/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210223.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, February 23, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 33

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
9F INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
ACCELLION INC: Cyberattack Prompts Class Action From Residents
ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Lures Investors to Approve Merger, Wilhelm Says

AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Piekarski Appeals D. Minn. Ruling to 8th Circuit
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: Sells Illegal Gambling Mobile Apps, Lowe Suit Alleges
BARRINGTON SCHOOL: Yorba Seeks Overtime Pay for Preschool Teachers
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Illegally Raise Crop Inputs' Prices, Ryan Says

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Walls Sues Over Baby Food's Deceptive Labels
BNP PARIBAS: Hausfeld and Hecht Partners Announce Court's Ruling
CBS CORP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Musiello's Sexual Harassment Claims
CBS INTERACTIVE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIOX HEALTH: Schutte Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin

CLIENT SERVICES: Thomas Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CLOVER HEALTH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
COAL HEADWEAR: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CRST EXPEDITED: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Montoya FLSA Suit
CVS HEALTH: R.I. Court Tosses Miami FIPO Trust Securities Suit

DELOITTE CONSULTING: Smith Files Class Suit in Ohio
DONALD J. TRUMP: Faces Class Suit Demanding Past Four Years Back
EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Hoekman Appeals D. Minn. Ruling to 8th Cir.
EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Wins Summary Judgment in Hoekman and Piekarski
EHANG HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 19 Deadline

EHANG HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EXXON MOBIL: Pawar Law Reminds of March 29 Deadline

FACEBOOK INC: Canadian Class Action Over Data Scandal Dismissed
FACEBOOK INC: Eliminates Market Competition, Kovacevich Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Ad Metrics
FCA US: Myslivecek Sues Over Defective Clutch in Jeep Vehicles
FIRST NATIONAL: Lara Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.

FISHER-PRICE: Hanson Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Kimmel Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Mulvey Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Nadel Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
FISHER-PRICE: Pasternacki Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes

FOREST LABORATORIES: Class Cert. Bid in Namenda IP Suit Partly OK'd
FUBOTV INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline

FUBOTV INC: Ibrahim Sues Over Misleading Company Growth Prospects
FUBOTV INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 19 Deadline
GAMESTOP CORP: YouTuber Keith Gill Confirmed for Class Action Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Robbins Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content

GOOGLE INC: Faces Possible Class-Action Over Game Resolution
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Chabot Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
HOME DEPOT: Gregorio FDUTPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HUAZHU GROUP: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
IMMUNOVANT INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action

IMMUNOVANT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 20 Deadline
INNOVATION TOOTELO: Court Authorizes Suit Over Medical Appointments
INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE: Young Suit Remanded to St. Clair Cir. Court
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: The Schall Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline

KEITH GILL: Faces $5M Suit Over GameStop Stock Price Manipulation
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Announces of Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
LABOR SOURCE: BluSky's Bid for Cert. to Appeal in Murphy Denied
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Acthar Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to Appeal Denied

MDL 2641: D. Arizona Issues 5th Amended Remand and Transfer Order
MDL 2978: Transfer for Hotel's Accessibility Issue Suits Denied
MDL 2981: Google Antitrust Actions Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2982: Transfer for Prisoners' Home Confinement Actions Denied
MDL 2983: Transfer of Dickey's Data Breach Actions Denied

METALS USA: Court Grants Final OK of $2.8-Mil. Wilson Settlement
MML INVESTORS: Artificially Inflated GME Stock Prices, Iovin Says
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Class-Action Proposes $65M Settlement for Public
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Painkiller Suit Moves Closer to Trial
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Scantlebury

ONTARIO: Agrees to Pay $10MM to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Bitmouni Sues Over Compromised Personal Data
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC's Bid for Summary Judgment in Stradford Denied
PENUMBRA INC: RM Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
PLUM PBC: McKeon Sues Over Plum Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in South Insurance Suit
RED ROBIN: Bruun Suit Remanded to Nevada's 8th Judicial Dist. Ct.
SAPPHIRE INVESTMENTS: Garcia Seeks Online Booking's Access Features
SECURITY BENEFIT: Court Dismisses Clinton Suit Without Prejudice
SHILLING TRUCKING: Deny CEPA Suit Alleges Retaliatory Termination

SHIRE LLC: May Arbitrate Claims in Intuniv Antitrust Litigation
SIMPLY SELF: Freeman Sues Over Harassment and Retaliatory Discharge
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Court Certifies Class in Makaneole Suit
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: James Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
SPANCRETE INC: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Dokey Suit

SUN-MAID GROWERS: Velasquez Suit Claims Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TITAN HOLDINGS: Faces Garcia ADA Suit Over Online Hotel Room Access
TOWER IMAGING: Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Chiropractic Clinic Says
TRU TOP: Arizona District Court Certifies Class in Wolchko Suit
TYSON FOODS: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline

TYSON FOODS: Settlement Reached in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
TYSOON FOODS: Peterson Suit over Inflated Beef Price Underway
UNITED AIRLINES: Claims in Rudolph Suit Narrowed; Bid to Stay Nixed
WATER TOWER: Mendoza BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WESTERN UNION: Perez Sues Over Intercepted Online Communications

WILORNA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Serve Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
WW NORTH AMERICA: Hirsh Labor Suit Settlement Wins Final Approval

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE THOMAS, as Administrator of the Estate of JERRY WADE THOMAS,
deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-RMG
(D.S.C., February 16, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

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

9F INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 22, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired 9F Inc. ("9F" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JFU) securities:
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019
initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b)
between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your 9F investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/9f-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

In August 2019, 9F completed its initial public offering ("IPO"),
selling approximately 8.9 million American Depositary Shares at
$9.50 a share.

On September 27, 2019, 9F reported its second quarter 2019
financial results for the period that ended prior to the IPO. The
Company stated that its net accounts receivable increased from
RMB277 million as of March 31, 2019 to RMB 858 million as of June
30, 2019, a 210% sequential increase.

On this news, 9F shares fell $0.59, or 5%, to close at $10.35 per
ADS on September 27, 2019.

On December 5, 2019, 9F reported its third quarter 2019 financial
results for the quarter during which the IPO had been conducted.
The Company stated that its net accounts receivables had increased
more than ten-fold from RMB180 million as of December 31, 2018 to
RMB1.9 billion as of September 30, 2019.

On this news, 9F shares fell $0.50, or nearly 5%, over two
consecutive trading sessions to close at $9.60 per ADS on December
6, 2019.

On June 12, 2020, 9F revealed an ongoing dispute with Property and
Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") involving RMB2.2 billion in
unpaid service fees. The Company stated that RMB1.4 billion in
service fees that had previously been recorded as accounts
receivable were now recognized as fully impaired.

On June 17, 2020, 9F described the devastating consequences of the
Company's dispute with PICC, including that the two entities "are
pursuing legal actions against each other" and that 9F sought
damages of approximately RMB2.3 billion from PICC to cover the
outstanding service fees and related late payment losses. Moreover,
9F had "suspended [its] cooperation with PICC on new loans under
[its] direct lending program since December 2019," causing total
net revenues to decrease by 54.4% year-over-year.

On this news, 9F shares fell $0.31 per ADS, or nearly 5%, to close
at $6.00 per ADS on June 17, 2020.

On June 24, 2020, the Company reported a valuation allowance for
the accounts receivable from PICC of more than $1.4 billion.

On this news, 9F shares fell $0.57, or 14%, to close at $4.05 per
ADS on June 25, 2020.

On September 29, 2020, 9F announced its unaudited financial results
for the first half of 2020 ended June 30, 2020. The Company
disclosed that its loan origination volume had fallen over 90%, the
number of active borrowers utilizing their platform had decreased
over 80% and the Company's total net revenues had plummeted over
60% during the first half of 2020 as compared to the latter half of
2019.

On this news, 9F shares fell $0.20, or 18%, to close at $0.91 per
ADS on September 29, 2020, thereby damaging investors. Since the
IPO, 9F ADSs have traded as low as $1.40 per ADS, an 85% decline
from the IPO price.

