 13, 2021.

   3. The Defendants opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification, and Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants'
      Motion for Decertification due 28 days after motions for
      Rule 23 Class Certification and FLSA decertification are
      filed, which would be December 13, 2021.

   4. The Plaintiff's reply in support of Rule 23 certification,
      and the Defendants' reply in support of FLSA
      decertification are due on January 14, 2022.

   5. The Court delays the setting of a discovery cut-off date
      related to liability and expert discovery until after
      resolution of the class and collective treatment
      questions.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system located in Portland,
Oregon, United States. It consists of six primary-care hospitals, a
children's hospital, and allied clinics and outpatient
facilities.[CC]

LINK FUND: Law Firm Leigh Day to Launch Investment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Phillipps and Loukia Gyftopoulou, writing for Citywire
Selector, report that Neil Woodford is making a dramatic return to
investment management with a new fund, less than 16 months after
his previous firm collapsed in a spectacular fall from grace.

The disgraced manager has reunited with right-hand man Craig Newman
to set up Woodford Capital Management Partners (WCMP), which will
partner with US-based Acacia Research, to launch a Jersey-based
biotechnology fund.

'We're going to rebuild the Woodford investment operation under a
new brand,' Woodford told the Telegraph in an interview at the
weekend.

'I didn't want what happened to me in 2019 to be the epitaph of my
career, I didn't want it to be the full stop. I'm not trying to
rebuild an ego, I just felt I wanted to continue to do the things
that I believe in.'

The new fund will only be available to institutional investors and
will hold a number of stocks previously owned by the failed LF
Woodford Equity Income fund.

Woodford's empire collapsed in October 2019 after he was
ignominiously sacked from his flagship Woodford Equity Income fund
by administrators Link Fund Solutions.

This followed a run of poor performance after a string of bets on
illiquid, unlisted companies turned sour, leaving investors unable
to withdraw their money for months. At the time of gating, £3.6bn
of investor cash was trapped in the fund.

'I'm very sorry for what I did wrong,' he told the Telegraph. 'What
I was responsible for was two years of underperformance - I was the
fund manager, the investment strategy was mine, I owned it, and it
delivered a period of underperformance.'

He remains angry with Link for suspending the fund in June 2019
ahead of his sacking, claiming performance would have turned around
if he'd been given more time.

'I can't be sorry for the things I didn't do. I didn't make the
decision to suspend the fund, I didn't make the decision to
liquidate the fund. As history will now show, those decisions were
incredibly damaging to investors, and they were not mine. They were
Link's decisions,' he said.

Woodford highlighted the subsequent performance of several of his
former fund's holdings.

Synairgen's share price more than quadrupled in one day after the
Southampton-based biotech company found a potential Covid-19
treatment, and Oxford Nanopore surged on developing a rapid
Covid-19 test.

Another holding, Kymab, was bought by Sanofi in a $1.45bn
(£1.08bn) deal in January, months after Link had sold the position
for a third of its current valuation.

Link also came under fire last June for selling a portfolio of up
to 19 quoted and unquoted healthcare stocks to Acacia Research, the
company Woodford is working with on his new venture, in a 224m
pounds deal.

Acacia went on to flip some of these stocks, making a £113m profit
in just five months.

The remaining stocks held by Acacia will form the cornerstone of
Woodford's new fund. This portfolio will only be offered to
institutional investors, with Woodford saying he now accepts that
unlisted stocks are unsuitable for retail funds.

It remains to be seen how much money Woodford's new venture will
raise, but the fallout from the collapse of Woodford Investment
Management will continue to be felt for some time.

Solicitors Leigh Day said it is close to formally launching a
multimillion-pound class action against Link after securing
funding.

Leigh Day is one of five law firms looking to obtain compensation
for investors in the fund. Harcus Parker was said to be close to
going live with its claim, also against Link, at the end of last
year.

Other law firms are considering pursuing claims against Hargreaves
Lansdown, which was a heavy promoter of the Woodford fund. Slater
and Gordon and RGL Management are both looking into class actions
against the broker, with Midlands-based Nelsons considering claims
against both Link and Hargreaves Lansdown.

The Financial Conduct Authority is also conducting a probe into the
fund's collapse, looking both into Link and its depositary Northern
Trust.

Investors still trapped in the failed fund may have to wait several
more months for a final payout as Link oversees the sale of assets
left in the mandate. [GN]


MARS INC: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Damages Over Child Slavery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rose, writing for stuff, reports that Mars, Nestle, Hershey,
and other companies are all being sued for child slavery after
eight young adults claim that they were used for slave labour on
their cocoa plants on the Ivory Coast.

According to The Guardian, the young adults are all from Mali and
seek damages for "forced labor and further compensation for unjust
enrichment, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress" when they were children.

This also marks the first time a class-action lawsuit is being
filed against the cocoa industry in a United States court. It is
also believed that this case is only one of many instances of child
abuse and slave labour in the industry.

The Ivory Coast is responsible for 45 per cent of the world's cocoa
supply and has long been linked to human rights abuses, structural
poverty, low pay, and illegal child labour.

The court papers also say that the plaintiffs claim that they
sustained injuries from machete accidents while working at the
farms and that the farms knowingly profited from their labour
without their knowledge at the time.

One of the companies in question being sued, Cargill, released a
statement responding to the lawsuit, saying it has no tolerance for
child labour in cocoa production.

"We are aware of the filing and while we cannot comment on
specifics of this case right now, [the company wants] to reinforce
we have no tolerance for child labor in cocoa production," the
statement read.

"Children belong in school. They deserve safe living conditions and
access to good nutrition."

Nestle also released a statement saying the lawsuit "does not
advance the shared goal of ending child labor in the cocoa
industry" and added, "child labor is unacceptable and goes against
everything we stand for. Nestle has explicit policies against it
and is unwavering in our dedication to ending it. We remain
committed to combating child labor within the cocoa supply chain
and addressing its root causes as part of the Nestle Cocoa Plan and
through collaborative efforts." [GN]


MATTEL INC: Barton Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670
(W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class;"

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving contract product liability.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LUEnmG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MATTEL INC: Black Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03209 (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class";

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rXRaEm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MATTEL INC: Nabong Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nabong v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class";

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

   3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3psaqs7
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MATTEL INC: Shaffer Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the statewide classes, and nationwide classes
      as follows:

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in [each state set forth
      herein] from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice.
      These states are as follows: the "New York Class," the
      "Arizona Class," the "Arkansas Class," the "California
      Class," the "Colorado Class," the "Florida Class," the
      "Iowa Class," the "New Jersey Class," the "Pennsylvania
      Class," the "Tennessee Class," the "Texas Class," and the
      "Washington Class";

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased or owned any
      model of Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United
      States from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Class"); and

      "All persons, other than Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price,
      Inc., and their employees, who purchased any model of
      Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States
      from October 1, 2009 until the date of notice (the
      "Nationwide Purchaser Class");"

      -- The Plaintiffs Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores,
         Kaden, Huey, Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer,
         Drover, Pasternacki, and Willis move to certify the
         Statewide Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for the various
         state law consumer protection, negligence, implied
         warranty, and unjust enrichment claims; and

      -- All Plaintiffs move to certify the Nationwide Class
         under Rule 23(b)(2). Should the Court find any class
         claim fails to satisfy Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs
         Alfaro, Mulvey, Barton, Nowlin, Flores, Kaden, Huey,
         Hanson, Kimmel, Nadel, Black, Shaffer, Drover,
         Pasternacki, and Willis also move to certify a
         Nationwide Purchaser Class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
         issue of whether Defendants misled consumers by
         marketing the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as
         safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and
         overnight sleep, during the relevant period.

      2. appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as Class
         Representatives as follows:

            Class Name                 Proposed Class
                                      Representative(s)

         New York Class        Elizabeth Alfaro and Cassandra
                               Mulvey

         Arizona Class         Emily Barton

         Arkansas Class        Melanie Nowlin

         California Class      Karen Flores and Megan Kaden

         Colorado Class        Daniel Pasternacki

         Florida Class         Jena Huey

         Iowa Class            Nancy Hanson

         New Jersey Class      Joshua Nadel

         Pennsylvania Class    Rebecca Drover

         Washington Class      Katharine Shaffer

         Nationwide Class      Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
                               Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, Katherine Shaffer,
                               Luke Cuddy, Megan Fieker, Kerry
                               Madley, Jessie Poppe, Emily
                               Simmonds, Samantha Jacoby, and
                               Renee Wray

        Nationwide Purchaser   Elizabeth Alfaro, Cassandra
        Class                  Mulvey, Emily Barton, Melanie
                               Nowlin, Karen Flores, Megan
                               Kaden, Daniel Pasternacki, Jena
                               Huey, Nancy Hanson, Joshua Nadel,
                               Rebecca Rover, Josie Willis,
                               Linda Black, and Katherine
                               Shaffer; and

      3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and
      Lydia Keaney Reynolds as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the persistent and uniform marketing
message portraying the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper as safe
for infant sleep, including for overnight and prolonged sleep, was
dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. Moreover,
there are more than 35 wrongful death actions pending against the
Defendants, each with its own tragic story of the death of an
infant. They continued to get reports of additional deaths and
injuries (flat head and twisted neck syndromes) and they were
repeatedly warned about the dangers posed by their product, the
Plaintiffs add.

The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers, and children, headquartered in East Aurora,
New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NCyuva
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel are:

          Demet Basar, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Lydia.Reynolds@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com

The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, are:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  amd@connorsllp.com

MDL 2979: Consolidation of Four Actions in N.D. Texas Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION BUSINESS
EXPENDITURES LITIGATION (MDL 2979), the Hon. Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chair, Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
denying the motion for centralization of four actions in the
Northern District of Texas.

This litigation currently consists of four actions pending in three
districts:

   "NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. JAMES, Case No.
   1:20-00889 (N.D.N.Y.);"

   "DELL'AQUILA v. LAPIERRE, ET AL., Case No. 3:19-00679 (M.D.
   Tenn.);"

   "NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. ACKERMAN MCQUEEN,
   INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:19-02074 (N.D. Tex.);" and

   "ACKERMAN MCQUEEN, INC. v. STINCHFIELD, Case No. 3:19-03016
   (N.D. Tex.)"

The Panel said, "The differences in these actions also extend to
their procedural postures. The two Northern District of Texas
actions are less complex and, therefore, likely to resolve sooner
without the added burden of additional parties and proceedings.
Discovery currently is set to close in Stinchfield this month and,
as to the claims against the Ackerman parties in Ackerman, this
June. Trials in both actions are set for 2021 -- Stinchfield in May
and Ackerman in September. In contrast, while discovery was set to
close in Dell'Aquila in August 2021, trial in that action was not
scheduled until approximately one year later."

The Panel continued, "The NRA's recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing
is likely to further impact the disparities in progression among
these cases. The Middle District of Tennessee has stayed and
administratively closed Dell'Aquila and the Northern District of
Texas has closed the counterclaims against the NRA in Ackerman
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362. We have held that where, as
here, "only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent
of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate.". And parties should attempt
informal means of coordination "before resorting to Panel
intervention." There are just four actions pending in three
districts, and proponents have not demonstrated any attempt at
informal coordination or transfer via other means before seeking
Section 1407 centralization."

The NRA claims there exist "other, related actions that are likely
to be removed to federal court." But it appears the New York state
court enforcement action will remain in state court, as that court
recently denied defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non
conveniens grounds. The Panel has been "disinclined to take into
account the mere possibility of future filings in [its]
centralization calculus." The NRA and the Ackerman parties each are
represented by common counsel in all actions in which they are
parties, and the Stinchfield defendant is represented by counsel
affiliated with the NRA's counsel. This "should facilitate informal
coordination of this relatively small number of actions," the Panel
added.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) -- the plaintiff in two
actions and defendant in a third -- moves under 28 U.S.C. section
1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of
Texas or, alternatively, states in its reply brief that it is
unopposed to centralization in the Northern District of New York.

The Defendant in the Northern District of Texas Stinchfield action
supports the motion. All remaining responding parties oppose
centralization, including (1) the New York Attorney General, who is
defendant to the Northern District of New York action; (2)
plaintiffs in the Middle District of Tennessee action; and (3) the
Ackerman parties, who are defendants in one Northern District of
Texas action and one of which is plaintiff in another.

A copy of the MDL Panel order dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37rmWlt at no extra charge.[CC]

METRODATA SERVICES: Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed in Wentworth
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WENTWORTH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. METRODATA
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00594-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   2. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on
      the question of whether Defendant violated 15 U.S.C.
      section 1681e but denying otherwise;

   3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Certain
      Affidavits.

The Court said, "The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs claim for
punitive damages must be dismissed because the Plaintiff has not
produced evidence to substantiate his claim that Metrodata's
conduct was "willful, wanton, and reckless." However, the Plaintiff
has introduced evidence that could permit a factfinder to conclude
that Defendant's actions “raised the 'unjustifiably high risk' of
violating the statute necessary for reckless liability." The
Defendant has acknowledged that, for an unknown reason, the
preparation of Plaintiff's consumer report did not comply with
Metrodata's standard procedures. The audit trail of the Plaintiff's
consumer report indicates that a Metrodata employee approved the
Insta-Crim search results for inclusion in Plaintiff's report in
less than one minute. Despite the severity of reporting two felony
convictions in a consumer report prepared for employment purposes,
the Defendant did contact the Polk County Clerk of Courts to verify
the two felony convictions reported by Insta-Crim. A reasonable
factfinder could conclude that the Defendant's nonadherence to any
procedures -- reasonable or strict -- in the course of preparing a
consumer report that included criminal record information was so
"objectively unreasonable" and reckless as to render its violations
of the FCRA "willful” within the meaning of section 1681n.
Consequently, the court denies the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment on the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages."