The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the purported value and benefits of the
Company's financial institution partners and its tri-party
cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were
materially overstated, given that 9F and PICC had been engaged in
an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of service fees
under the Cooperation Agreement; (2) the collectability of service
fees owed to 9F by PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in
doubt and at serious risk of non-payment; (3) there was a
significant risk that PICC would no longer provide credit insurance
and guarantee protection to investors and institutional funding
partners; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
platform, business model, reputation and financial results had been
materially impaired.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired 9F securities
pursuant/traceable to the IPO and/or during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 22, 2021 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]



ACCELLION INC: Cyberattack Prompts Class Action From Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Accellion Inc. is to blame for a
recent hack of the Washington State Auditor's Office because it
negligently marketed the outdated file transfer system targeted in
the cyberattack, according to a new proposed class action filed in
California federal court.

The WSAO announced earlier this month that a third party had
compromised the personal identifying information of nearly 1.6
million Washington residents by exploiting vulnerabilities in
Accellion's file transfer product services.

Accellion's File Transfer Appliance product, used by the state
agency to host information about unemployment insurance claims, was
outdated and nearing its end of life by 2020, according to Madalyn
Brown's complaint. A footnote links to a Feb. 1 Accellion press
release that referred to FTA as a 20-year-old legacy product.

The hack has also affected international law firms Jones Day and
Goodwin Proctor, compromising confidential client information
hosted on the Accellion file transfer system.

Brown's lawsuit alleges that the Palo Alto, Calif.-based software
company negligently failed to ensure that its FTA product had the
proper cybersecurity protocols to protect the personal identifying
information transferred and received by the WSAO. She also accuses
the company of violating the Washington State Consumer Protection
Act. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

She hopes to represent a class of Washington residents whose names,
social security numbers, bank information, and other sensitive
information was accessed in the cyber attack.

Causes of Action: Negligence; the Washington State Consumer
Protection Act.

Relief: Declaratory and injunctive relief; damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest; disgorgement; restitution; costs and fees.

Potential Class Size: 1.6 million individuals.

Response: Accellion didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Attorneys: Hammond Law PC represents the proposed class.

The case is Brown v. Accellion, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 21-cv-01155,
complaint filed 2/17/21. [GN]

ACCRETIVE CAPITAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accretive Capital
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Accretive Capital LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01414 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

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

Accretive Capital Management, LLC --
http://www.accretivecapital.com/-- operates as a private
investment fund. The Company invests in small and micro-cap public
companies.[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


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Lures Investors to Approve Merger, Wilhelm Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WILHELM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AEROJET ROCKETDYNE HOLDINGS, INC., KEVIN P.
CHILTON, THOMAS A. CORCORAN, EILEEN P. DRAKE, JAMES R. HENDERSON,
WARREN G. LICHTENSTEIN, LANCE W. LORD, AUDREY A. MCNIFF, and MARTIN
TURCHIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01348 (C.D. Cal., February
15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement, which
recommends that Aerojet Rocketdyne stockholders vote in favor of
the proposed acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne by Lockheed Martin
Corporation, with the SEC. The Proxy Statement omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) Aerojet Rocketdyne's financial projections and the financial
analyses supporting the fairness opinions provided by the board's
financial advisors, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Evercore
Group L.L.C.; (ii) the background of the proposed transaction; and
(iii) potential conflicts of interest faced by company insiders.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions, Aerojet Rocketdyne's
public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy
Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them
from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on
the proposed transaction.

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. is an American technology-based
manufacturer based in El Segundo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310) 208-2800
     Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
     E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

           - and –

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Telephone: (212) 682-3025
     Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Piekarski Appeals D. Minn. Ruling to 8th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas P. Piekarski filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jayme Prokes, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5; American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No.
5, Local 2440, as representative of the class of all chapters and
affiliates of the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5; American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, the Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02384-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants have violated Plaintiff's rights by
establishing an "agency shop," where employees were compelled to
pay money to AFSCME Council 5 and its affiliates as a condition of
employment. And the Defendants are continuing to violate Ms.
Prokes's rights by taking union dues from her paycheck -- even
after she resigned her union membership and instructed the union to
terminate all union-related payroll deductions.    

Plaintiff Thomas P. Piekarski seek a review of the Court's Judgment
dated February 16, 2021, denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and granting Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Piekarski v. AFSCME,
Council No. 5, et al., Case No. 21-1372, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 30, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on April 9, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Mary Dee Buros, Paul Hanson, Linda Hoekman
and Thomas P. Piekarski is due on April 9, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas P. Piekarski, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Dickey, Esq.
          Douglas Seaton, Esq.  
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7002

               - and -

          Talcott Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-8730
          E-mail: ginger@talcottfranklin.com  

               - and -

          Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW, PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

Defendants-Appellees American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, as representative of the class
of all chapters and affiliates of the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5; American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Local
2440, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates
of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, Council No. 5; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees; and American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Local 221, as representatives
of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5
are represented by:

          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          Jacob Karabell, Esq.
          April Pullium, Esq.
          Ramya Ravindran, Esq.
          John M. West, Esq.
          Georgina Yeomans, Esq.  
          BREDHOFF & KAISER
          805 15th Street, N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: ldayan@bredhoff.com
                  jkarabell@bredhoff.com
                  apullium@bredhoff.com
                  jwest@bredhoff.com
                  gyeomans@bredhoff.com   

               - and -

          Josie Doris Hegarty, Esq.
          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
           AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
          300 Hardman Avenue, S.
          South Saint Paul, MN 55075
          Telephone: (612) 772-3119

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. ("AgEagle" or
the "Company") (NYSE: UAVS) to determine whether the Company
engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report which
stated, among other things, that AgEagle ". . . was a pump & dump
scheme orchestrated by Alpha Capital Anstalt . . ., AgEagle founder
and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS insiders to
defraud US investors."

The Bonitas Research report also stated that Bonitas Research " . .
. [has] found no evidence of any 'major e-commerce customer' or any
drone technology credited to AgEagle other than reference to the
Promo Video leaked by AgEagle's founder and former Chairman Bret
Chilcott's daughter."

Additionally, Bonitas Research reported that "[i]n 4Q'20 an Amazon
spokesperson disclosed to reporter Daniel McCoy of the Witchita
Business Journal that Amazon specifically does not have any
dealings with AgEagle whatsoever."

On this news, shares of AgEagle dropped significantly during
intraday trading, closing down 36.41% on February 18, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, UAVS SECURITIES AND
SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $50,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE
KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT
KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT.
802, KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors. [GN]

APPLE INC: Sells Illegal Gambling Mobile Apps, Lowe Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIESHA LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-01144 (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Civil Remedy Statutes and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's offering, selling, and
distribution of illegal gambling games developed by Zynga, Inc.
through its App Store for consumers to download and play. Apple is
responsible, in part, for the creation or development of
applications (apps) sold and marketed through its App Store. Apple
encourages application developers to incorporate its cutting-edge
Apple technologies into their apps to create useful and engaging
user experiences. Apple contributes materially to the illegality of
the casino-style apps developed by Zynga by permitting the apps to
be marketed and sold in its App Store, the suit says.

Apple Inc. is a manufacturer of smartphones, personal computers,
tablets, wearables and accessories, with its principal place of
business in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
         PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
         15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Telephone: (818) 788-8300
         Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
         E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

                - and –

         Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
         Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
         TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
         1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 973-0900
         Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
         E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 agold@tzlegal.com

                - and –

         Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
         Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
         Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
         1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 525-4100
         Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
         E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 alperstein@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com

BARRINGTON SCHOOL: Yorba Seeks Overtime Pay for Preschool Teachers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH YORBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARRINGTON SCHOOL, LLC; CONSOLIDATED
LEARNING CENTERS, INC.; JELLY BEAN JUNCTION LEARNING CENTER LLC;
JESSICA HOFFMAN; JEFFREY A. ROBY; and BONNIE ROBY, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00691-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, February 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff Yorba worked as an hourly preschool teacher for the
Defendants from approximately August 2018 to December 2019. She was
promoted as assistant director until the end of her employment in
October 2020.

Barrington School, LLC is a daycare school doing business in Ohio.

Consolidated Learning Centers, Inc. is a childcare learning center
doing business in Ohio.

Jelly Bean Junction Learning Center LLC is a childcare learning
center doing business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         Kelsie N. Hendren, 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
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

                  - and –

         Peter Contreras, Esq.
         CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 787-4878
         Facsimile: (614) 957-7515
         E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Illegally Raise Crop Inputs' Prices, Ryan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN BROS., INC. and MICHAEL J. RYAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED COOPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL
SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No.
0:21-cv-00433-NEB-BRT (D. Minn., February 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, state consumer protection
statutes, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from an unlawful agreement between Defendants,
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of seeds and crop
protection chemicals to artificially increase and fix the prices of
these chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides
used by farmers. The cost of seeds and crop protection chemicals is
increasing at a significantly faster rate than profits from
farmers' crop yields. The skyrocketing prices are causing farmers
to take on operating debt and often forcing them into bankruptcy,
creating a crisis situation in the agriculture community for
American farmers who are critical to the nation's food supply.
Neither the cost increases nor the price disparities are
attributable to any independent legitimate cause, such as weather
or other factors, the suit says.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants have maintained
supracompetitive prices for crop chemicals by denying farmers
access to accurate pricing information and have injured farmers by
forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that drastically
outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices.

Bayer Cropscience LP is a crop science company based in Saint
Louis, Missouri.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Cargill Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

BASF Corporation is a chemical company in Florham Park, New
Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a company that provides crop protection
products based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of seed
and crop protection products, headquartered in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.

Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Downers Grove, Illinois.

Federated Cooperatives Ltd. is a co-operative federation providing
procurement and distribution to member co-operatives in Western
Canada.

CHS Inc. is a Fortune 100 business owned by United States
agricultural cooperatives, farmers, ranchers, and thousands of
preferred stock holders, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights,
Minnesota.

Nutrien AG Solutions Inc. is an agriculture inputs company based in
Colby, Kansas.

Growmark Inc. is a regional agricultural supply cooperative based
in Illinois.

Growmark FS, LLC is a fertilizer supplier located in Milford,
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a farm supplies company based in
Rayville, Louisiana.

Tenkoz, Inc. is a distributor of crop protection products based in
Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
         Anne T. Regan, Esq.
         Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
         HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
         8050 West 78th Street
         Edina, MN 55439
         Telephone: (952) 941-4005
         Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
         E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
                 aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                 nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Drew R. Ball, Esq.
         Steve McCann, Esq.
         BALL & McCANN, P.C.
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (872) 205-6556
         E-mail: Drew@BallMcCannLaw.com
                 Steve@BallMcCannLaw.com

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Walls Sues Over Baby Food's Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE WALLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; and N.W., a minor child, by his parent and general
guardian Michelle Walls, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY; THE
HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.; NURTURE, INC. D/B/A HAPPY FAMILY
ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY; and PLUM PBC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00870-DG-SJB (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of violation of the
New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, negligence, gross negligence, strict product
liability, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied
warranty.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
deceptive marketing, advertising, and labeling of baby food
products. The Defendants manufactured, advertised, marketed,
distributed, and sold their organic baby food as the best and
healthiest options available. However, it was discovered that the
Defendants' products contain toxic heavy metals. Despite the
discovery, the Defendants allegedly published advertisements,
communications, and product labeling that present the baby food
products as healthy, safe, suitable for babies, and that they help
in children's development.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. is a baby food manufacturer with its
principal place of business and headquarters located at One
Nutritious Place, Amsterdam, New York.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is an American food company with its
principal place of business and headquarters located at 111 Marcus
Avenue, #1, Lake Success, New York.

Gerber Products Co. is a baby food manufacturer with its principal
place of business and headquarters located at 1812 North Moore
Street, Arlington, Virginia.

Nurture Inc., doing business as Happy Family Organics, is an
organic baby and toddler food company with its principal place of
business and headquarters at 1 Maple Avenue, White Plains, New
York.

Plum PBC is a food company with its principal place of business and
headquarters located at 1485 Park Avenue, Suite 200, Emeryville,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Christopher K. Leung, Esq.
         Max E. Rodriguez, Esq.
         POLLOCK COHEN LLP
         60 Broad St., 24th Fl.
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (917) 985-3995
         E-mail: Chris@PollockCohen.com

BNP PARIBAS: Hausfeld and Hecht Partners Announce Court's Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has ruled that a class action can
move forward against French bank BNP Paribas S.A., for conspiracy
and aiding and abetting human rights violations in Sudan from 1997
to 2009. The class action is brought on behalf of twenty-one
Sudanese-American victims and a putative class of more than 10,000
refugees, represented by Hausfeld and Hecht Partners. The
plaintiffs -- victims of murder, rape, and torture -- seek to hold
BNP Paribas liable for illegally financing the genocidal regime of
Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir through fraud and sanctions
evasion.

Judge Nathan refused to extinguish the case, rejecting the bank's
argument that it could not be an accomplice to genocide under Swiss
law, which the court had previously decided applied in the case.
Adopting the views of Swiss legal scholar Franz Werro, Judge Nathan
held that Swiss law indeed provides a basis for the plaintiffs to
hold the bank civilly liable:

"The facts alleged in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint,
assuming they are true, demonstrate that BNPP knew or at least
should have known that the Sudanese government was committing
horrific abuses, that those abuses were committed with weapons and
soldiers that were bought with funds generated by its relationship
with BNPP, that the Regime would not otherwise be able to obtain
those funds without BNPP deciding to break the law, and that the
purpose of that law was at least in part to prevent the Regime from
continuing those abuses - which is why BNPP undertook measures to
evade detection of its activities from the U.S. government, its
shareholders, and the world."

In its opinion, the court found that the plaintiffs have alleged
enough facts to demonstrate that BNP Paribas knew or should have
known that it was fueling -- and profiting from -- genocide.
Describing the bank's alleged scheme with the Sudanese regime as a
"profitable business relationship," Judge Nathan found that the
bank allegedly "was able to generate those profits for the Regime
(taking a cut for itself) in part because of genocide."

"This ruling recognizes our clients' claims under Swiss law and
confirms that willful or negligent complicity in human rights
abuses means civil liability," say Kathryn Lee Boyd of Hecht
Partners and Brent W. Landau of Hausfeld, interim co-lead counsel.
"Thousands of Sudanese refugees—who have never received any
compensation -- are one step closer to justice. We look forward to
obtaining discovery of evidence to be used at trial."

Kashef et al. v. BNP Paribas S.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AJN
(S.D.N.Y), was filed in 2016 and alleges that BNP Paribas served as
the genocidal Sudanese regime's de facto central bank from 1997 to
2007, circumventing U.S. economic sanctions to illegally provide
the Sudanese government access to U.S. financial markets, which was
critical for the funding of the Sudanese government's genocidal
campaign. BNP Paribas pled guilty in 2015 to circumventing U.S.
sanctions designed to prevent state-sponsored human rights abuses
and terrorism and agreed to pay an $8.97 billion penalty to the
United States government to settle federal and state charges. This
class action litigation seeks compensation for Sudanese refugees in
the United States, victims of their own government's atrocities,
funded and sustained by BNP Paribas's sanctions-evasion scheme.

                         About Hausfeld

Hausfeld is a leading global law firm with offices in Amsterdam,
Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Düsseldorf, London, Stockholm, New York,
Paris, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The firm
has a broad range of complex litigation expertise, particularly in
antitrust/competition, financial services, sports and
entertainment, environmental, mass torts, consumer protection, and
human rights matters, often with an international dimension.
Hausfeld aims to achieve the best possible results for clients
through its practical and commercial approach, avoiding litigation
where feasible, yet litigating robustly when necessary. Hausfeld's
extensive experience with alternative and innovative fee models
offers clients a diverse menu of engagement options and maximum
flexibility in terms of managing their cost exposure. Hausfeld is
the only claimants' firm to be ranked by The Legal 500 and Chambers
& Partners as a top tier firm in private enforcement of
antitrust/competition law in both the United States and Europe. For
more information about the firm, including recent trial victories
and landmark settlements, please visit www.hausfeld.com.