The Plaintiff Wentworth has sued the Defendant Metrodata on behalf
of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Plaintiff
filed his first motion for class certification on May 24, 2019. The
court denied that motion without prejudice on July 29, 2019, the
giving Plaintiff leave to file a renewed motion for certification
after the parties completed more discovery.

Between the filing of the Plaintiff's first motion for class
certification and the court's July 2019 order, both parties filed
motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed a motion to
strike certain affidavits submitted in support of the Defendant's
motion. The parties agreed that the court should defer deciding on
the motions for summary judgment until after it ruled on the
renewed motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification on
March 11, 2020. On November 9, 2020, the court granted class
certification for a claim under 15 U.S.C. section 1681c and denied
class certification for a claim under 15 U.S.C. section 1681k.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ugyMZh at no extra charge.[CC]

MG FREESITES: Faces Suit Over Alleged Child Sex Trafficking
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANE DOE #1; and JANE DOE #2, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MG FREESITES, LTD, d/b/a
"PORNHUB"; MG FREESITES II LTD; MINDGEEK S.A.R.L.; MINDGEEK USA,
INCORPORATED; MG CY HOLDINGS LTD; MINDGEEK CONTENT RT LIMITED;
9219-1568 QUEBEC INC. d/b/a MINDGEEK; MG BILLING LTD, Defendants,
Case No. 7:21-cv-00220-LSC (N.D. Ala., Feb. 11, 2021) alleges
Defendants' violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA").

The Plaintiffs assert that they are victims and survivors of
childhood sex trafficking who had videos and images of their
childhood sex trafficking sold and distributed on Websites owned,
operated, managed and controlled by the Defendants. The Defendants
have allegedly victimized and exploited this child sex abuse
material for profit. The Defendants created, organized, and
disseminated images and videos on their Websites that depict child
sexual abuse, often referred to as child pornography. Each of these
images and videos are crime scenes Defendants monetized, the suit
says.

MG Freesites, LTD, d/b/a "Pornhub" owns and operates pornographic
Websites, including video sharing and adult film production. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory Zarzaur, Esq.
          THE ZARZAUR LAW FIRM
          2332 Second Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 983-7985
          E-mail: gregory@zarzaur.com

               -and-

          Joshua P. Hayes, Esq.
          PRINCE GLOVER HAYES
          701 Rice Mine Road
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
          Telephone: (205) 345-1234
          E-mail: jhayes@princelaw.net

               -and-

          Kimberly Lambert Adams, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7056
          E-mail: kadams@levinlaw.com

               -and-

          Brian Kent, Esq.
          Gaetano D. Andrea, Esq.
          Jill P. Roth, Esq.
          M. Stewart Ryan, Esq.
          Alexandria MacMaster, Esq.
          LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
          1100 Ludlow Street, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 399-9255
          E-mail: bkent@lbk-law.com
                  gdandrea@lbk-law.com
                  jroth@lbk-law.com
                  sryan@lbk-law.com
                  amacmaster@lbk-law.com

               -and-

          Benjamin W. Bull, Esq.
          Peter A. Gentala, Esq.
          Dani Bianculli Pinter, Esq.
          Christen M. Price, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER ON SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
          1201 F Street NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 393-7245
          E-mail: lawcenter@ncose.com

               -and-

          Kevin Dooley Kent, Esq.
          Mark B. Schoeller, Esq.
          Joseph W. Jesiolowski, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN PC
          Centre Square West Tower
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100
          Telephone: (215) 864-9600
          E-mail: kkent@conradobrien.com
                  mschoeller@conradobrein.com
                  jjesiolowski@conradobrien.com

               -and-

          Louis C. Bechtle, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN PC
          Centre Square West Tower
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100
          Telephone: (215) 864-9600
          E-mail: lbechtle@conradobrien.com


MICHIGAN: Court Tosses Hailey Class Action
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEROME MENDEL HAILEY, v.
BOGOTA, et al., HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH, Case No.
2:20-cv-12584-MAG-AP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith
entered an order:

   1. summarily dismissing actions;

   2. denying the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief;

   3. denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification;
      and

   4. denying the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff moved for class certification,
alleging that at WCC, mentally ill prisoners are humiliated and
degraded, improperly held in restraints or in isolation for
"months, and some even years," and denied many privileges and
services. The Plaintiff asserts that the majority of prisoners are
heavily medicated, if not over-medicated. Though the Plaintiff's
allegations are concerning, he has not alleged that he has been
subjected to most of these deprivations, especially not for a
duration of months or years. As a result, his claims are not
typical of the claims of the class, and he is, therefore, not an
appropriate representative party. Further, pro se prisoners are not
considered proper class representatives. Consequently, Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is denied."

The Plaintiff Jerome Hailey, currently confined at the Gus Harrison
Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, has filed a pro se civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. In his
complaint, the Plaintiff alleges deprivation of his rights under
the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments based on the
conditions of his confinement at the Earnest Brooks Correctional
Facility and the Woodland Correctional Facility. The Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief, the revocation of the Defendants'
professional licenses, and monetary damages. He has also filed
motions seeking injunctive relief, class certification, and
appointment of counsel.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff challenges the allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of his confinement at the Earnest
Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) and the Woodland Correctional
Center (WCC). The Plaintiff names as defendants Heidi Washington,
the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), and
the following WCC staff members: (i) Mental Health Unit Chief
Bogota, (ii) social worker Sheets, (iii) social worker Ferguson,
(iv) psychologist Dinsa, (v) social worker Campbell, (vi) law
librarian Meanance, and (vii) Warden Jodi D'Angelo.

The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the
parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United
States. It has 31 prison facilities, and a Special Alternative
Incarceration program, together composing approximately 41,000
prisoners.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZwPx4a at no
extra charge.[CC]

MOONSHADOWS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moonshadows, et al.
The case is styled as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Moonshadows, a California limited
partnership; Moonshadows Malibu, Inc., a California corporation;
Does 1-10, inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-01407-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 16, 2021).

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

Moonshadows -- http://www.moonshadowsmalibu.com/-- is a
contemporary American cuisine restaurant located in Malibu
California, serving lunch, dinner, and weekend brunch.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Final OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFRAT MASSRE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MULLOOLY,
JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-KAM-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court for an order certifying this
case to proceed as a class action and granting final approval of
their class settlement agreement, on behalf of the following
class:

   "all persons to with an address in Kings County, New York to
    whom the Defendant sent an initial collection letter between
    August 13, 2018 to August 13, 2019 to collect a debt
    allegedly owed to Lenox Hill Hospital and "all medical
    providers who may be associated with Lenox Hill" containing
    the language "In the event that you do not dispute the
    amount shown above and if you feel that you have coverage
    through an insurance carrier, please complete the below form
    and return to us."

The Court previously considered the terms of the Agreement in
entering the Order, which are as follows:

   (a) Settlement Class Recovery.

       MJRF will create a class settlement fund of $8,215.00
       (Class Recovery), which the Class Administrator, First
       Class, Inc. will distribute pro rata among those
       Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves
       from the Settlement.

   (b) Relief to Plaintiff.

       MJRF shall pay Plaintiff an additional $1,500.00 in
       recognition of her service to the Settlement Class.

On August 13, 2019 the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed the class action lawsuit, which alleges that MJRF
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by sending
consumers written collection communications that were deceptive and
overshadowed the Plaintiff's validation rights.

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP is a debt-collection law
firm.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dkEiUR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Arleo, Esq.
          ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ. P.C.
          380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (888) 646-0055
          E-mail: RArleoESq@gmail.com

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Lehman Opening Brief  To be Filed by March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the Second
Circuit entered a schedule for plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief
to be filed by March 31, 2021.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action
in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr Pharmaceutical
and several current and former officers and directors, alleging
that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014
and January 4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating
the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously.

On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
that order dismissing the action and other related orders by the
district court. After full briefing and oral argument, on October
9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a
summary order affirming the district court's order granting the
motion to dismiss and remanding the action to the district court to
make a determination on the record related to plaintiffs' request
for leave to file an amended complaint.

On October 16, 2020, the district court requested the parties'
positions as to how they proposed to proceed in light of the Second
Circuit's decision. After letter briefing on this issue and
plaintiffs' alternative request for leave to file a second amended
complaint, on November 16, 2020, the district court denied
plaintiffs' request to amend and dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' claims.

On December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that
order denying plaintiffs leave to amend, and on January 13, 2021,
the Second Circuit entered a schedule for plaintiffs-appellants'
opening brief to be filed by March 31, 2021.

NeuBase said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs
and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which
could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common
stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.

NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc. continues to defend a class action entitled,
Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase, and
Merger Sub, captioned Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary
joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material information in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants
are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was
service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action. The
action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Ohr Acquisition or
an award of damages, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees
and expenses.

The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action.

NeuBase said, "Management believes that the likelihood of an
adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely;
however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a
diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm
the Company's business and the value of its common stock."

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.

NEW YORK CITY: Rosenfeld Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE ROSENFELD and
VINCENT GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TARA LENICH; CITY OF NEW YORK; LU-SHAWN M. THOMPSON,
AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF KENNETH P. THOMPSON; ERIC GONZALEZ;
MARK FELDMAN; WILLIAM SCHAEFER; BRIAN DONOHUE; WILLIAM POWER;
MICHAEL DOWLING; JOSEPH PIRAINO; and ROBERT KENAVAN, Case No.
2:20-cv-12583-MAG-APP 1:18-cv-06720-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order:

   1. granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
      a class action settlement, preliminary class
      certification, appointment of class counsel, and approval
      of the proposed notice procedures and class administrator;
      and

   2. adopting the Plaintiffs' proposed schedule of events
      related to the Fairness Hearing and will hold the hearing
      by videoconference on September 23, 2021.

      Settlement Agreement:

      -- The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class
         as:

         "all persons or entities, including the Class
         Representatives, whose wire or electronic
         communications with Stephanie Rosenfeld's personal
         cellular phone and/or with Jarrett Lemieux's personal
         cellular phone were intercepted using the [wiretap]
         system at the Kings County District Attorney's Office
         during the Class Period."

         An "entity" (non-human) belongs to the Settlement Class
         only if the human person who used the entity's phone
         number cannot be identified. Stephanie Rosenfeld and
         Jarrett Lemieux are not included in the Settlement
         Class.

      -- The Agreement calls for the $3.2 million award to be
         distributed among class members based on the number of
         each member's communications that were intercepted,
         according a system of "Award Units".

      -- The minimum value of an Award Unit is $756, and the
         maximum value is $1,000, depending on how many class
         members in each category submit timely claims. Thus,
         every class member will receive at least $4,536 and no
         more than $15,000.

The Plaintiffs Danielle Rosenfeld and Vincent Garcia bring this
putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons or entities whose communications
were illegally wiretapped by Ms. Lenich over a period spanning June
2015 to November 2016. The Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled
to statutory damages under Title I of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986, known as the Wiretap Act. After previously
reaching a settlement agreement with Ms. Lenich, Plaintiffs have
now agreed to settlement terms with the City and the Individual
City Defendants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3se8jdg at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW YORK TIMES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York Times
Company. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The New York Times Company,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01406 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

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

The New York Times Company -- https://www.nytco.com/ -- is an
American mass media company that publishes the The New York Times
newspaper.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW ZEALAND: Settles Kiwifruit Growers' Lawsuit Over Psa Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Komorek, writing for fruitnet.com, reports that after almost
11 years, a resolution has been reached in the litigation between
The Crown and New Zealand's kiwifruit sector over the 2010
incursion of the kiwifruit vine disease, Psa.

The plaintiffs, Strathboss Kiwifruit, representing a group of
kiwifruit growers, and Seeka, a post-harvest operator, and others,
have agreed to accept a Crown offer of NZ$40m, which includes a
significant contribution from the Crown's insurers of NZ$15m.

The plaintiffs had brought a claim for NZ$450m plus interest. The
claim related to actions taken by the then Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry and pre-dates the establishment of the Ministry for
Primary Industries.

Ministry for Primary Industries director general Ray Smith said all
parties agreed it was time to move on and bring a close to the
legal challenges that have been running since 2014, when the
claimants filed against the Crown for what they alleged was
actionable negligence in allowing Psa into the country.

"This payment to settle is a sensible one on a per head basis given
the number of claimants in the class action, and their legal and
litigation funder costs," said Smith.

"But the settlement acknowledges the grievance felt by the
kiwifruit sector plaintiffs."

Smith said settling now confirms the earlier judgment of the Court
of Appeal. "In its decision of April 2020, the Court of Appeal
found it would not be fair, just or reasonable to make the Crown
legally responsible for losses of this kind, and that therefore, no
legal duty of care was owed by the relevant MAF staff to the
plaintiffs. The staff were protected by a statutory immunity, as
was the Crown."

The claimants had appealed this ruling in the Supreme Court. The
agreement means this hearing will now be vacated.

Smith noted the settlement gives immediate financial certainty for
the Crown and avoids a complex Supreme Court hearing and then
needing to wait for the Court's decision which could take some
time.

"It is good that all parties can now move on from this event which
goes back 11 years," commented Smith.