                       About Hecht Partners

Hecht Partners is a national commercial litigation firm that
focuses on complex civil litigation, plaintiff-side class actions,
international litigation and arbitration, and intellectual
property. Its attorneys have more than 25 years of experience
representing clients in a variety of high-profile disputes,
including victims of Argentina's "dirty war," indigenous peoples
suing sovereigns and multinational oil companies, and other victims
of multinational organizations. The firm has also been at the
forefront of recent litigation concerning COVID-19. Hecht Partners
prides itself on its entrepreneurial spirit and lean, efficient
operations based in next-generation technologies. With offices in
New York and Los Angeles, Hecht Partners attorneys are also members
of the bar in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia. For more information about
the firm, please visit www.hechtpartners.com [GN]

CBS CORP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Musiello's Sexual Harassment Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants CBS Corp.'s motion to dismiss claims against it in the
lawsuit entitled JACQUELYN MUSIELLO and other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CBS CORPORATION, CBS RADIO INC., CBS SPORTS
RADIO NETWORK INC., ENTERCOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP., DAN TAYLOR,
MARGARET MARION, ABC CORPORATIONS "1-5" and JOHN DOES "1-10,"
Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 2569 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.).

The case involves claims by a radio station employee of sexual
harassment and discrimination. Musiello alleges that, while
employed as an accountant and a payroll and human resources manager
for CBS Radio Inc. and CBS Sports Radio Network, she was sexually
harassed by Dan Taylor ("Taylor"), a radio host. Musiello brings
claims, on behalf of a putative class, of hostile-work-environment
discrimination, sexual harassment, and disparate-impact
discrimination, and individual claims of retaliation and
constructive discharge. She also brings a class claim of a failure
to pay overtime wages.

Her claims are brought under state and local law: the New York
State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law Section 296, et seq.
("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin.
Code Section 8-502(a), et seq. ("NYCHRL").

Although all other Defendants have answered Musiello's Complaint,
one, CBS Corp., has moved to dismiss the claims against it.  It
argues that Musiello has not viably pled that it was a single
employer of Musiello's, alongside her immediate employer, Defendant
CBS Radio, Inc.

On February 14, 2020, Musiello filed a class action complaint in
New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, claiming
hostile-work-environment discrimination, sexual harassment,
disparate-impact discrimination, and a failure to pay overtime
wages, all on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.
As to herself individually, Musiello brought retaliation and
constructive discharge claims.

On March 25, 2020, the Defendants removed the case to federal
court, and the matter was assigned to this Court. The Defendants
asserted that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

On April 24, 2020, Musiello moved to remand the case to state
court. On April 30, 2020, CBS Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On
May 22, 2020, the named Defendants collectively filed a memorandum
of law in opposition to Musiello's remand motion. On June 5, 2020,
the Court denied Musiello's motion to remand, finding that the
Defendants had satisfied CAFA's numerosity requirement, having
proffered that, based on human-resources records, the putative
class has more than 100 members.

Consistent with the briefing schedule the Court set, on July 10,
2020, Musiello filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On August
7, 2020, CBS Corp. filed a motion to dismiss, and a memorandum of
law in support. It argues that the FAC does not adequately allege
that CBS Corporation exerted control over CBS Radio Inc. such as to
make the two entities a "single" or "joint" employer, as required
for CBS Corp. to be liable under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. It also
argues that the FAC's claims before February 14, 2017, are
untimely, and that its claim for overtime wages does not allege
sufficient facts to be plausible.

District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer notes that an essential element
of a claim under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL is the existence of an
"employer-employee relationship," citing Brown v. Daikin Am. Inc.,
756 F.3d 219, 226 (2d Cir. 2014). He finds that the FAC alleges
that CBS Corporation exerted control over CBS Radio Inc. so as make
the two entities part of a "single" employer. He opines, among
other things, that CBS Corporation is not a single employer with
CBS Radio.

For these reasons, the FAC does not satisfy the most important
factor bearing on a single-employer claim: that CBS Corp. had
control over the hiring, discipline, or supervision of CBS Radio
employees in general, and Plaintiff Musiello in particular.

The Court holds that the FAC fails to plead sufficient facts
supporting the inference that CBS Corp. and Musiello had an
"employer-employee relationship," and, therefore, dismisses the
claims under NYSHRL and NYCHRL against CBS Corp. It follows that,
to the extent Musiello seeks to pursue class claims on behalf of
employees of CBS Corp., she cannot do so, and this aspect of her
putative class claims too is dismissed.

Musiello also claims that CBS Corp. is liable for failing to pay
her, and the other members of the class she claims to represent,
overtime wages. She brings these claims under "various federal,
state, and/or local statutes and/or regulations, including, but not
limited to, New York State Labor Laws, and in particular, N.Y.L.L
Sections 190 and 160."

Judge Engelmayer holds that these claims fail for two reasons.
First, these statutes impose wage obligations only on employers.
The FAC does not adequately plead that CBS Corp. was an employer of
Musiello's. Second, the FAC's overtime claims are insufficiently
specific. It alleges only that: "In the course of performing her
duties, Plaintiff Musiello worked more than 40 hours per week
beginning in or about 2015 and continuing until her separation
February 17, 2017. Despite qualifying, Plaintiff Musiello was
denied overtime wages."

The Court, therefore, dismisses Musiello's unpaid overtime claim
for failure to state a claim. Because the second infirmity in this
overtime claim is not limited to Musiello's overtime claims against
CBS Corp., the Court dismisses such claims against all Defendants,
including CBS Radio.

For these reasons, the Court grants CBS Corp.'s motion to dismiss
in its entirety, and further dismisses Musiello's overtime claims
in their entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motions pending at dockets 18 and 41, and to terminate CBS Corp. as
a defendant in this case.

The Court schedules an initial pretrial conference with counsel for
the answering Defendants for March 3, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. The
conference will be held telephonically. Counsel are directed to
review the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in
light of COVID-19, found at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-paul-engelmayer, for the Court's
procedures for telephonic conferences. The counsel is further
directed to prepare a Civil Case Management Plan and joint letter
in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules, to be submitted to
the Court no later than February 26, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/1dsjsi5z from
Leagle.com.


CBS INTERACTIVE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBS Interactive Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CBS Interactive Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01413 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

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

CBS Interactive Inc. (formerly CBS Digital Media Group) --
https://cbsinteractive.com/ -- is an American media company and is
a subsidiary of the CBS Entertainment Group division of ViacomCBS.
It is an online content network for information and
entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIOX HEALTH: Schutte Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Donna Schutte, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons or entities v. Ciox Health
LLC, ProHealth Care Inc., Case No. 21-CV-172 was removed from the
Waukesha County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 17, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00204 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Ciox Health -- https://www.cioxhealth.com/ -- is a healthcare
information management company with headquarters in Alpharetta,
Georgia. The company provides a variety of services in the release
of information department, record retrieval and health information
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan M Foeckler, Esq.
          Brett A Eckstein, Esq.
          Edward E Robinson, Esq.
          CANNON & DUNPHY SC
          595 N Barker Rd
          PO Box 1750
          Brookfield, WI 53008-1750
          Phone: (262) 796-3704
          Fax: (262) 796-3714
          Email: afoeckler@cannon-dunphy.com
                 beckstein@c-dlaw.com
                 erobinson@c-dlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel A Manna, Esq.
          GASS WEBER MULLINS LLC
          241 N Broadway-Ste 300
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Phone: (414) 224-3447
          Fax: (414) 224-6116
          Email: manna@gwmlaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Thomas Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Camille Thomas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00859 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

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

Client Services, Inc. -- https://www.clientservices.com/ -- is a
full service Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm offering a
diverse selection of collection and recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLOVER HEALTH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Clover Health Investments, Corp.
(NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW) ("Clover Health" or the "Company") f/k/a
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III (NYSE: IPOC) ("Social
Capital III") securities: (1) between October 6, 2020 and February
4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the December 2020 Merger of Clover and Social
Capital III (the "Registration Statement"). Clover investors have
until April 6, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research released a report entitled
"Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs' Lured Retail Investors Into
a Broken Business Facing an Active, Undisclosed DOJ
Investigation[.]" The report alleged, among other things, that
"Clover has not disclosed that its business model and its software
offering, called the Clover Assistant, are under active
investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is
investigating at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to
marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or
12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

On February 5, 2021, Clover issued a response in which it admitted,
among other things, that it was aware of the DOJ investigation. The
Company also disclosed that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), indicating that it is
conducting an investigation and requesting document and data
preservation from January 1, 2020 to the present.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
Clover Assistant platform was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing
practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to the Company, since
it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales
were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and
misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported
"best-in-class" technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover's
sales were by way of an undisclosed relationship between Clover and
an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and
(5) 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.

If you purchased Clover Health securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than April 6, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Clover Health securities, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]

COAL HEADWEAR: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coal Headwear, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Coal Headwear, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01399 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

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

Coal Headwear -- https://coalheadwear.com/ -- produces beanies,
hats, and technical accessories for the outdoors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRST EXPEDITED: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Montoya FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CRST EXPEDITED, INC. and CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JUAN
CARLOS MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., and CRST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10095-PBS, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Juan
Carlos Montoya alleges that Defendants CRST Expedited, Inc., and
CRST International, Inc. (CRST), underpaid their long-haul truck
drivers, misled them regarding the costs of driver training, and
imposed excessive charges to recoup those costs in violation of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Iowa law.

The Defendants are taking an appeal from the Court's Order dated
January 16, 2021 that assented to a motion for preliminary
settlement approval and memorandum in support thereof, filing of
Amended Notices and Proposed Orders filed by Plaintiff Juan Carlos
Montoya, and Memorandum and Order dated September 6, 2019 wherein
CRST's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART and Montoya's motions for summary judgment are ALLOWED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.

The appellate case is captioned as Montoya, et al. v. CRST
Expedited, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1125, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, February 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Notice of
appeal filed by Appellants CRST Expedited, Inc. and CRST
International, Inc., Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order
form, and Appearance form are due on March 3, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN CARLOS MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, MAURICE SMITH, JEAN PAUL BRICAULT,
JR., JOSE TORRES ROSADO, AUSTIN CODDINGTON, and KEVIN HAMILTON are
represented by:

          Peter Mancuso, Esq.
          Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
          ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
          97 India St., 2nd Flr.
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 619-0884
          E-mail: peter@maineworkerjustice.com

               - and -

          Hillary A. Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel J. Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK PC
          192 South St., Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  rachel@fairworklaw.com   

Defendants-Appellants CRST EXPEDITED, INC. and CRST INTERNATIONAL,
INC. are represented by:

          Wesley S. Chused, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq.
          PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          60 State St., Suite 1100
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 226-3853
          E-mail: wchused@preti.com
                  dsonneborn@preti.com  

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Jonathan George Mermin, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Olivier, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          1 City Center, PO Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3232
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  jmermin@preti.com
                  eolivier@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com   

               - and -

          James Harold Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC
          10 W Market St., Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 492-9205  
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com

Interested Party CURTIS MARKSON is represented by:

          William F. McGonigle, III, Esq.
          ARROWOOD LLP
          10 Post Office Sq., 7th Flr. South
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 849-6208
          E-mail: wmcgonigle@arrowoodllp.com

CVS HEALTH: R.I. Court Tosses Miami FIPO Trust Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned CITY OF MIAMI
FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION FUND OF EASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, Plaintiffs v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION;
LARRY J. MERLO; DAVID M. DENTON; JONATHAN C. ROBERTS; ROBERT O.
KRAFT; AND EVA C. BORATTO, Defendants, Case No. 19-437-MSM-PAS
(D.R.I.).

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a shareholder
securities fraud action, brought pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.A. Section 78u-4. The
Defendants, CVS and several executives of both CVS and its
subsidiary, Omnicare, Inc., contend that the Amended Complaint
fails to meet the enhanced pleading standard applicable to lawsuits
claiming violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5.2

In brief, the Plaintiffs allege that CVS Health made statements
during the Class Period that were both false and misleading, that
the Plaintiffs relied on those statements and, as a result,
suffered an economic loss.

CVS is a national company, founded in 1963 and headquartered in
Rhode Island, traditionally selling retail from nearly 10,000 chain
stores across the country. While it is a combination of convenience
store and drug store, a large part of its retail business stems
from its pharmacies. In recent years, CVS has focused on the
pharmacy business, giving vaccinations and housing "minute clinics"
that provide immediate medical care to walk-in customers. It has,
according to the Amended Complaint, 156 specialty long-term care
("LTC") pharmacies in 46 states and a LTC repackaging facility. CVS
has made acquisitions that both enhanced its medical focus and
spawned lawsuits.

In 2015, it acquired Omnicare, a national distributor of
pharmaceuticals with a leadership role in the skilled nursing
facility arena. That acquisition gave rise to this litigation.
Then, in 2018, CVS acquired Aetna Inc. That acquisition generated
other litigation. E.g., Waterford Township Police & Fire Ret.
System v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00434-MSM
(D.R.I.).

The two acquisitions are related. The Plaintiffs in the instant
case are shareholders, who held CVS stock during the period after
the Omnicare acquisition but before the Aetna purchase. They
contend that CVS actively put out false and misleading information
in its financial reports and announcements during the Class Period,
motivated by the desire to hide its struggling LTC business to
ensure that the Aetna purchase would succeed and on terms
preferable to CVS. They allege that although CVS acquired Omnicare
with the idea of taking over what was at the time a healthy
distribution network of pharmaceuticals in the LTC market,
mismanagement ultimately spurred substantial client losses. In
addition to false and misleading reports designed to hide the
problem from investors, the Plaintiffs point to CVS's decision to
"fold" the LTC business into its front-store retail operations in
its financial reports to make it impossible for investors to see
the drain.

The allegations of fraudulent statements fall into three
categories. First, the Plaintiffs allege straightforward false and
misleading statements about CVS Health's performance and the
success of its operations. Second, the Plaintiffs contend that the
failure to disclose the customer losses, and the inadequacy of the
disclosure that finally did occur, caused the statements made to be
misleading. And third, the Plaintiffs complain that CVS misled
investors by omitting unfavorable facts from the goodwill
assessments attributed to its LTC business before taking a
significant impairment.

The Plaintiffs point to a series of statements that, except for
some thin warnings in 2017 and early 2018 of possible client
retention problems, painted a rosy and profitable picture of the
alliance of CVS and Omnicare.  District Judge Mary S. McElroy
opines that the Plaintiffs provide no clear timeline that matches
the time when the statements were made to specific customer losses.
Nor do they include sufficient information to determine how much of
the customer base had left at any given period. Indeed, they
complain that CVS itself did not break out the Omnicare-based
operations from the remainder of the retail business. That same
lack of segregated numbers makes it impossible to discern whether
the effect of the customer loss was so significantly inconsistent
with the performance statements as to render the latter false, the
Judge points out.

Moreover, Judge McElroy notes, many of these statements are
"forward-looking," looking to the future. Such forward-looking
statements are protected under the Exchange Act, citing In re
Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, 193 F.Supp.3d 5, 40-41 (D. Mass.
2016).  She adds, among other things, that many statements the
Plaintiffs point to are simply too vague to have been material. The
Plaintiffs point to what were basically the same few statements
using the phrases "positively affected" and "ability to attract and
retain" customers but repeated many times. The repetition over the
course of 2016 and into 2017 does not make them any less vague nor
any more demonstrably false.

The Plaintiffs also contend that the statements, if not false,
misleading because CVS failed to contemporaneously reveal the
extent of the customer losses it was sustaining. The Amended
Complaint relies on a theory that the omission of client loss
information throughout 2016 and much of 2017 was so fundamental,
and the references to "difficulties with client retention" so
oblique and late when they began to emerge, that CVS Health's
financial statements and pronouncements were misleading.

There is no question that CVS Health was suffering significant
customer loss, Judge McElroy notes. Omnicare was at the time of its
acquisition a leading distributor of pharmaceuticals to LTC
facilities. By bringing Omnicare's pharmaceutical distribution
network, and its customer base, into what was later termed
CVS/Retail, the CVS corporation intended to harvest the increased
revenues previously captured by Omnicare. CVS to that point had
served primarily a retail pharmacy clientele.

The Plaintiffs contend that soon after the acquisition, the
CVS/Omnicare operation began to lose customers "in droves" for
several reasons, all due to CVS's lack of understanding of the LTC
customer needs, its attempt to force LTC sales into its templates
for retail sales, its inability to maintain good relationships with
customers because it substituted knowledgeable Omnicare employees
with inexperienced CVS account managers, and its overall
mismanagement of the LTC distribution. The inability to retain
customers was the result, allegedly, of specifically described
phenomena, including CVS Retail's losing, by both voluntary and
involuntary termination, several experienced customer service
representatives who then poached their former Omnicare clients and
brought them to their new employers; and Customers reacting to poor
customer service by either leaving CVS Health at the conclusion of
their outstanding contracts or deliberately failing to make
payments, resulting in cancellations of their contracts.