"Since that time, much work has been done to enhance and improve
the way we manage pre-border risk, import processes at the border
and incursions that inevitably occur.

"New Zealanders can have confidence in our current biosecurity
system," concluded Smith. [GN]


NRA GROUP: Chamberlain Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The
case is styled as Autumn Chamberlain, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00281-JEJ (M.D. Pa, Feb. 16, 2021).

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

NRA -- https://www.nragroup.com/ -- is an accounts receivable
management company that has been successfully providing debt
collection services, skip tracing and credit bureau reporting to
America's leading companies for over thirty years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (203) 653-2250
          Fax: (203) 653-3424
          Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


NU CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Sales Reps, Murillo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO MURILLO v. NU CONNECT GROUP LLC; RENE PINEDA; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV04244 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 2, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to
compensate for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages, and
failed to pay overtime pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff started working for Nu Connect Group from September
21, 2020 through October 25, 2020 as a Sales
Representative/Customer Service. During his employment tenure, he
was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and earned
approximately $15 per hour. His schedule was Monday through Friday,
8am to 6pm, he says.

It is Plaintiff's position that Nu Connect has violated numerous
Labor Code Sections against him and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees, who include all non-exempt, hourly employees
who worked for Nu Connect in the State of
California at their various locations during the relevant Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) period.

The Plaintiff is to recover compensation for all hours worked but
not paid by the Defendants for the three years preceding the filing
of this Complaint. As a proximate result of the Defendants
violations, he has been damaged in an amount according to proof at
time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of
this Court, he contends.

Nu Connect is a local, minority owned marketing company based out
of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NYP HOLDINGS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYP Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. NYP Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01407 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

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

NYP Holdings, Inc. -- https://nypost.com/ -- operates as a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers online
sports, entertainment, metro, business, fashion, and real estste
information services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OMNIMAX INT'L: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN L. DAVILA as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
OMNIMAX INTERNATIONAL, U.S.A., INC., a California Corporation;
EURAMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. 5:18-cv-02069-TJH-SP (C.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties'
stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule and
trial schedule in light of ongoing class certification discovery
efforts and the COVID-19 pandemic.

   1. The Class Certification Briefing Schedule is continued as
      follows:

      Deadline for Initial Expert Disclosure:     June 8, 2021

      Deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosure:    July 20, 2021

      Deadline for filing Motion for Class        July 6, 2021
      Certification:

      Deadline for filing Opposition to           Aug. 17, 2021
      Class Certification:

      Deadline for filing Reply Brief             Sept. 7, 2021
      in support of Class Certification:

      Hearing on Motion for Class                 Oct. 25, 2021
      Certification:

   2. The Trial Briefing Schedule is continued as follows:

      Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:               April 11, 2022

      Expert Discovery Cut-Off:                   April 11, 2022




      Last Date to Hear Motions:                  June 14, 2022

      Deadline to Complete Settlement             June 14, 2022
      Conference:

      Trial Filings (First Round):                Sept. 6, 2022

      Trial Filings (Second Round):               Sept. 13, 2022

      Final Pretrial Conference:                  Oct. 17, 2022

Omnimax manufactures building and transportation products. The
Company offers coated coils, metal wall and roof systems, metal and
vinyl rain carrying systems, roofing accessories, aluminum and
vinyl windows and doors, patio products, recreational vehicle
doors, and aluminum bath and shower enclosures. Euramax is a global
producer of architectural copper, cladding, patio, roof and lawn
drainage, snow retention, windows and transportation products for
original equipment manufacturers, distributors, contractors and
home centers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZoZj8w at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy Rusche, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-9662
          Facsimile: (310) 551-8303
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com

PAPA JOHN'S: Briefing Date for Class Status Bid Set for July 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY HATMAKER, et. al.,
v. PAPA JOHN'S OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00146-TMR-SLO
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington entered
an amended preliminary pretrial order as follows:

   a. Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines

      -- Defendants' Expert:               April 1, 2021

      -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert       May 15, 2021
         (if any):

   b. Deadline for Completion of Expert Witness Depositions

      --  Defendants' Expert:              June 1, 2021

      -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert       June 15, 2021
         (if any):

c. Briefing Schedule for Motion for Class Certification

      -- Plaintiffs' Moving Brief:         July 1, 2021

      -- Defendants' Opposition Brief:     August 1, 2021

      -- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief:          September 1, 2021

Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant franchise.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ne8ztJ at no extra charge.[CC]

PEARL RIVER: Underpays Production Workers, Perez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MERCY PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEARL RIVER PASTRY, LLC, JOSEPH KOFFMAN and
MARTIN KOFFMAN, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-01259 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 11, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
production worker from in or about 2017 to January 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
compensate her and other similarly situated production workers for
all hours they worked and for hours they worked over 40 hours per
workweek at the applicable overtime rate. This resulted due to the
Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of shaving their production
workers' time and then paid their wages only for the shaved hours
instead of their actual hours worked.

The Plaintiff further assers that the Defendant failed to pay her
and other production workers "on a weekly basis and not later than
seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages
are earned." Instead, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly or
semi-monthly basis. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide
them with a written notice upon hire, she added.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated production
workers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover all
unpaid wages and an additional and equal amount as liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, reasonable attorneys' fees
and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted
y law, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Pearl River Pastry, LLC operates a commercial bakery in West Nyack,
New York. The Individual Defendants were active in the day-to-day
management of the Corporate Defendant, including the payment of
wages of their employees and determining what wages were paid to
them. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


PEDIATRIC HOME: Berridge Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berridge v. Pediatric Home
Healthcare, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01025 (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order on Feb. 11, 2012
denying motion to certify class without prejudice.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PHH is a private duty nursing agency.[CC]


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Misappropriates Photos in Website, Loendorf Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA LOENDORF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
CLASSMATES MEDIA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00610 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2021) is a class action complaint
against Classmates for willfully misappropriating the photographs,
likenesses, images, and names of Plaintiff and the class.

The Plaintiff alleges that Classmates willfully use those
photographs, likenesses, images, and names for the commercial
purpose of selling access to them in Classmates products and
services; and willfully uses those photographs, likenesses, images,
and names to advertise, sell, and solicit purchases of Classmates
services and products without obtaining prior consent from her and
the class.

Classmates' business model relies on extracting personal
information from school yearbooks, including names, photographs,
schools attended, and other biographical information.

Classmates aggregates the extracted information into digital
records that identify specific individuals by name, photograph, and
other personal information, and stores those digital records in a
massive online database. Classmates provides free access to some of
the personal information in its database to drive users to purchase
its two paid products -- reprinted yearbooks that retail for up to
$99.95, and a monthly subscription to Classmates.com that retails
for up to $3 per month -- and to get page views from non-paying
users, from which Classmates profits by selling ad space on its
website, the suit says.

The Defendant sells its products on its website:
www.classmates.com. Upon accessing Classmates' website, the
public-at-large is free to enter the information of a particular
school.

After entering this information, any public user of Classmates'
website is provided with a listing of search results. Each search
result corresponds to a school of which Classmates sells their
yearbook service. These search results provide a limited, free
preview of Defendant's service.

The Plaintiff discovered that Classmates uses her name and photo in
advertisements on the Classmates website to advertise and/or
actually sell Defendant's products and services. The Plaintiff
believes that it is reasonable for others to identify her because
Defendant's advertisements include accurate details about her as
well as her photograph. Indeed, she can confirm that the individual
Defendant identified in paragraph is herself. The Plaintiff never
provided Classmates with consent to use any attribute of her
identity in any advertisement or for any commercial purposes. She
is not and has never been a Classmates customer. She has no
relationship with Classmates whatsoever, she added.

Classmates Media Corporation operates an online social networking
site and loyalty marketing services. The Company, through its
website enables users to locate and interact with acquaintances
from school, work and the military. Classmates also operates an
online loyalty marketing service. PeopleConnect is a full-service
executive search firm specializing in the high tech, clean tech,
and scientific industries. PeopleConnect is the parent company of
Defendant Classmates Media Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          NICK LARRY LAW LLC
          8 S Michigan Ave, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (773) 694-4669
          Facsimile: (773) 694-4691
          E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law

               - and -

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

PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
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, Semple v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court, Nova Scotia,
Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.

He 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.

PINECREST BAKERY: Andres Gamboa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GAMBOA And other similarly situated employees v. PINECREST
BAKERY, LLC, PINECREST BAKERY CORPORATION, JOEL RODRIGUEZ, GLADYS
VALDES, Case No. 20700634 (Fla. Cir., Dade Cty., Feb. 2, 2021) is
an action by the Plaintiff and other opt in similarly situated
employees for damages exceeding $30,000, excluding attorneys' fees
or costs, for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as a non-exempt
chef employee from January 1, 2017 through July 23, 2019. He
alleges that Defendant had or should have had full knowledge of all
hours worked by him. He worked approximately 72 hours a week
without overtime compensation paid by the Defendants.

He performed cooking duties as his primary duty normally working 12
hours shifts and spending over 8 hours a day cooking food for the
Defendant. He would also spend additional time performing other
manual duties and spent over 80 percent of the work hours on manual
tasks weekly, he adds.

Pinecrest Bakery is a 24 hour Cuban-American bakery chain in South
Florida. The Defendants Joel Rodriguez and Glades Valdes are a
corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the
activities of corporate Defendants Pinecrest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5000
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

PRECISION 2000: Employee Collective Wins Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN SERVANDO
GARCIA-ROBELO, EDUARDO GARCIA-ZAVALA, GILBERTO GARCIA-ZAVALA, HUGO
PEREZ-ZAVALA, and SALVADOR MARTINEZ-BARRERA, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. PRECISION 2000, INC.,
CASA PROPERTIES, LLC, GUIOMAR OBREGON, individually, CARLOS
FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, individually, and MAURICIO LANCHEROS,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-02841-MLB-JKL (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge JOHN K. Larkins III entered an order granting the joint
motion for conditional certification and stay of discovery.

The Court conditionally certifies a collective group defined as:

   "All current and former employees of Precision 2000 within
   the three-year period before the [Notice mailing date], who
   were subject to housing deductions, or who were not
   reimbursed for inbound travel costs, or outbound travel
   costs, and who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to 29
   U.S.C. section."

   The Court further ordered that:

   -- the Defendants shall, within 21 days of this Order,
      provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel all available mailing
      addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers, and any
      other available contact information for members of the
      collective, in a computer-readable format;

   -- the Plaintiffs' counsel shall, within five business days
      from the delivery of the information, then send the Notice
      and the Consent to Join Form, in the form submitted to the
      Court by the Plaintiffs (including a Spanish translation
      to be completed by Plaintiffs and certified by a neutral
      third party to be an accurate translation), by email and
      SMS text or WhatsApp message to all individuals within the
      Collective group;

   -- directing the Plaintiffs' counsel shall also post the
      Notice and Consent to Join form to the websites and
      Facebook accounts maintained by their respective firms and
      listed below with the following neutral language: "Notice
      regarding lawsuit against Precision 2000, Inc. Click here
      [link to website with notice and opt-in form] to learn
      more."

      https://contratados.org/

      https://www.facebook.com/Contratados.org

      https://www.facebook.com/CDMigrante

      https://www.buckleybeal.com/;

   -- If feasible, directing the Plaintiffs' counsel shall
      disable any "share" feature for the notice posting on
      their firm websites;

   -- directing the Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide notice to
      the Defendants that the Notice and Consent to Join forms
      have been sent by email, SMS text message or WhatsApp
      message and, if applicable, any Notices and Consent to
      Join forms mailed by U.S. or Mexican mail within three
      business days from the date of transmission and/or
      mailing;

   -- staying discovery in this action until May 12, 2021; and

   -- directing the Parties to submit a Joint Report by May 26,
      2021 regarding the status of the case, including
      resolution, and the remaining discovery that needs to be
      completed in the matter, if any.

Precision 2000 provides construction services. The Company offers
products and services in civil infrastructure and
transportation-related projects, including airports, military
bases, roads, pedestrian paths, crossings, intersections, and
sidewalks.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sbQVFI at no extra charge.[CC]

PRECISION CASTPARTS: May 7 Hearing Set on $21MM Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement
regarding the Precision Castparts Corp. Securities Settlement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

SUMMARY NOTICE
No. 3:16-cv-01756-YY
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

NECA-IBEW PENSION TRUST FUND (The
Decatur Plan), and ANN F. LYNCH, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE ANGELA LOHMANN
REVOCABLE TRUST, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., MARK
DONEGAN, DON R. GRABER, LESTER L.
LYLES, DANIEL J. MURPHY, VERNON E.
OECHSLE, ULRICH SCHMIDT, RICHARD
L. WAMBOLD and TIMOTHY A. WICKS,

Defendants.