The Plaintiffs proffer much support of their claim of actual
customer losses. They also demonstrate the many opportunities CVS
passed up to include mention of increasing customer retention
problems. The critical question, however, is whether the rosy
prospects painted by CVS and its executives were explicit enough to
move past mere "puffery" and to create a positive outlook with
sufficient clarity to render those statements misleading without
inclusion of the omitted information.

Judge McElroy opines that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts
to demonstrate that during the Class Period, the new CVS Health
endeavor was in fact losing customers in large numbers. What
remains is to scrutinize their claims that the statements made by
the Defendants to their investors were misleading because they
failed to disclose that significant development.

For the very reasons that render the statements made not per se
"false," the failure to disclose customer loss was not misleading,
Judge McElroy opines. The statements made were not quantified, they
were not specific, they did not state or even imply that the
customer base was growing. If they had, disclosure of the fact that
it was shrinking would have been necessary to forestall a deceptive
picture.

Judge McElroy finds that there is nothing directly inconsistent, at
least not in a substantial way, between the statements made and the
loss of customers sustained. The statements of opinion, and of an
optimistic future, could have been sincerely maintained despite a
rocky road with respect to the customer base. They did not create
an obligation to disclose more than what was stated, Judge McElroy
points out.

From August 2018 to February 2019, CVS wrote off $6.1 billion in
goodwill, eliminating nearly the entire value of the goodwill
assigned to its LTC business. The Plaintiffs argue that, before
taking this goodwill impairment, the Defendants misled investors by
failing to disclose the "substantial, systemic obstacles" plaguing
the LTC business, leaving investors to conclude that those
obstacles did not exist.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' goodwill assessments
were misleading because they failed to "disclose the true nature
and extent of the problems in the Omnicare LTC business" before
taking a goodwill impairment. Citing confidential witness
testimony, the Plaintiffs argue that at the time of the Defendants'
goodwill assessments the Omnicare LTC business was already
substantially impaired and the Defendants, as managers of CVS, had
actual knowledge of this impairment.

Judge McElroy again finds that the Amended Complaint provides no
clear timeline on when these unfavorable trends became salient, nor
when the negative outcomes became unavoidable. The allegations in
the Amended Complaint amount to a retrospective disagreement with
CVS's judgment, without sufficient facts to undermine the
assumptions CVS used when it made its goodwill assessments.

Nevertheless, even if the Court did accept the Plaintiffs'
assertion that the Defendants omitted material facts, it would
still need to determine whether the omissions rendered the
disclosure misleading, considering the disclosure in context, the
facts provided, and other disclaimers.

Judge McElroy points out that the Plaintiffs cannot overcome this
hurdle. CVS did publicly disclose to investors the challenges
plaguing the LTC business during the Class Period that could lead
to a goodwill impairment. Considering this disclosure in context,
no reasonable investor could have believed that the issues the
Plaintiffs claim were omitted did not exist, Judge McElroy holds.
The Plaintiffs have, therefore, failed to adequately allege that
the Defendants made misleading statements of opinion in their
goodwill assessments during the Class Period.

In their opposition, the Plaintiffs requested leave to amend their
Amended Complaint if the Court grants any portion of the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. This request is denied.

In summary, the Plaintiffs have not met the pleading burden
applicable to lawsuits claiming violations of Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 to withstand a motion to dismiss. The
Court, therefore, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/wvmix96f from
Leagle.com.


DELOITTE CONSULTING: Smith Files Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DELOITTE CONSULTING
LLP. The case is styled as Angella Smith, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Case No.
2021 CV 00149 filed on Feb. 17, 2021, in Licking County, Ohio,
Court Of Common Pleas.

The case type is stated as "Other Civil."

Deloitte -- https://www2.deloitte.com/us/ -- provides audit and
assurance, consulting, tax, and risk and financial advisory
services to many of the world's private and middle-market
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM CO LPA
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Phone: 216-373-0539
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com

DONALD J. TRUMP: Faces Class Suit Demanding Past Four Years Back
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Borowitz at newyorker.com reports that Donald J. Trump's legal
woes deepened as millions of Americans joined a class-action
lawsuit demanding the past four years back.

Although Trump is already being sued for his actions on January 6th
of this year, this latest suit broadens his legal exposure to the
other fourteen hundred and sixty days of his Presidency.

Harland Dorrinson, the attorney representing the approximately two
hundred million plaintiffs, said that if a court is unable to award
his clients the past four years back, he would seek "substantial"
monetary damages instead.

"We're crunching the numbers right now," he said. "The therapy
bills alone run into the billions."

The attorney said that he was "obviously sorry" that Rudy Giuliani
was no longer on Trump's legal team but added, "If Trump uses those
impeachment lawyers of his, we're golden." [GN]

EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Hoekman Appeals D. Minn. Ruling to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Linda Hoekman, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Linda Hoekman, et al. v.
Education Minnesota, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01686-SRN, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Plaintiffs Linda Hoekman and Deborah York are current or former
public-school teachers who bring this class action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking redress for
the Defendants' past and ongoing violations of their
constitutionally protected rights. The Defendants have allegedly
violated the class members' constitutional rights by forcing them
to work in an "agency shop," where non-union members are compelled
to pay compulsory "fair-share fees" to Education Minnesota or its
affiliates as a condition of their employment.

The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal for review of the Court's Order
dated February 12, 2021 and Judgment dated February 16, 2021,
denying their motion for summary judgment and granting Defendants'
cross-motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Linda Hoekman, et al. v.
Education Minnesota, et al., Case No. 21-1366, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 30, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on April 9, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Mary Dee Buros, Paul Hanson, Linda Hoekman
and Thomas P. Piekarski is due on April 9, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul
Hanson, all appellants on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          James Dickey, Esq.
          Douglas Seaton, Esq.  
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7002

               - and -

          Talcott Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 736-8730  
          E-mail: ginger@talcottfranklin.com  

               - and -

          Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW, PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

Defendants-Appellees Education Minnesota, as representative of the
class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; Anoka
Hennepin Education Minnesota, as representative of the class of all
chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; National Education
Association; and Shakopee Education Association, as representatives
of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota,
are represented by:

          David Aron, Esq.
          Cedrick Frazier, Esq.
          EDUCATION MINNESOTA
          41 Sherburne Avenue
          Saint Paul, MN 55103
          Telephone: (651) 292-4819
          E-mail: david.aron@edmn.org
                  cedrick.frazier@edmn.org  

               - and -

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          Amanda C. Lynch, Esq.
          Patrick C. Pitts, Esq.    
          ALTSHULER & BERZON
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altber.com
                  dleonard@altshulerberzon.com
                  alynch@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Margaret Luger-Nikolai, Esq.
          GREGG M. CORWIN & ASSOCIATES
          508 E. Parkdale Plaza Building
          1660 S. Highway 100
          Saint Louis Park, MN 55416-1534
          Telephone: (651) 227-9541

EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Wins Summary Judgment in Hoekman and Piekarski
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Case Paul Hanson,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota,
National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers,
and Shakopee Education Association, Defendants; and Thomas P.
Piekarski, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AFSCME Council No. 5, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01686
(SRN/ECW), Case No. 18-cv-02384 (SRN/ECW) (D. Minn.), Judge Susan
Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in
two related cases: 18-cv-01686 ("Hoekman matter") and 18-cv-02384
("Piekarski matter").

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit
Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977, that public-sector employers and
labor unions representing public-sector employees could, consistent
with the First Amendment, compel public-sector employees to
contribute to a union's collective bargaining costs even if the
employees refused to join the union.  Approximately 40 years later,
the Supreme Court overruled Abood and held in Janus v. Am. Fed'n of
State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), that
such "fair-share" or "agency" fee arrangements violate employees'
First Amendment rights.

After the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus, the Plaintiffs in the
instant cases filed class action complaints against their labor
unions, seeking the return of fees paid to their unions before and
after the Janus ruling.