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED, SOLD, OR HELD PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP.
("PRECISION") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING
OCTOBER 9, 2015, THE RECORD DATE FOR PRECISION'S SPECIAL MEETING
REGARDING THE SALE OF PRECISION TO BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. (THE
"MERGER"), THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER ON
JANUARY 29, 2016 (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, that
a hearing will be held on May 7, 2021, at 1:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Youlee Yim You at the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon, Portland Division, United States Federal
Building and Courthouse, 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Portland, Oregon
97204, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement1 of the Litigation for $21 million should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by
the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and releasing
the Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net
Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to Lead
Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) should be
approved.2

IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD PRECISION COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 9, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
JANUARY 29, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS
YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR OWNERSHIP OF PRECISION COMMON
STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to Precision Shareholder Litigation,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43365,
Providence, RI 02940-3365, or on the Internet at
www.PrecisionShareholderLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail (postmarked no
later than May 6, 2021), or online at
www.PrecisionShareholderLitigation.com no later than May 6, 2021,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or acquired Precision common stock during the
Class Period, and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion so that it is postmarked no
later than April 16, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who do
not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, or Lead
Counsel's request for time and expenses must be received by each of
the following recipients no later than April 16, 2021:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
United States Federal Building and Courthouse
1000 S.W. Third Avenue
Portland, OR 97204

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
A. Rick Atwood Jr.
Esther Lee Bylsma
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

BERGER MONTAGUE PC
Lawrence Deutsch
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Defendants:

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
Justin C. Clarke
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019-7475

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: January 15, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning
given to them in the Stipulation of Settlement.

2 In light of the outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19), the Court
may decide to conduct the Final Approval Hearing by video or
telephone conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at
the hearing by telephone or video without further notice to the
Class. No further notice of such decision will be provided to the
Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Final
Approval Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may
participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the
Settlement website, www.PrecisionShareholderLitigation.com, before
making any plans to attend the Final Approval Hearing. Any updates
will be posted to the Settlement website.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Rivka Greenfeld, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00838 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

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

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ --
provides healthcare revenue cycle management solutions. The Company
offers insurance follow-up, medical debt collections, revenue cycle
consulting, skip tracing, and practice management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Bid for Class Status Must Be Filed by August 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BUFFINGTON, v. THE
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE CO.,
Case No. 7:20-CV-07408-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M.
Halpern entered a discovery plan and scheduling order as follows:

   1. Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties
      may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any
      motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be
      filed by March 1, 2021.

   2. Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
      shall be completed by February 16, 2021.

   3. All fact discovery shall be completed by August 9, 2021.

   4. All expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall
      be completed by October 11, 2021.

   5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
      filed by August 25, 2021.

   6. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
      certification shall be filed by October 11, 2021.

   7. All discovery shall be completed by October 11 2021.

   8. The parties shall file a joint letter concerning
      settlement/mediation by August 23, 2021.

Progressive Corporation is an American insurance company, one of
the largest providers of car insurance in the United States. The
company insures motorcycles, boats, RVs, and commercial vehicles
and provides home insurance through select companies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZuBHiM at no extra charge.[CC]

PURITAN'S PRIDE: May 7 Hearing on Revised Class Cert. Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEY L. SHARPE, MARY
LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, JAY D. WERNER, and EVA KRUEGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC.,
a New York Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. (formerly known as
NBTY, INC.), a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Calif.), the Parties
stipulated and agreed that:

   -- The defendants' opposition to Revised Class Cert. Motion
      and Daubert motion shall be due on March 19, 2021;

   -- The plaintiffs' reply in support of Revised Class Cert.
      Motion and Opposition to Daubert motion shall be due on
      April 16, 2021;

   -- The Defendants' reply in support of Daubert Motion shall
      be due on April 30, 2021; and

   -- The hearing on the Revised Class Cert. Motion and Daubert
      motion shall be on May 7, 2021.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvVglr at no extra charge.[CC]

Founded in 1973, Puritan's Pride was established to provide
customers with vitamins.

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:

          Tina Mehr, Esq.
          VISION LEGAL, INC.
          4712 E. 2nd Street, Suite 840
          Long Beach, CA 90803
          Telephone: (877) 870-9953
          Facsimile: (877) 348-8509
          E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com

               - and -

          William Hansult, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT
          1399 Ramona Avenue, No. C
          Grover Beach, CA 93433
          Telephone: (805) 489-1448
          E-mail: HANSULTLAW@AOL.COM

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 911-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

The attorneys for the Defendants Puritan's Pride, Inc. and
The Nature's Bounty Co., are:

          James F. Speyer, Esq.
          E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: james.speyer@apks.com
                  alex.beroukhim@apks.com

QUICKEN LOANS: Hearing on Class Status Denial Bid Set for March 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mattson v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00989 (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim
You entered an order setting a joint hearing on New Penn Financial
LLC's related motion to deny class certification and scheduling
conference for March 4, 2021.

The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions
involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.

Quicken Loans is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the
One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district
of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[CC]


QVC INC: Faces Adams Suit Over Failure to Pay CSRs' OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
LANITA ADAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QVC, INC., Defendant, Case No.2:21-cv-00646
(E.D. Pa., February 11, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices and
policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between June 2019 and
March 2020 as a customer service representative at the Defendant's
Chesapeake, Virginia customer service call center.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate her
and other similarly situated customer service representatives
(CSRs) for the time they spent starting and logging into computer
systems, applications, and phone systems, which takes approximately
10-20 minutes before her shift start times. This unpaid work is an
integral and indispensable part of their principal activities and
the Defendant arbitrarily failed to count it as "hours worked" by
the Plaintiff and other CSRs. As a result, despite working in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, they were not paid their lawfully
earned overtime compensation for all their overtime hours at the
applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the unpaid
work performed by its CSRs, the Plaintiff contends.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Customer
Services Representatives employed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff
seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, statutory liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate,
reasonable attorneys' fee, costs, and disbursements, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

QVC, Inc. operates call centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Tel: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  eciolko@carlsonlynch.com

                - and –

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          8 N. Court St., Suite 403
          Athens, OH 45701
          Tel: (847) 986-5889
          Fax: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

                - and –

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          Th Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


REALPAGE INC: Saylor Must File Class Certification Bid by June 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA S. SAYLOR,
individually and as representative of the classes, v. REALPAGE,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-13768-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen
M. Williams entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. Pretrial factual discovery will expire on March 8,
      2021;

      -- All pretrial discovery shall be concluded by that date.

   2. Discovery Applications;

      -- All discovery applications pursuant to L. Civ. R.
         37.1(a)(1) shall include an Affidavit or Certification
         that includes the information identified in L. Civ.R.
         37.1(b)(1);

   3. Depositions;

      -- All depositions are to be conducted in accordance with
         the procedures set forth in the order of Judge
         Gawthrop, in Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525
         (E.D.Pa. 1993);

   4. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant
      to FED. R.CIV.P.26(a)(2) on behalf of plaintiff shall be
      served upon counsel for defendant not later than March 3,
      2021;

      -- All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to
         FED. R.CIV.P.26(a)(2) on behalf of defendant shall be
         served upon counsel for plaintiff not later than April
         28, 2021; and

      -- Depositions of proposed expert witnesses shall be
         concluded by May 19, 2021;

   5. The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class
      Certification no  later than June 11, 2021;

      -- Opposition to the motion should be served in a timely
         fashion; and

   6. Any application for an extension of time beyond the
      deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the
      undersigned and served upon all counsel prior to
      expiration of the period sought to be extended, and shall
      disclose in the application all such extensions previously
      obtained, the precise reasons necessitating the
      application showing good cause under F ED . R. C
      IV.P.16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the
      application.

RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software for the multifamily, commercial,
single-family and vacation rental housing industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dlnlte at no extra charge.[CC]

RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Certification Bid Due August 12
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peer v. Rick's Custom
Fencing and Decking, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01155 (D.
Ore.), the Hon. Judge John V. Acosta entered an order adopting the
Parties' proposed deadlines as follows:

   1. Class certification expert witness disclosures due by May
      13, 2021;

   2. Class certification rebuttal expert witness disclosures
      due by June 10, 2021;

   3. Discovery, file all pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      7(a) and 15; and join all claims, remedies, and parties
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 and 19 to be completed by
      July 15, 2021;

   4. Class certification motion due by August 12, 2021;

   5. Dispositive motions are due 30 days after the Court's
      decision on the class certification motion;

   6. Expert disclosure, joint ADR report, and pretrial order
      due 30 days after the ruling on dispositive motions;

   7. Expert discovery cut-off 60 days after the ruling on
      dispositive motions; and

   8. Trial to be determined at a later date.

The nature of suit states civil rights – employment.

Rick's Custom retails building materials. The Company offers decks,
benches, fences, pasture, patio covers, pergolas, gates, and other
lumber materials. Rick's Custom Fencing and Decking serves
customers in the States of Oregon and Washington.[CC]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Siruk Sues Over GME Stock Trading Control
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETRO SIRUK and MARINA SIRUK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 0:21-cv-00415-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., February 12, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence,
and breach of fiduciary duty.

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

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

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

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

SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Chu Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT d/b/a CITY
COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO, an educational institution; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00851-AGT (N.D. Calif., Feb. 3,
2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired people in violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendant's Website, https://www.ccsf.edu/, is not
fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a legally blind, visually impaired, handicapped
person, and a member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.

San Francisco Community College District is a California
educational institution with its headquarters located in San
Francisco, California. The Defendant's servers for the Website are
in the United States. The Defendant conducts a large amount of its
business in California. The Defendant's campus constitutes a place
of public accommodation. The Defendant's Website provides consumers
with access to an institution that stylizes itself as a leader in
innovation, personal freedom, and self-determination. Through
Defendant's Website, consumers can access information regarding the
CCSF login portal, resources to manage life at CCSF, virtual
campus, city online, information about enrolling in English as a
second language, employee services, language preferences,
applications, centers, admissions and registration, academics,
payment options, student services, campus life, about Defendant,
and a search query.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SAUSALITO, CA: Homeless Union Files Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Sausalito, et
al. The case is styled as Sausalito/Marin County Chapter of the
California Homeless Union, on behalf of itself and those it
represents; Robbie Powelson, Sheri I. McGregor, Michael Arnold,
Arthur Bruce, Melanie Muasou, Sunny Jean Yow, Naomi Montemayor,
Mike North, Jackie Cutler, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated homeless persons v. City of Sausalito, Mayor Jill Hoffman,
Police Chief John Rohrbacher, City Manager Marcia Raines, Kent
Basso, Dept. of Public Works Supervisor, Case No. 3:21-cv-01143-LB
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.

Sausalito is a city in Marin County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony David Prince, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY D. PRINCE
          2425 Prince Street, Suite 100
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Phone: (510) 302-1472
          Email: princelawoffices@yahoo.com



SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Guilbeau Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TREVER GUILBEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00122 (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a directional
driller and MWD (measuring while drilling) from on or about June
2017 until on or about October 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid on a day rate
basis by the Defendant. Although he routinely worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek for approximately 100 hours, the Defendant
failed to pay him overtime at one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 during each and
every workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain and
preserve payroll records which show the total hours worked by the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the suit adds.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated drillers, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking all damages allowed by the
FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal
to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs, post-judgment
interest, and all other relief to which the Plaintiff and the
collective action members may be justly entitled.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation provides oilfield drilling
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net



SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Guilbeau Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TREVER GUILBEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00142 (W.D. Tex., February 12, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a directional
driller and MWD (measuring while drilling) from on or about June
2017 until on or about October 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid on a day rate
basis by the Defendant. Although the Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek for approximately 100 hours, the
Defendant allegedly failed to pay him overtime at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of
40 during each and every workweek. The Defendant also failed to
maintain and preserve payroll records which show the total hours
worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the
suit adds.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated drillers, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking all damages allowed by the
FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal
to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs, post-judgment
interest, and all other relief to which the Plaintiff and the
collective action members may be justly entitled.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation provides oilfield drilling
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net


SEPTEM COMA INC: Brady Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
James Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Septem Coma Inc., Defendants, Case No.
21-at-00077 (E.D. Cal., January 27, 2021), seeks injunctive relief
and seeks statutory damages for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Septem Coma operates as "South Sacramento Care Center," a cannabis
dispensary in California. To promote its services, it engages in
aggressive unsolicited SMS blasts. On or about April 2020, it sent
telemarketing text messages to Brady's cellular telephone number
without his permission. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      1925 Century Park E #1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: 305-975-3320
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


SHAWMUT WOODWORKING: Bonett FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BONETT, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. SHAWMUT
WOODWORKING & SUPPLY, INC., d/b/a Shawmut Design & Construction,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01125-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Michael
J. Roemer entered an order denying without prejudice the
plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional
certification of and court-authorized notice to:

   "alll Assistants who worked for the Defendant at any period
   during their second and third rotation of the Construction
   Management Skills Training (CMST) program and were classified
   as exempt salaried employees not eligible for overtime pay in
   the last three years from when the Complaint was filed."

Judge Roemer said, "The plaintiff seeks to certify a large,
nationwide class of workers based only a declaration containing
little more than generalized, conclusory allegations. These
unsupported assertions are inadequate as they stand. Accordingly,
the Court finds it unnecessary to reach any additional arguments."

Plaintiff Bonett brings this action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals seeking relief for alleged
willful violations of the FLSA overtime compensation requirements
by the defendant Shawmut Woodworking.

Shawmut Woodworking provides construction services. The Company
designs and develops hotels, apartments, hospitals, game zones,
industrial, and commercial buildings.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OG8uzj at no extra charge.[CC]

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Court Dismisses Albright Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSALINDA ALBRIGHT et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00601-SO (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order granting
Parties' joint stipulation of dismissal of this action and all of
Plaintiffs' individual claims asserted, with prejudice.

Ejudge Oliver said, "No class has been certified and no motion for
class certification is pending. The Plaintiffs and Defendants shall
each bear their own costs."

Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in the
paint and coating manufacturing industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3psmnOf at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Muzilla, Esq.
          THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLC
          2996 Kingsley Road
          Cleveland, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 401-8607
          E-mail: tom@muzillalaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Bryan Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL
          30 N LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael N. Ungar, Esq.
          Amanda Martinsek, Esq.
          David D. Yeagley, Esq.
          ULMER & BERNE LLP
          1660 West Second Street, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 583-7000
          Facsimile: (216) 583-7001
          E-mail: mungar@ulmer.com
                  amartinsek@ulmer.com
                  dyeagley@ulmer.com

SIERRA WES: Flores Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ALBERTO MUNGUIA FLORES, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. SIERRA WES WALL
SYSTEMS, INC, California corporation; APEX CONSTRUCTION GROUP,
INC., California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 21 CV375758 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 3, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime
wages as well as meal and rest periods premiums in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew or should have
known that he and the other class members were entitled to receive
certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours
worked. He further adds that the Defendants failed to provide
required rest and meal periods during the relevant time period as
required under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee, from December 2014 to May 2020. The Plaintiff and the
other Class members worked over eight hours in a day and/or 40
hours in a week during their employment with Defendants.

Sierra WES is a drywall & insulation contractor in Northern
California and Northern Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
         LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
         410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 265-1020
         Facsimile: (818) 265—1021


SKANSKA KOCH: Court Dismisses Cortese et al. Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES
KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOK, and MARK
LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH --
KIEWIT JV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Ruby J. Krajick entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice;

   2. denying the motion for conditional certification; and

   3. closing the case.

Skanska Koch offers construction related and project development
services. The Company focuses on construction of housing,
commercial buildings, and roads.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated Feb. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZrYVGj at no extra charge.[CC]


SKANSKA KOCH: Court Tosses Cortese Class Action with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES
KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOK, and MARK
LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH --
KIEWIT JV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lewis J. Liman entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice;
      and

   2. denying the motion for conditional certification.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law (the NYLL") against the Defendants. The
Defendants move to dismiss the third amended complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim for relief. The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification
of a collective action under FLSA. The motion to dismiss is granted
with prejudice. Because the TAC is being dismissed, the move for
conditional certification is denied, the Court says.

This case arises out of work performed in connection with the
Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway Plan" construction project,
connecting Bayonne, New Jersey with Staten Island, New York.
Pursuant to a 2013 contract (the "Construction Agreement") with the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Defendants agreed to
serve jointly as the general contractors for the Bayonne Bridge
Project. SKKJV allegedly is a joint venture between Skanska Koch
and Kiewit formed for purposes of the Bayonne Bridge Project. The
Plaintiffs allege that Skanska Koch, Kiewit, and SKKJV constitute
"joint employers" under FLSA and the NYLL because they "have an
arrangement to share Plaintiffs' services, act directly in the
interest of each other on the Project and/or shared control of the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees because the
Defendants are jointly responsible for completion of the Project as
PANYNJ's general contractor."

The Plaintiffs are all members of New Jersey-based unions who were
employed by SKKJV on the Bayonne Bridge Project. SKKJV is a party
to collective bargaining agreements with the employees' respective
New Jersey unions. Plaintiff Cortese, who worked as a crane
operator on the Bayonne Bridge Project for five months beginning in
August 2015, is a member of the International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 825. The remaining Plaintiffs -- Kearney, Julio,
Siciliano, Brooks, and Leyble -- were all ironworkers and members
of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 11. The Plaintiffs (the "Iron
Worker Plaintiffs") also worked on the Bayonne Bridge Project.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3anebKV at no extra charge.[CC]

SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over DualSense Drift
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Dealessandri, writing for gamesindustry.biz, reports that law
firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP filed a class
action lawsuit against Sony regarding the PlayStation 5's DualSense
controller drift.

The lawsuit was filed on February 12 in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of plaintiff Lmarc
Turner and "similarly situated consumers."

The lawsuit, a copy of which was sent to GamesIndustry.biz, argued
that the DualSense controller is "defective" as it suffers from a
drift defect, a problem that sees it recording input even when the
player is not using it.

The issue "compromises the DualSense Controller's core
functionality," the document continued, adding that Sony has been
made aware of the issues through online consumer complaints. The
lawsuit mentioned the case of a player encountering drift issues as
early as ten days after their purchase, directly quoting the Kotaku
report that unearthed the drifting issues.

The lawsuit pointed out that the repair options at this stage are
"slim" and also accused Sony of failing "to disclose this material
information to consumers" despite being aware of the defect.

"As a result of Sony's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners of DualSense Controllers, including
Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury in fact, and
otherwise have been harmed by Sony's conduct," it continued.
"Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Sony's
violations of state consumer fraud statutes, breach of warranty,
and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief for damages
suffered, declaratory relief, and public injunctive relief."

Controller drift has become a prominent issue for every platform
holder, with numerous lawsuits against Nintendo across Europe, the
US, and Canada, while Microsoft recently asked a US district court
judge to force plaintiffs in a lawsuit over defective Xbox
controllers to go to individual arbitration. [GN]


SOULBOUND STUDIOS: Faces Falls Suit in Central Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soulbound Studios,
LLC. The case is captioned as James Falls v. Soulbound Studios,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2,
2021).

The suit demand $75,000 in damages involving custom duties:
forfeiture -- immoral articles. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

Soulbound Studios, LLC is an American video game company, founded
in 2015 by Jeromy Walsh.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine Chalhoub Zaouk, Esq.
          Evan M. Selik, Esq.
          MCCATHERN LLP
          523 West 6th Street Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150
          Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
          E-mail: czaouk@mccathernlaw.com
                  eselik@mccathernlaw.com

SOUTHWIRE COMPANY: Marquez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REGINA MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, LLC and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2027859, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00252 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay meal period
premiums, failure to pay rest period premiums, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and unfair business practices.

Southwire Company, LLC is a manufacturer of electrical cables
headquartered in Carrollton, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         David L. Cheng, Esq.
         Jamin Xu, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 237-2400
         Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
         E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com
                 jxu@fordharrison.com

STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Pierce Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PIERCE, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. STATEBRIDGE
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00117-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying the
Settlement Class, and approving the proposed settlement.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

   "All borrowers whose loans were in default at the time the
   Defendant acquired the loans or servicing rights and from
   whom Defendant collected a Pay-to-Pay Fee from February 5,
   2019 to February 4, 2020."

The Proposed Settlement:

   -- The Settlement Fund of $40,380 represents 100% of the
      amount of Pay-to-Pay fees collected by Defendant from
      February 5, 2019 to February 4, 2020;

   -- The Separate from the Settlement Fund, the Defendant is
      paying Administrative Costs, agreed class counsels' fees
      and expenses, and Plaintiff's class representative
      incentive award, both of which are subject to court
      approval;

   -- The Defendant has also stopped collecting Pay-to-Pay fees
      from class members after February 4, 2020 and has agreed
      to additional injunctive relief, under which Defendant has
      agreed to stop charging Pay-to-Pay fees in all states
      where class members are located: Alaska, California,
      Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina,
      Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
      Wisconsin and Wyoming until at least five (5) years after
      the date this Court grants final approval to the
      Settlement; and

   -- As such, class members will receive a 100% refund as
      monetary relief and the Plaintiff estimates that
      prospective relief will provide class members at least
      $40,000 per year, for an added benefit of $200,000
      additional relief over the five-year period.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 5, 2020 on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated borrowers whose loans were
serviced by Defendant. The Complaint alleged that the Defendant
charged borrowers a $5.00 fee for each online payment in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where the $5.00
fee was not expressly authorized in the Plaintiff's and other class
members' uniform mortgages.

Statebridge Company is a mortgage loan servicer.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37nww8L
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          Victor S. Woods, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W., Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
          vwoods@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq.
          KLIEN & SHERIDAN, LC
          3566 Teays Valley Rd.
          Hurricane, WV 25526
          Telephone: (304) 562-7111
          Facsimile: (304) 562-7115
          E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com

               - and -

          W. Stacy Miller II, Esq.
          MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2424 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 201
          P.O. Box 6340
          Raleigh, NC 27628
          Telephone: 919-348-4361
          Facsimile: 919-729-2953
          E-mail: stacy@millerlawgroupnc.com

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Faces Malone Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stoneledge Furniture,
LLC. The case is captioned as Velvet Malone vs. Stoneledge
Furniture, LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00293722-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Feb. 2, 2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

Stoneledge is located in San Francisco, California and is part of
the furniture stores industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com

SUMMER WWK: Film Crew Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Brennan, Kyle Coleman, Caryn Frankenfield, Frank Galline,
John A. Johnston, Dawn Snyder, Fredrick Waff, Cory Geryak and Sara
Riney, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Summer WWK LLC, HL Woods and Cherelle George,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00423 (N.D. Ga., January 27, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the laws of the State of Georgia, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiffs are film production crew members that worked on the
production of the motion picture entitled "Summer When We Were
Kings" produced by the production company Summer WWK, LLC. HL Woods
is the Executive Producer and the sole manager of Summer WWK, LLC.
Production shut down prior to the start of principal photography.
Plaintiffs were not paid for any of the work they performed during
the time they were employed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq.
      James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq.
      STANFORD FAGAN LLC
      2540 Lakewood Avenue SW
      Atlanta, GA 30315
      Tel: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244
      Email: michaels@sfglawyers.com
             jfagan@sfglawyers.com

             - and -

      Robert S. Giolito, Esq.
      ROBERT S. GIOLITO PC
      1626 Montana Ave., Ste 201
      Santa Monica, CA 90403
      Tel: (310) 897-1082
      Email: rgiolito@giolitolaw.com


SUNRISE DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bano Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SAIRA BANO; HUZAIFA HUSAIN; and SHARMEEN BATATAWALA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SUNRISE DOLLAR INCORPORATED d/b/a DOLLAR N THINGS; TARUN SHARMA;
and MAMTA TARUN SHARMA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00744
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.

Sunrise Dollar Incorporated d/b/a Dollar N Things operates as a
convenience store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle T. Pulis, Esq.
          SCOTT MICHAEL MISHKIN, P.C.
          One Suffolk Square, Suite 240
          Islandia, NY 11749
          Telephone: (631) 234-1154
          Facsimile: (631) 234-5048


SUNRISE SENIOR: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Audrey Heredia, et al., v.
Sunrise Senior Living LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-01974-JLS-JDE (C.D.
Calif. ), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification; and

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs maintain that they made diligent
efforts during this time to seek new representatives. First,
Plaintiffs argue that Sunrise did not provide a list of putative
class members until December 30, 2019. The Plaintiffs drafted
communications to class members and began conducting interviews and
reviewing documents by March 2020. However, as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic, such efforts were delayed, and the Plaintiffs
were "unable to locate suitable class representatives who had
signed the Sunrise arbitration agreement until July of 2020. The
Plaintiffs then notified Sunrise of their intent to seek leave to
file a further amended complaint on July 17, 2020, and filed the
instant motion on August 21, 2020. The Court acknowledges that the
COVID-19 pandemic likely made it more difficult for Plaintiffs to
conduct interviews with potential class representatives,
particularly in a case involving elderly class members residing in
assisted-living facilities. But this does not explain why the
Plaintiffs could not have sought an order modifying the Scheduling
Order for the same reasons months earlier -- and especially before
filing and fully briefing a motion for class certification. The
Plaintiffs fail to explain why they could not have sought an order
modifying the schedule at a much earlier point, instead of marching
forward with their motion for class certification with “blind
faith in [the named representatives'] adequacy."

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

   "all persons who resided or currently reside at one or more
   of the "Sunrise California Facilities" during the Class
   Period (June 27, 2013 through the present) and who contracted
   with Sunrise for services for which Sunrise was paid money."

The Sunrise California Facilities consist of 43 assisted living
facilities owned and/or operated by Sunrise under the Sunrise
name.

This is a putative class action arising out of the alleged failure
of the Defendants to staff its assisted living facilities at levels
sufficient to provide the promised level of care to its residents.
The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) brings three claims
against Sunrise: violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and
elder financial abuse.

The Plaintiff Amy Fearn is the daughter of decedent Edith Zack, a
resident of Sunrise of San Mateo, in San Mateo, California from
September 2016 to November 2016. She is a successor-in-interest to
the Estate of Edith Zack. The Plaintiff Helen Ganz is a current
resident of Sunrise of San Rafael, in San Rafael, California, who
moved into the facility on September 30, 2016.

Sunrise provides assisted living and memory care for senior
citizens and persons with disabilities in facilities across the
United States, including California.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 9, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZqPaIH at no
extra charge.[CC]

SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Status Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRON WALLEN, SANJAY
SHAKES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC. & RICHARD FERNBACH, Case No.
0:20-cv-61690-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court for an
order enlarging the time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to
potential class members.

The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Conditional Certification on
January 27, 2021. Accordingly, the Defendant's response to the
Motion for Conditional Certification is currently due February 10,
2021.

The Defendants believe that an extension of two weeks would provide
a sufficient amount of time to conduct adequate investigate the
claims and issues raised in the Motion for Conditional
Certification, the relief sought, and to prepare an appropriate
response. The extension would move the deadline to February 24,
2021.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s4WK89 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stella Chu, Esq.
          Aaron Reed, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 489-6375
          E-mail: areed@littler.com
                  sschu@littler.com

SWITCHBACK ENERGY: ChargePoint Merger Related Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the company is facing several complaints including putative
class action complaints in relation to its merger with ChargePoint,
Inc.

On September 23, 2020, Lightning Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
ChargePoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Switchback entered
into a business combination agreement and plan of reorganization,
pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged
with and into ChargePoint, with ChargePoint surviving the Merger as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Switchback.

On October 29, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a purported
Switchback stockholder in connection with the Business Combination:
Bulsa v. Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index
No. 655800/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.).

Separately, on November 6, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a
different purported Switchback stockholder in connection with the
Business Combination: Bushansky v. Switchback Energy Acquisition
Corporation, et al., Index No. 656119/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.).

Additionally, on December 15, 2020, a complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by a purported Switchback stockholder in connection with the
Business Combination: Ward v. Switchback Energy Acquisition
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10577 (S.D.N.Y.).

On December 16, 2020, a separate complaint was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York by a purported Switchback
stockholder in connection with the Business Combination: Baker v.
Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, et al., Index No.
657063/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.).

The Complaints name Switchback and current members of the
Switchback's board of directors as defendants. The Complaints
allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the board of in connection with the Business Combination. The
Complaints also allege that this proxy statement/prospectus/consent
solicitation statement is materially misleading and/or omits
material information concerning the Business Combination,
including, with respect to the Federal Complaint, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Complaints generally seek injunctive relief, unspecified
damages and awards of attorneys' and experts' fees, among other
remedies. Although Switchback believes no supplemental disclosures
were required under applicable law to address the claims made in
the Complaints, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its stockholders, Switchback determined to
voluntarily supplement the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus/consent solicitation statement as described in
a Current Report on Form 8-K, which Switchback filed on February 4,
2021.  

In connection with the filing of the Form 8-K, each of the
stockholders bringing one of the Complaints confirmed that he will
voluntarily dismiss his Complaint upon the closing of the Business
Combination.

Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company
formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock
exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or
similar business combination with one or more businesses. The
company is based in Dallas, Texas.


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over the
handling of the Company's 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of  The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.

The matter has been certified as a class action. T. Rowe Price
believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending
the action.

The parties each filed motions for summary judgment and, with the
exception of one claim, the court has denied the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment and will schedule the case for
trial.

T. Rowe Price said, "We cannot predict the eventual outcome, or
whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial
results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from any negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub-advisory services, separate account management,
recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.

TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unethical Sales Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a TD Bank teller who spoke out about the
pressure to sell customers products and services they didn't need
says she feels vindicated now that a class-action lawsuit is
underway, shining a light on those allegedly unethical practices.

"It makes me know that I did the right thing, coming forward," she
told Go Public after learning about the lawsuit.

She said she and her colleagues were pressured to make unnecessary
sales in order to earn revenue for the bank -- and to hold onto
their jobs. [GN]


TEMPO RESTAURANT: Employees File Class Action Over Tip Skimming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Connelly, writing for Buffalo Business First, reports that
the attorney for five employees who filed a lawsuit in 2020 against
Tempo and its operators has taken a step in pursuit of class action
status.

Ian Hayes, partner at Creighton Johnsen & Giroux in Buffalo, filed
a motion for class action certification on Jan. 25 in state Supreme
Court for Erie County.

The lawsuit, which was filed on July 16, contended that wait staff
and other restaurant employees were cheated out of money and tips,
and that they were instructed to falsely tell customers that money
collected for an event fee was a gratuity for service. They sought
$300,000 in damages.

Paul Jenkins, the restaurant's managing partner and head chef, was
initially the only defendant aside from the business. In September,
owner Mark Hutchinson was added. Their attorney, Kristin Klein
Wheaton, partner at Goldberg Segalla, denied the allegations on
their behalf in court documents.

Tempo, which opened in 2005, closed when Covid-19 restrictions were
put in place and has not reopened.

Hayes said previously that more than 40 employees could join the
class action. [GN]

TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert. Bid in Ontario Teachers Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
motion for class certification in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, is pending.

On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Ontario
Teachers Securities Litigation"). On December 13, 2019, the lead
plaintiff in that action filed an amended complaint, purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between February 6, 2014
and May 10, 2019.

The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated federal securities and
common laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose
pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio
and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
offering materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities
class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar
allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017
and October 2020, twenty complaints were filed against Teva and
certain of its current and former officers and directors seeking
unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees, costs and expenses.

The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf
of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have
indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the plaintiffs' class if
one is certified in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative
class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial
purposes. The case is now in discovery.

Pursuant to that consolidation order, plaintiffs in several of the
"opt-out' cases filed amended complaints on May 28, 2020. On
January 22, 2021, the Court dismissed the "opt-out" plaintiffs'
claims arising from statements made prior to the five-year statute
of repose, but denied Teva's motion to dismiss their claims under
Israeli laws.

The Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel on June 19, 2020, which the
defendants opposed.

That motion is pending. Motions to approve securities class actions
were also filed in the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel with
similar allegations to those made in the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TEVA PHARMA: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
motions for appointment for lead plaintiff and selection of counsel
in the putative securities class suit related to COPAXONE, is
pending.

On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Teva and certain of its former officers alleging, among
other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaint, purportedly filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and
August 18, 2020, alleges that Teva and certain of its former
officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false
and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of
COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had caused the
submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva's donations to
bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance
to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE's commercial success
and the sustainability of its revenues and resulted in the above
referenced August 2020 False Claims Act complaint filed by the
Department of Justice.

The securities class action complaint seeks unspecified damages,
legal fees, interest, and costs.

The case is in its preliminary stages. Motions for the appointment
of lead plaintiff and selection of counsel were filed in late
November 2020 and remain pending.

A motion to approve a securities class action was also filed in the
Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the
U.S. litigation, with similar allegations to those made in the
above complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that more
than 3,000 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales
and distribution against various Teva affiliates.

Since May 2014, more than 3,000 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts.

Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL
Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have
been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.

Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were
recently transferred back to federal district court for additional
discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial. Those cases are: City
of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 14-cv-04361 (N.D.
Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et
al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

Other cases remain pending in various states. In some
jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court cases
have been transferred to a single court within their respective
state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related
to Teva's generic opioid products.

In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various
putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal
injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all
of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding.

Furthermore, approximately 700 complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.

Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the
entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of
opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify
multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages.
The individual personal injury plaintiffs further seek non-economic
damages.

In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several
damages among all defendants.

Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in several
states in 2021, unless postponed as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic.

In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the
Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter,
Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for
$85 million. The settlement did not include any admission of
violation of law for any of the claims or allegations made.

As the Company demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the
litigation, for accounting purposes, management considered a
portion of opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded
an estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019. Given the
relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no amount
within the range to be the most likely outcome.

Therefore, management recorded a provision for the reasonably
estimable minimum amount in the assessed range for such
opioid-related cases in accordance with Accounting Standards
Codification 450 "Accounting for Contingencies."

On October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with the two
plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled for
trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of Ohio.
Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will provide the two
counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone
(sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone(R) with a
value of $25 million at wholesale acquisition cost and distributed
over three years to help in the care and treatment of people
suffering from addiction, and a cash payment in the amount of $20
million, to be paid in four payments over three years.

Also on October 21, 2019, Teva and certain other defendants reached
an agreement in principle with a group of Attorneys General from
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas for a nationwide
settlement framework. The framework is designed to provide a
mechanism by which the Company attempts to seek resolution of
remaining potential and pending opioid claims by both the U.S.
states and political subdivisions (i.e., counties, tribes and other
plaintiffs) thereof. Under this framework, Teva would provide
buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets) with an estimated value
of up to approximately $23 billion at wholesale acquisition cost
over a ten year period.

In addition, Teva would also provide cash payments of up to $250
million over a ten-year period.

As of January 2021, the Company continues to negotiate the terms
and conditions of the framework. The Company cannot predict if the
framework will be finalized with its current terms and obligations.
The Company considered a range of potential settlement outcomes.

The current provision remains a reasonable estimate of the ultimate
costs if the nationwide settlement framework is finalized based on
recent discussions. However, if not finalized for the entirety of
the cases, a reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be
determined. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or
investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages,
and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and could
have a material and adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business,
results of operations and cash flows.

Separately, on April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from
the United States Attorney's office in the Western District of
Virginia and the Civil Division seeking documents relating to the
manufacture, marketing and sale of branded opioids.

In August 2019, Teva received a grand jury subpoena from the United
States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York for
documents related to the Company's anti-diversion policies and
procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the
Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into
manufacturers' and distributors' monitoring programs and reporting
under the Controlled Substances Act.

In September 2019, Teva received subpoenas from the New York State
Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an
industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on
New York health insurance premiums. Following a Statement of
Changes and Notice of Hearing filed by the NYDFS, a hearing is
currently scheduled to take place in June 2021. Currently, Teva
cannot predict how the nationwide settlement framework agreement
(if finalized) will affect these investigations and administrative
actions.

In addition, a number of state attorneys general, including a
coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into
sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with
respect to opioids. Other states are conducting their own
investigations outside of the multistate group. Teva is cooperating
with these ongoing investigations and cannot predict their outcome
at this time.

In addition, several jurisdictions and consumers in Canada have
initiated litigation regarding opioids alleging similar claims as
those in the United States. The cases in Canada may be consolidated
and are in their early stages.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Watson Pharmaceuticals Settles with BCBSM
------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan (BCBSM) reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit.

Beginning in 2013, several putative class actions were filed
against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that
Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches)
violated the antitrust laws.

The cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in
federal court in California and were settled in 2018.

The the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)also filed suit to challenge
the Lidoderm(R) settlement, although in February 2019, FTC
dismissed its claims against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for
Teva's agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree.

In July 2019, Teva also settled a complaint brought by the State of
California. On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their
own lawsuit against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state
court relating to the Lidoderm(R) settlement.

Defendants moved to dismiss that lawsuit on June 5, 2020, and those
motions were granted in part and denied in part on October 16,
2020.

In January 2021, Watson and BCBSM reached an agreement in principle
to settle the lawsuit.

On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint
against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court relating to the
Lidoderm(R) settlement, which it subsequently amended on June 12,
2020.

Teva and Watson have moved to dismiss that amended complaint, and
their motion remains pending.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TOP FLIGHT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Exotic Dancers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY PEARSON and VERONICA ADAMSON On Behalf of Themselves and All
Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. TOP FLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT,
LTD; FLIGHT CLUB & M ZIN ENTERPRISES, INC.; ABCDE OPERATING, LLC
d/b/a PENTHOUSE CLUB; and ALAN MARKOVITZ, Case No.
2:21-cv-10258-PDB-KGA (E.D. Mich., Feb. 3, 2021) is a class and
collective action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf
of other female employees who, during the relevant period of
February 2018 through the date of judgment in this case (the
relevant period), worked as an exotic dancer at one or more of the
Defendants' Detroit Metropolitan Area Gentlemen's Clubs, and who
were classified as independent contractors and were denied minimum
wage compensation due and owing under federal and/or Michigan law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and all other exotic dancers
worked at each of the Defendants' Detroit Metropolitan Area
Gentlemen's Clubs through sign in or tip-in sheets, DJ records, and
shift-managers monitoring and supervising Plaintiffs' work duties
and the work duties of other exotic dancers at each club. At no
time during the Plaintiffs' period of employment did Defendants
ever pay Plaintiffs or any other exotic dancers any wages for hours
that Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers worked each week at
Defendants' Detroit Metropolitan Area Gentlemen's Clubs. The
Defendants misclassified them and all other exotic dancers as
independent contractors when these individuals should have been
classified under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan Minimum
Wage Law as employees, the Plaintiffs add.

The Defendants are doing business in the adult entertainment
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

TOYOTA MOTOR: 4-Runners Frame Rot Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
John Matarese, writing for WCPO, reports that many cars and trucks
are covered with road salt this chilly February -- salt that is not
good for the underside of cars. In most cases, a car wash removes
it, and there is no long-term harm.

But for owners of some popular pickup trucks, salt is even more
dangerous, because it can destroy their truck's frame.

What's worse, though, is that a special warranty extension to
replace those frames is running out, and many owners don't know
about it until it is too late.

Beautiful truck, but rotting underneath

Jeanne Middleton's 2004 Toyota Tacoma has been a trusted friend for
a decade, its paint still shiny and unblemished.

But that all changed in recent weeks, when the Cincinnati woman
says, "I heard something almost like a boom."

The pickup started swerving, so she took it to a local repair shop
and got some bad news. It was something far worse than a bad tire.

"They said the frame was cracked, that it was rusted and it was
unsafe to drive," she said.

Certified mechanic Mike Fehler lifted the truck on a rack in his
shop for us, and showed the extensive rust underneath.

He believes it needs new frame rails, or the whole truck bed and
rear end could fall off.

"Basically, where the leaf spring mounts to the frame this is load
bearing," he explained. "It is essential what holds the bed onto
the truck."

He told Middleton he had heard of an extended warranty for this
exact issue, but that's where things got even worse.

Safety recalls and warranty extensions save lives and save owners
money, in this case thousands of dollars in potential frame
repairs.


But if it is not an NHTSA (government)-ordered safety recall,
automakers set a window on them and, typically after 10 or 15
years, will not pay for a repair anymore.

That's happened with Jeanne Middleton's truck.

"They said there was a limited recall and it expired in 2019," she
said.

Warranty extension nearing its end for many owners

A call to Toyota confirmed that Middleton had just missed the
warranty cutoff date.