In the Hoekman matter, Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul
Hanson are current and former public school teachers who filed suit
against Education Minnesota, a Minnesota labor union, and its
affiliate organizations ("Education Minnesota Defendants").

In the Piekarski matter, Thomas Piekarski is an employee of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation who filed suit against the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
Council No. 5 and its affiliates ("AFSCME Defendants").

Prior to Janus, the Plaintiffs were faced with the choice whether
to join their unions and pay full membership dues, or refuse to
join and pay fair-share fees, an arrangement permitted by the
Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act ("PELRA").  Some of
the Plaintiffs chose to join their unions, and now seek a refund of
the "compulsory portion" of the membership dues they paid prior to
Janus, equal to the fair-share fees that even non-members were
required to pay.  Other Plaintiffs elected not to join their
unions, and seek a refund of the fair-share fees they paid prior to
Janus.  The Plaintiffs seek this relief, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as well as state
tort law.

The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment filed in the Hoekman matter and the Piekarski matter.

Judge Nelson begins her analysis with Hoekman and Hanson's claims
for a refund of all fair-share fees they paid prior to Janus.
Hoekman and Hanson assert their claims under Section 1983 and state
tort law.  With respect to Section 1983, the Education Minnesota
Defendants argue that their good faith reliance on PELRA and forty
years of Supreme Court precedent following Abood establish an
affirmative defense to Section 1983 liability.  With respect to
Hoekman and Hanson's conversion claims, the Education Minnesota
Defendants argue that Hoekman and Hanson have not raised a genuine
dispute of material fact on the elements of conversion.

Judge Nelson finds that there are no genuine disputes of material
fact.  She finds that the good faith defense bars Hoekman and
Hanson's Section 1983 claims for a refund of fair-share fees paid
prior to Janus, therfore the Education Minnesota Defendants have
established the good faith affirmative defense to Hoekman and
Hanson's Section 1983 claims.  She also finds that Hoekman and
Hanson's Janus claims do not sound in restitution, and even if they
did, the equities do not favor requiring the Education Minnesota
Defendants to refund fees they collected and expended in reliance
on PELRA and Abood.

The Amended Complaint further does not allege that the Education
Minnesota Defendants failed to comply with Abood, and Hoekman and
Hanson have not identified any case which made compliance with
Abood an element of the good faith affirmative defense.  Finally,
although Hoekman and Hanson urge the Court to treat PELRA as though
it never existed, in light of Janus's holding that fair-share fee
arrangements are unconstitutional, the Judge declines to
retroactively create tort liability under Minnesota common law for
conduct expressly authorized by a Minnesota statute.

Accordingly, the Education Minnesota Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on Hoekman and Hanson's Section 1983
and state law claims for a refund of their pre-Janus fair-share
fees.

Judge Nelson next turns to Buros and Piekarski's claims for a
refund of the "compulsory portion" of their membership dues--that
is, the portion of their dues, equal to fair-share fees, that they
would have had to pay even if they had not joined their unions.
She finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and
the Education Minnesota Defendants and the AFSCME Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Buros and Piekarski's
Section 1983 claims and state law claims for a refund of the
"compulsory portion" of their membership dues.

The Judge explains that Janus does not support Buros and
Piekarski's Section 1983 claims for the refund of the "compulsory
portion" of the membership dues they voluntarily agreed to pay.
And because Piekarski authorized the deduction of membership dues
from his paychecks, the AFSCME Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on his conversion claim.

Next, Judge Nelson considers Buros' claim for a refund of the dues
she paid between her Aug. 3, 2018 resignation from the union and
Oct. 1, 2018, when her dues authorization ended.  Buros first
argues that the September 2017 dues authorization agreement she
signed--which authorized the Education Minnesota Defendants to
deduct membership dues through Oct. 1, 2018 even if Buros resigned
her membership before then--is not a "contract" because it lacks
consideration.  Even if it were, Buros argues, the authorization
does not meet Janus' requirements for a waiver of a non-union
member's First Amendment right not to financially support her
union.

Finding that there are no genuine disputes of material fact, Judge
Nelson holds that the Education Minnesota Defendants are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on Buros' claim for reimbursement of
union dues between her August 2018 resignation and Oct. 1, 2018.
Among other things, she finds that (i) Janus does not invalidate
Buros's agreement to pay union dues until Oct. 1, 2018,
"irrespective of her membership in the union, nor must the dues
authorization agreement satisfy Janus's waiver requirements; (ii)
Janus did not purport to change union members' rights and
obligations, and indeed permitted the states to "keep their
labor-relations systems exactly as they are"--thus preserving
contract requirements obligating union members to temporarily pay
union dues even after resigning from the union; and (iii) Buros
cites no case law in support of her argument that the seven-day
annual revocation window provided for by the authorization
agreement is unenforceable, and other courts have upheld similar
systems post-Janus.

Judge Nelson next considers Piekarski's claims 1) that because he
attempted to resign from the union on Oct. 3, 2017, he is entitled
to a refund of the difference between the full membership dues he
paid and the fair-share fees he would have paid had his resignation
been processed, and 2) that he is entitled to a refund of all money
that the AFSCME Defendants deducted from his wages after the Janus
decision was announced.  The AFSCME Defendants argue that these
claims are moot because, in June 2019, AFSCME Council 5 sent
Piekarski a check refunding all fees deducted from his paychecks
after Oct. 3, 2017 plus interest calculated at 4% per annum.
Piekarski has not deposited that check, because he would feel that
he is dropping out of the lawsuit, and because cashing the check
"violates his attorneys and the class action suit.

In Loescher v. Minnesota Teamsters Pub. & Law Enf't Emps.' Union,
Local No. 320, 441 F.Supp.3d 762, 771 (D. Minn. 2020), the
plaintiff was a union member and, after the Janus decision was
announced, attempted to resign from the union.  Her employer
initially continued to deduct dues from her paycheck pursuant to a
dues authorization agreement that could not be revoked except
within a 15-day annual revocation window.  Ultimately, the union
refunded the plaintiff's dues notwithstanding the authorization
agreement, but the plaintiff returned the check and filed suit.
The Court reasoned that Loescher seeks to recover in Count One what
Local Union 320 already provided. She does not allege any injury
for this Court to redress.  As with the plaintiff in Loescher,
Judge Nelson finds that AFSCME Council 5 has already provided the
refund Piekarski requests that the Court grants, and she therefore
finds that Piekarski's claims for that refund are moot.

Finally, the Judge briefly addresses the Plaintiffs' requests for
prospective declaratory and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiffs seek
various prospective remedies, including declarations that they
cannot be compelled to pay fair-share fees without affirmative
consent as required by Janus and an injunction barring the
Defendants from violating Janus in the future.

Because the Defendants have ceased deducting fair-share fees from
the Plaintiffs' paychecks and have averred that the Plaintiffs will
not be required to pay union fees unless they voluntarily rejoin
their unions, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not have
standing for prospective relief.  Accordingly, she grants summary
judgment in favor of the Defendants as to the Plaintiffs' claims
for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief as well.

Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings
therein, Judge Nelson (i) denied the Hoekman Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment; (ii) granted the Education Minnesota Defendants'
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied Plaintiff
Piekarski's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (iv) granted the
AFSCME Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.  Judgment
will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yr8h4yvx from Leagle.com.

Douglas P. Seaton, and James V.F. Dickey -- legal@umwlc.org --
Upper Midwest Law Center, 8421 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 105, in
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55426; Jonathan Franklin Mitchell,
Mitchell Law PLLC, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400, in Austin, Texas
78701; and Talcott Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott
Franklin PC, 1920 McKinney Avenue, Seventh Floor, in Dallas, Texas
75201, for Plaintiffs.

Amanda C. Lynch -- alynch@altshulerberzon.com -- Danielle Leonard
-- dleonard@altshulerberzon.com -- Patrick C. Pitts --
cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- and Scott A. Kronland --
skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, 177 Post
Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108; and Cedrick Frazier,
David Aron, and Margaret A. Luger-Nikolai, Education Minnesota, 41
Sherburne Avenue, in Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103, for the Education
Minnesota Defendants.