Toyota, in 2016, settled a class-action suit by agreeing to spend
$3 billion to repair millions of Tacomas, Tundras, and Sequioa
SUV's with rusting frames.

Model years affected are from 2004 to 2008 (or 2010 in a few
cases). This follows an earlier extended warranty affecting Toyota
trucks from 1995-2003.

But there's one catch: the program expires 15 years after the date
of manufacture.

Middlteton never saw a notice.

"I had the car in 2019 but did not receive any kind of notification
it was expiring," she said. She believes any letter about the
warranty extension may have been sent to the previous owner.

So don't let this happen to you, no matter what brand vehicle you
own.

-- Make sure your car's manufacturer has your current address, for
any recall or repair bulletins.

-- Ask your shop to inspect the underside when you bring it in for
an oil change.

-- Check your car for recalls at www.recalls.gov to see if you have
any outstanding safety issues. All you have to do is enter your
car's VIN.

-- Some states, like Ohio, now notify you at plate renewal time if
your car has an open recall.

"I would love to keep my truck," Middleton said. "I am sure it can
go another 100 thousand miles."

But it now needs a $7,000 frame repair in order to do that.

We spoke with a Toyota corporate spokeswoman, who promised that
customer service would contact Middleton about some possible
options.

But she would not promise a free repair, as the campaign ended a
year and half ago for her model.

A more recent class-action lawsuit claims Toyota 4-Runners can be
susceptible to the same premature frame rot, but that case is still
pending with no settlement.

As always, don't waste your money. [GN]


TRU TOP: Wolchko "Robocalling" Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as George D. Wolchko,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. Tru Top
Offer, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and Corey Geary,
an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-02506-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 23 and Rule 55 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the case to proceed on
behalf of the following class:

   "all persons within the United States who received an
   unsolicited call or voicemail from the Defendants or someone
   acting on Defendants' behalf or direction using an artificial
   or prerecorded voice without emergency purpose and without
   the recipient's prior express written consent within the four
   years preceding the filing of this Complaint."

In addition, Mr. Wolchko requests the Court leave to take discovery
to identify members of the class and determine the amount of
damages they are entitled to prior to entry of final judgment.

Mr. Wolchko brought this action on behalf of consumers who received
unsolicited telemarketing calls or voicemails from the Defendants
using an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA).

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' practice of leaving
unsolicited telemarketing voicemails using an artificial voice or a
prerecorded message, a practice also known as "robocalling," caused
the individuals in the class actual harm, including invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion upon seclusion,
trespass, and conversion. The robocalls also inconvenienced and
caused disruption to the daily lives of those in the class. The
Defendants use this telemarketing scheme on 10 hundreds, if not
thousands, of people to obtain their business and as such
certification of this case as a class action is appropriate.

Tru Top is a real estate investment company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 11,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M7aakt
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
          Jesse Vassallo Lopez, Esq.
          DESSAULES LAW GROUP
          5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200
          Phoenix, Arizona 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-5400
          Facsimile: (602) 274-5401
          E-mail: jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com
                  jvassallo@dessauleslaw.com

TWIN AMERICA: Court Approves Class Settlement Deal in Mirabel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRABEL, ET AL., v. TWIN
AMERICA LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:15-cv-05086-ALC-KNF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter entered a final order and judgment
granting the plaintiffs' consent motion to certify class for final
class certification, approval of class settlement agreement, class
counsel's fees, service awards and administration costs, as
follows:

   A. The Court confirms as final its certification of the Class
      for settlement purposes based on its findings in the
      Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any
      objections from Class Members to such certification;

   B. The Court approves the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      Settlement and certifies the collective class under the
      FLSA;

   C. The Court confirms as final the appointment of Plaintiffs
      Mariano Mirabel and William Hylton as representatives of
      the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
      and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   D. The Court likewise confirms as final the appointment of
      The Law Offices of Anthony Ofodile as Class Counsel for
      the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
      and for the collective members pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b);

   E. The Court finds that the Notice distributed to class and
      collective members pursuant to the Preliminary Approval
      Order constituted the best notice practicable under the
      circumstances, was accomplished in all material respects,
      and fully met the requirements of Rule 23, the FLSA , and
      due process;

   F. The Court hereby grants the Consent Motion for Final
      Approval and finally approves the settlement as set forth
      in the  Revised Settlement Agreement;

   G. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable
      and adequate in all respects and that it is binding on
      Class Members who did not timely opt out pursuant to the
      procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order;

   H. The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is
      rationally related to the relative strengths and
      weaknesses of the respective claims asserted;

   I. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
      Fees and awards Class Counsel $148,573.00 in fees and
      costs, less than 30% of the Settlement Fund, which the
      Court finds to be fair and reasonable;

   J. The Court approves and finds reasonable the two service
      awards for the named plaintiffs Mariano Mirabel and
      William Hylton each in the amount of $10,000, in
      recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of the
      class; and

   K. The Court approves and finds reasonable the payment of the
      Settlement Administrator's fees in the amount of
      $13,466.00, which shall be paid out of the Settlement
      Fund, according to the terms of the Revised Settlement
      Agreement.

Twin America was founded in 2009. The company's line of business
includes arranging and assembling tours for sale through travel
agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NCKr40 at no extra charge.[CC]

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Wage-Fixing Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit related to the alleged fixing of the
rate of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance
workers, is pending.

On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. An additional
complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily
Earnest.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. Following the consolidation, two additional
lawsuits were filed by individuals making similar allegations.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint containing
additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants and
named additional defendants.

The company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On
September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against Tyson and
certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint
improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The court
otherwise denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and sustained
claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange
information against five other defendants. The court granted the
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address the
impermissible group pleading.

On October 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint reasserting their claims. On December 18, 2020,
defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the second amended
complaint.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit in Oklahoma Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re
Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, in Oklahoma.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters, and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share
detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation
below competitive levels." The plaintiffs contend these alleged
acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section
202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied on January 6, 2020.
The parties are now conducting discovery in the Oklahoma action.

Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints
in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and
California. On October 6, 2020, the named plaintiffs in the
Oklahoma action filed a motion with the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer and
consolidate all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On
December 15, 2020, the JPML granted the plaintiffs' motion and
consolidated all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle
Antitrust Litigation.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well
as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. This complaint was
subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Other similar
lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district courts.

All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019.


The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which
the court granted on September 28, 2020. On December 28, 2020, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the putative class action suits initiated by turkey purchasers.

On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and
John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class
action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
entered into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive
information regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans,
all with the intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in
violation of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of all commercial
and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that purchased
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, alleging claims
based on the Sherman Act and various state law causes of action.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

The company moved to dismiss the complaints, and in decisions on
October 19 and 26, 2020, the court partially denied the motions.
The parties are now conducting discovery.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Pork Price-Fixing Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Pork
Antitrust Litigation.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of the company's pork subsidiaries, as well
as several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated
actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation.

Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding
with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others
may do so in the future. The individual complaint has been filed in
the District of Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The
plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in which
the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork
and pork products in violation of state and federal antitrust,
consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws, and the
plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on
behalf of the putative classes.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws.

This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an
amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. The company moved
to dismiss the amended complaints, and on October 16, 2020, the
court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims
but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs' federal
antitrust claims. The parties are now conducting discovery.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Settles Poultry Buyers' Lawsuit for $221.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Kelloway, writing for Civil Eats, reports that late last
month, Tyson Foods agreed to pay $221.5 million to settle several
private lawsuits brought by poultry buyers who accused the
corporation of colluding with competitors to raise chicken prices.
Tyson joins other dominant poultry and pork corporations in
settling private price-fixing suits after Pilgrim's Pride pled
guilty to similar charges brought by the Justice Department this
fall.

These settlements mark the end of a four-year legal battle in which
grocery shoppers, restaurant chains, and supermarkets accused major
meat corporations of conspiring to raise pork and poultry prices.
While these payouts are not an admission of guilt, the size and
timing of the settlements make some antitrust experts suspect foul
play.

"When you see a settlement like this what it tells you is that the
defendants have made the assessment that there's a substantial
likelihood that they will lose and they will lose big," says
emeritus law professor and former federal antitrust attorney Peter
Carstensen. "That is, the jury will not only find that they
colluded but that the collusion resulted in significant damages."

While hundreds of millions for cheated customers is nothing to
sneeze at, it is not clear if these payments will discourage future
collusion. One study found that most corporations that settle out
of court end up paying less in penalties than they made off the
conspiracy (and that's only the unlucky few who get caught). To
deter price-fixing, antitrust experts want to see criminal charges
for executives, new restrictions on information sharing between
competitors, and broader efforts to address the industry
consolidation that makes price-fixing easier to begin with.

Tyson recently settled three class-action lawsuits brought by
wholesale buyers (think: supermarkets and distributors), indirect
purchasers (think: restaurant chains), and direct consumers (you
and me). These cases all accused Tyson and some 13 other poultry
corporations of conspiring together to rig a poultry price index
and coordinate production cuts in order to raise the price of
chicken for wholesalers, who had to pass costs on to consumers and
restaurants.

Poultry processors allegedly used a data-sharing service,
AgriStats, to monitor one another and identify deviants in the
conspiracy. And the allegations extended beyond chicken. Numerous
private suits have accused pork and turkey processors of conspiring
together to raise prices with the help of AgriStats. Other suits
claim chicken processors used AgriStats to hold down wages for
workers and prices paid to farmers.

The recent rush to settle by both poultry and pork companies
suggest these claims were credible. In addition to Tyson, Pilgrim's
Pride reached a $75 million settlement and several smaller chicken
companies will pay a collective $13 million to settle their
charges. In December, the owner of Pilgrim's Pride, JBS, also
reached a $24.5 million settlement with pork buyers and agreed to
cooperate with ongoing litigation against co-conspirators, such as
Hormel.

Notably, these settlements come after Pilgrim's Pride pled guilty
in October to similar, but far more specific, bid-rigging charges
brought by the Justice Department. As a part of their antitrust
probe, the DOJ indicted 10 poultry executives who still face
charges.

Chicken companies maintain that this federal probe and the private
suits are unrelated and continue to deny broader price-fixing
allegations, even in settling. Tyson told the Wall Street Journal
that "the settlements were in the best interests of the company and
its shareholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense
and distraction of protracted litigation." Tyson and others claim
higher grain costs and new demand drove up chicken prices, not
collusion.

However, Carstensen doubts that Tyson and others would pay such
large settlements without some guilt. "When you tell me you are
paying $200 million to avoid trial, but you were going to win at
trial, there is a down home farm expression -- bullshit -- that
comes to mind," he says. "No, you realize[d] that there was a very
substantial probability that you would lose."

While $221 million may seem like a steep penalty, it likely dwarfs
what the corporation made in illicit profits. One study by
antitrust scholars found that in approximately 80 percent of
private price-fixing settlements the plaintiffs did not take back
the full value of overcharges.

By these odds, the risk of a fine alone may not outweigh the
benefits of price-fixing for corporations, especially since
scholars believe most cartels are never even discovered. To that
end, Carstensen would like to see more behavioral remedies or
conditions, that force corporations to change their business
practices—such as reasonable restrictions on information sharing
through third-parties like AgriStats. Carstensen and other scholars
also believe criminal charges for executives are a much stronger
deterrent for corporate decision-makers.

Carstensen also notes that decades of lax merger enforcement simply
makes collusion easier. "More markets are sufficiently concentrated
[with] few enough competitors that collusion of one kind or another
becomes much more feasible," he says. "There's a professor at the
Wharton school who has been saying, 'look if companies can't avoid
price fixing, why not just break 'em up, make the market more
workably competitive?' That's an extreme possibility, but very
unlikely." [GN]


ULTRA SHINE: Car Wash Attendants Get Collective Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romel Hernandez, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. Ultra Shine
Car Wash, Inc. and Adelino Pastilha, Case No. 7:20-cv-00498-NSR-AEK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered an order that:

   1. The collective action notice entitled "NOTICE OF LAWSUIT
      AND OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN," submitted as Exhibit A attached
      to plaintiff's letter of February 3, 2021, and the opt-in
      form entitled "CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION AND
      BECOME A PARTY PLAINTIFF," submitted as Exhibit B attached
      to the plaintiff's letter of February 3, 2021, are hereby
      approved for mailing to potential collective action opt-in
      the plaintiffs in English and Spanish and any other
      language spoken by a significant number of class members;

   2. The collective class of potential plaintiffs in this
      matter shall consist of:

      "all current and former car wash attendants who were
      employed by Ultra Shine Car Wash, Inc. at any time on
      or after January 20, 2017, to the date of this Order";

   3. Within ten days of this Order, the defendants shall
      provide to plaintiff's counsel, in a spreadsheet or other
      machine-readable form, the full names and last-known
      addresses of all potential plaintiffs who fit within the
      defined collective class, and indicate the native
      languages (if known) of any individuals for whom English
      is not their native language;

   4. For any identified individuals for whom defendants lack
      valid addresses, the defendants shall instead supply to
      the plaintiff's counsel telephone numbers and/or email
      addresses, to the extent the defendants possess this
      information;

   5. The Plaintiff's counsel shall keep all information
      supplied pursuant to strictly confidential, and shall use
      the information solely for the purpose of locating
      potential opt-in plaintiffs for the purpose of notifying
      them of the pendancy of this action;

   6. The Plaintiff shall mail the notice of collective action
      and opt-in form, in English and any other native language,
      to all potential collective action opt-in plaintiffs no
      later than ten days following defendants' disclosure of
      their names and addresses. The notice shall be dated the
      exact date of the initial mailing and the deadline date
      set forth in the notice shall be the date exactly 60 days
      thereafter;

   7. If any notice to any potential collective action opt-in
      plaintiff is returned as undeliverable, plaintiff's
      counsel is permitted to mail the notice to any such
      persons again at any other address they may determine is
      appropriate. However, this shall not extend the 60 day
      opt-in deadline from the date of the initial mailing;

   8. On the date the notices are mailed, the English and other
      language versions of the collective action notice and opt-
      in form shall be conspicuously posted at defendants'
      business, in a place accessible to employees, and
      maintained during the notice period, and the defendants
      shall provide photographic confirmation of same to
      plaintiff's counsel; and

   9. All potential collective action plaintiffs must opt-in no
      later than 60 days following the date of the initial
      mailing of the collective action notice by returning the
      executed form entitled "CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION
      AND BECOME A PARTY PLAINTIFF" in sufficient time for it to
      be filed with the Court no later than 60 days from the
      date of the initial mailing.

Ultra Shine operates a hand car wash and auto detailing center.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OWGOGH at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED FOOD: Nagel Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Nagel filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Nagel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local 653, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01053-WMW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 12, 2021,
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied Nagel's motion for class
certification.

The dispute arises from a 2018 collective bargaining agreement
("CBA") negotiated between Defendant Local 653 and SuperValu Cub
Foods and other independent grocers located in the Minneapolis
metropolitan area ("Grocers"). Nagel is employed by SuperValu and
is a member of Local 653. Local 653 is the exclusive bargaining
agent for all meat and food market employees of the Grocers.

Nagel brought the action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, asserting claims against Local 653 for breach
of the duty of fair representation and violation of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"). Local 653
moved to dismiss Nagel's claims, and the Court concluded that Nagel
has sufficiently alleged facts to state a claim for a breach of the
duty of fair representation by bad-faith conduct. It also dismissed
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Nagel's claim for violation
of the LMRDA.

Mr. Nagel is seeking an appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) to review the said order by Judge Wright.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Nagel v. United Food and
Com. Workers, Case No. 21-8003, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 16, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Matthew Nagel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott Moriarity, Esq.
          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON & THOME
          100 S Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3578
          E-mail: samoriarity@baillonthome.com
                  sjwanta@baillonthome.com   

Defendant-Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers Local 653
is represented by:

          Timothy J. Louris, Esq.
          Emily Lacy Marshall, Esq.
          MILLER & O'BRIEN
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2400
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1529
          Telephone: (612) 333-5831
          E-mail: tlouris@mojlaw.com
                  emarshall@mojlaw.com

UNITED INSURANCE: Seeks Feb. 26 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA BARRETT, as
Executrix of the Estate of Chester Barrett, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00215-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Defedant
United Insurance moves to extend its deadline to file a response to
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by nine days, from
February 17, 2021 to February 26, 2021.

The Defendant said, "The Plaintiff is not opposed to the requested
extension. United requests this extension to ensure that it is
given adequate time to brief the issues presented in the
Plaintiff's motion, which included a lengthy expert report. United
also requests this extension because both of United's lead lawyers
have summary judgment and Daubert deadlines in another matter on
February 12 and February 19, which will make it difficult to
prepare a thorough response to Plaintiff's motion by February 17.
If the Court grants United's requested extension, United agrees to
a commensurate nine-day extension of the Plaintiff's deadline to
file her class certification reply brief. The requested extension
will not alter any other case deadlines."

A copy of the Defendants's motion dated Feb. 10, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NbAWcd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for United Insurance Company of America, are:

          Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Campbell, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 870-4679
          E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Roger B. Cowie, Esq.
          Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          E-mail: rcowie@lockelord.com
                  tbrinkman@lockelord.com

UNITED STATES: Kluge Third Amended Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN C. KLUGE, et al., v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02618-DLF
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order that:


   1. The defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third
      amended complaint, or in the alternative, to strike the
      plaintiffs' class allegations, is granted in part;

      -- The plaintiffs' third amended complaint is dismissed
         without prejudice;

   2. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      appointment of class counsel is denied as moot; and

   3. The plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint that
      complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or
      before March 1, 2021.

The Court said, "The complaint fails to comply with the pleading
standards set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8
requires that a complaint contain "(1) a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" and "(2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." The complaint does neither."

The plaintiff, John C. Kluge, as putative class representative,
filed his initial complaint on August 29, 2019. On April 1, 2020,
Scott Schwieger was added as a named plaintiff and putative class
representative in a second amended complaint. On August 5, 2020,
the plaintiffs moved to file a third amended complaint, which this
Court granted by minute order on October 1, 2020. The defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss argues that the complaint should be
dismissed on various grounds, including for failure to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jXbC5w at no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Boley Savings Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY K. BOLEY, KANDIE
SUTTER and PHYLLIS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., THE
UHS RETIREMENT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02644-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1):

      "all participants and beneficiaries in the Universal
      Health Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan
      at any time on or after June 5, 2014 to the present,
      including any beneficiary of a deceased person
      who was a participant in the Plan at any time
      during the Class Period;"

   2. appointing themselves as representatives of the certified
      Class; and

   3. appointing Capozzi Adler, P.C. and Shepherd Finkelman
      Miller & Shah, LLP, as Co-Lead Class Counsel.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The only remedy
available to participants in the Plan is Plan-wide relief,
including the restoration of losses.

As a "defined contribution" or "individual account" retirement
plan, the Plan enables its participants to invest money contributed
from their salary or employer matching funds in a number of
investment options selected by The UHS Retirement Plans Investment
Committee and any former committees serving a similar function.

Each of the named plaintiffs was a participant in the Plan during
the Class Period and was invested in one or more of the options
currently at issue. Plaintiff Mary K. Boley is a participant in the
Plan and is invested in the Fidelity Freedom K 2050 target date
fund. Plaintiff Kandie Sutter is a participant in the Plan and is
invested in the Fidelity Freedom K 2025 fund. Plaintiff Phyllis
Johnson was a participant in the Plan during the Class Period and
was invested in the Fidelity Freedom K 2045 target date fund.

Universal Health is the Plan sponsor and Fidelity Management Trust
Company is the Trustee and recordkeeper of the Plan.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2OISLj7 at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: mark@capozziadler.com
          gabriellek@capozziadler.com
          donr@capozziadler.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Plan and the Proposed Class,
are:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Eric L. Young, Esq.
          Michael P. Ols, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN
          MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  eyoung@sfmslaw.com
                  mols@sfmslaw.com
                  aberin@sfmslaw.com
                  jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
                  ktang@sfmslaw.com

VAIL RESORTS: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Oct. 20, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Han v. Vail Resorts, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01121 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson
entered an order setting a full-day hearing on motion for class
certification for Oct. 20, 2022 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A 902.

The nature of suit states Diversity -- Breach of Contract.

Vail Resorts, Inc. is an American mountain resort company.[CC]


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Ferrari Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD FERRARI and
WILLIAM BOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-10475-GAO (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)
      and/or Rule 23(b)(2):

      Massachusetts Class defined as:

      "all persons who purchased BodyTech Creatine & Glutamine
      with Beta-Alanine, not for resale, in the State of
      Massachusetts from March 21, 2011 to present;" and

      Illinois Class defined as:

      "all persons who purchased BodyTech Glutamine and BodyTech
      BCAA & Glutamine, not for resale, in the State of Illinois
      from March 21, 2011 to present;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiff Richard Ferrari as class
      representative for the Massachusetts Class, and appointing
      the Plaintiff William Bohr as class representative for the
      Illinois Class; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP,
      Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, and Barbat Mansour Suciu &
      Tomina PLLC as class counsel for the Classes.

The Plaintiffs seek, in the alternative, certification of the
Massachusetts Class and Illinois Class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4)
for issues related to Defendant Vitamine Shoppe's liability for
violations of Massachusetts and Illinois consumer protection and
warranty laws.

The Plaintiffs Richard Ferrari and William Bohr bring this
straightforward false advertising case to recover the price premium
they and thousands of other consumers paid the Defendant for
L-glutamine supplements and to stop the Defendant from further
misinforming similar consumers. The Defendant uniformly told
consumers through its Labels -- and corroborated through statements
on its website -- that its BodyTech line of L-glutamine supplements
provided a number of health benefits, without any scientific
support, says the complaint.

Vitamin Shoppe is an American, New Jersey-based retailer of
nutritional supplements. It also operated three stores in Canada
under the name VitaPath from January 2013 until March 2016.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b9o5z8
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: Charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MH 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
          MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
          132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 580-8270
          E-mail: Erica@mirabellaLLC.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dack Has Until March 21 to File Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY DACK, et al., v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00615-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered
a scheduling order for class certification as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff Dack shall file any motion for class
      certification on or before March 21, 2022;

   2. The parties shall amend all pleadings and/or add parties
      on or before September 13, 2021;

   3. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure and related to Class Discovery shall be
      completed on or before February 28, 2022.

   4. At least three days before any discovery dispute
      conference or hearing, counsel for each party shall submit
      a Position Letter by email to the Courtroom Deputy;

   5. A party may request oral argument relative to a motion,
      consistent with L.R. 7.0(e); and

   6. A motion for extension of time should be filed at least
      three days before the deadline established by the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u8inGr at no extra charge.[CC]

WALGREEN BOOTS: Gray Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Phyllis Gray, Erika Brown, Lisa Satchel, Kenneth
Brewer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., LNK International, Inc., Case
No. 2:20-cv-04415, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 16, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00856 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Walgreens Boots Alliance -- https://www.walgreensbootsalliance.com/
-- is one of the largest drugstore chains in the U.S., has strong
market positions in Europe, Latin America and Asia, and is a
leading pharmaceutical wholesaler in Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Arthur Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Email: adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 784-6400
          Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara Madavo, Esq.
          David Alexander Hickerson, Esq.
          Jay N Varon, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 682-7474
          Email: smadavo@foley.com
                 dhickerson@foley.com
                 jvaron@foley.com


WEST TOWN: Somerville Suit Wins Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SOMERVILLE III, et
al., v. WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST, Case No. 8:19-cv-00490-PJM (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, for the reasons
provided during oral argument held on February 4, 2021.

Judge Messitte said, "The Court's order of February 4, 2021, is
amended and superseded by this order. The parties shall confer and
submit to the Court a proposed notice to the class no later than 30
days from entry of this order."

West Town offers a variety of financial services including
checking, savings, loans, and mortgages.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dtyoAP at no extra charge.[CC]

WESTCO CHEMICALS: Diaz ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merry Russitti Diaz and
Kater Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Ezekiel "Alan" Zwillinger; and
Steven Zwillinger, Case No. 2:20-cv-02070-ODW-AGR (C.D. Calif.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 15, 2021, for an
order:

   1. certify this case to proceed as a class action on behalf
      of:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Pension Plan
      whose Plan account had a balance at any time on or after
      March 03, 2014;"

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and any Westco
      employees having or exercising fiduciary responsibility
      for the investment of the Pension Plan's assets or
      administration of the Pension Plan's terms; and

   2. appointing Michael C. McKay and Shoham J. Solouki as Class
      Counsel.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) fiduciaries for the Westco
Chemicals Defined Benefit Pension Plan. In 2005, the Defendants
received a large cash settlement from a lawsuit involving
anticompetitive business practices. The Defendants wanted to avoid
paying the anticipated hefty tax bill on the cash settlement, so
they created the Pension Plan, and the Defendants used the cash
settlement to fund the Pension Plan. Then Defendants were able to
deduct the amount of the contribution against income for federal
tax purposes as well as funnel the money back to themselves over
time.

The facts of this case are extraordinary. The Defendants never
intended for the Pension Plan to be a legitimate Pension Plan that
provides meaningful retirement income to their employees, or to
otherwise comply with existing laws and regulations that govern
such plans. Rather, the Defendants created and have since used the
Pension Plan primarily to surreptitiously funnel the settlement
funds from the lawsuit to themselves and their relatives via the
Pension Plan. Indeed, the Defendants kept the existence of the
Pension Plan a secret from most of Westco Chemical's employees. The
Defendants did not design the Pension Plan to meet the
non-discrimination rules. The Defendants did not fund the Pension
Plan as required by the Internal Revenue Service and ERISA. The
Defendants did not administer the Pension Plan as required by
ERISA, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Pension Plan.

Westco is a supply and distribution company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qpt4lG
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:

          Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
          SOLOUKI SAVOY LLP
          316 West 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, California 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814-4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
          E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoy.com

               - and -

          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          5635 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 170
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us

WHIRLPOOL: Top-Load Washing Machine Model Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend two class action suits related to top-load washing
machine models.

The company is currently defending against two lawsuits that have
been certified for treatment as class actions in U.S. federal
court, relating to two top-load washing machine models.

In December 2019, the court in one of these lawsuits entered
summary judgment in Whirlpool's favor. That ruling remains subject
to appeal, and the other lawsuit is ongoing.

Whirlpool said, "We believe the lawsuits are without merit and are
vigorously defending them. Given the preliminary stage of the
proceedings, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any,
at this time. The resolution of these matters could have a material
adverse effect on our financial statements in any particular
reporting period."

Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and markets home appliances and
related products worldwide. Its principal products include laundry
appliances, refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances,
dishwashers, mixers, and other small domestic appliances. The
Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered in Benton Harbor,
Michigan.



                            *********

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 ***