April Pullium, Georgina Yeomans, Jacob Karabell, John M. West, Leon
Dayan, and Ramya Ravindran, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, 805 Fifteenth
Street NW, Suite 1000, in Washington, D.C. 20005; and Josie Doris
Hegarty, AFSCME Council 5, 300 Hardman Avenue South, in South Saint
Paul, Minnesota 55075, for the AFSCME Defendants.


EHANG HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of EHang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EH) from December 12, 2019 through February 16, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased EHang securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit EHang Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market and failed to disclose material adverse
facts to the market. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in
Europe and North America for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and
not for carrying passengers; (2) its relationship with its
purported primary customer is a sham; (3) EHang has only collected
on a fraction on its reported sales since its ADS began trading on
NASDAQ in December 2019; (4) the Company's manufacturing facilities
were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced
manufacturing equipment or employees; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $77.79, or
approximately 62.7%, to close at $46.30 per share.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 19,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead
plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an
absent class member.

If you purchased EHang securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ehangholdingslimited-eh-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-363/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

EHANG HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased EHang Holdings
Limited (NASDAQ: EH) American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between
December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until April 19, 2021 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a
scathing report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to
Crash and Burn." In this report, Wolfpack Research wrote that EHang
is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated
revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai
Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. ("Kunxiang")] who appears
to us to be more interested in helping inflate the value of its
investment in EH . . . than about buying its products." Wolfpack
Research wrote that it had "gathered extensive evidence" to support
its report, "including behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded
phone calls, and videos of on-site visits to EH's various
facilities . . . ." Wolfpack Research also noted that "in just 14
months as a publicly traded company, EH's PR team has put out 50
press releases . . . . However, EH's constant stream of press
releases are easily proven untrue." Finally, Wolfpack Research
wrote that it "obtained Chinese court records which show that EH's
ADRs may already be in serious jeopardy due to legal issues in
China."

On this news, the price of EHang's ADS fell from its February 12,
2021 close of $124.09 to a February 16, 2021 close of $46.30 per
share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share or approximately 62.7%.

The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals in
Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone,
and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its
purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only
collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began
trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company's
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased EHang ADS during the Class Period and suffered a
loss, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

EHANG HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Chaumont v. EHang Holdings
Limited, et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-01526 ) on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired EHang Holdings
Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until April 19, 2021
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your EHang investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/ehang-holdings-limited/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a
research report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to
Crash and Burn." Citing "extensive evidence" including
"behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded phone calls, and videos of
on-site visits to EH's various facilities," the report alleged that
EHang is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated
revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai
Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.] who appears to us to be
more interested in helping inflate the value of its investment in
EH . . . than about buying its products." Wolfpack Research also
noted that "in just 14 months as a publicly traded company, EH's PR
team has put out 50 press releases . . . . However, EH's constant
stream of press releases are easily proven untrue." Finally, the
report alleged that Wolfpack Research "obtained Chinese court
records which show that EH's ADRs may already be in serious
jeopardy due to legal issues in China."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $77.79, or
approximately 62.7%, to close at $46.30 per share, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's purported regulatory approvals in
Europe and North America for its EH2216 were for use as a drone,
not for carrying passengers; (2) that EHang's relationship with its
purported primary customer is a sham; (3) that EHang has only
collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADSs began
trading on the NASDAQ exchange; (4) that the Company's
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the EHang ADSs during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 19, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

EHANG HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ehang Holdings Limited ("Ehang Holdings") (NASDAQ:
EH) between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=12988&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported regulatory approvals
in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone,
and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its
purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only
collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began
trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company's
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Ehang Holdings you have until April 19,
2021 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. [GN]

EHANG HOLDINGS: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against EHang
Holdings Limited ("EHang" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EH) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 19, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. EHang's approvals in North America and
Europe for the EH216 were for use as a drone and not as a passenger
vehicle. The Company's purported relationship with its primary
customer is in fact fraudulent. In fact, the Company has only
collected on a small fraction of its reported sales since December
2019. The Company's manufacturing facilities appeared empty,
lacking both advanced manufacturing equipment and employees. Based
on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about EHang, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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


EXXON MOBIL: Pawar Law Reminds of March 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:
XOM) from November 6, 2019 through January 14, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Exxon
Mobil Corporation investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Exxon forced its
employees to use unrealistic assumptions regarding the timelines
for well drilling in the Permian Basin; the foregoing assumptions
served to artificially inflate the value of the Company's well
operations in the Permian Basin; the foregoing conduct, when
revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory
investigation and oversight; and as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Canadian Class Action Over Data Scandal Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dobby at Business Reporter reports that an Ontario judge
has dismissed one proposed class-action lawsuit against Facebook
related to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, while a second,
broader claim remains outstanding.

Facebook has estimated that the personal data of 87 million users
-- including that of 622,161 Canadians -- may have been accessed
and shared with the British data analytics firm, which was
consulting on the 2016 U.S. general election campaign. Users who
participated in a personality quiz on Facebook via a third-party
app had their personal information, as well as that of their
Facebook "friends," harvested without their knowledge or consent.

The data breach came to light in 2018 and exploded into a worldwide
scandal. Privacy and consumer protection agencies launched probes
and law firms filed class-action lawsuits, including a handful on
behalf of Canadian Facebook users.

Three proposed class actions were filed in Ontario and since they
raised similar or overlapping issues, the law firms involved agreed
to proceed with just two separate claims. The proposed class in one
claim is an extremely broad group whose personal information was
improperly obtained by third parties, including the app related to
Cambridge Analytica, but who did not voluntarily download those
third-party apps themselves.

The second proposed class was "Canadian residents whose Facebook
information was shared with Cambridge Analytica." In a ruling,
Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
dismissed a motion to certify the plaintiff's case in the second
claim.

Class actions, which typically advance common claims on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs against one defendant, must first be certified
by a judge before moving to a trial.

Justice Belobaba ruled that the plaintiff had no proof that any
Canadian user's data was shared with the British firm. He wrote in
his decision that the evidence on the record showed that Cambridge
Analytica had been contracted to get the information of U.S. voters
in swing states.

The plaintiff argued that when Facebook notified Canadian users
about the breach, it said the app "may have misused your Facebook
information by sharing it with a company called Cambridge
Analytica." But Justice Belobaba ruled that does not prove that
such information was in fact shared.

"We and our clients are disappointed. We were hoping for a
different result because this decision means that these issues will
likely never be aired from the perspective of people whose data was
made available through this set of circumstances," said Michael
Robb, a partner at Siskinds LLP, which represented the plaintiff.
He said the firm was still reviewing the decision but had not ruled
out an appeal.

Mark Gelowitz, a partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, which
acted for Facebook, declined to comment.

Justice Belobaba noted in his ruling that the other proposed class
action, which relates to the broader group of Facebook users whose
personal information was improperly used by third-party apps, is
still ongoing. The law firm Koskie Minsky LLP is representing the
proposed plaintiffs in that case. (Saskatchewan firm Merchant Law
Group LLP has also launched a proposed class action that has not
been certified.)

The judge concluded by noting that while he dismissed this
particular claim, that does not "diminish the paramount importance
of protecting individual privacy and personal data."

"An individual's ability to control their personal information is
intimately connected to individual autonomy, dignity and privacy,"
he said, adding that significant invasions of privacy deserve
government and judicial attention.

"If Facebook, in breach of its own policies and procedures,
recklessly allowed third-party apps to improperly access users'
personal data, it should be held accountable by all appropriate
means, including class actions."

In May last year, Canada's Competition Bureau said it concluded
that Facebook made misleading claims with respect to users' privacy
in connection with Cambridge Analytica. The competition watchdog
reached a $9-million settlement with Facebook, which also agreed to
pay $500,000 in costs related to the bureau's investigation.
Facebook said it did not agree with the bureau's conclusions but
did not contest them for the purposes of the settlement.

The Canadian settlement came after Facebook agreed to pay
$5-billion (U.S.) in a settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission in relation to the scandal (though the U.S. settlement
covered a broader range of claims).

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada also conducted a
separate investigation into the Cambridge Analytica affair,
concluding in April, 2019, that Facebook violated the privacy
rights of Canadians. Last year, the privacy commissioner launched
court proceedings against Facebook, over claims that the
social-media giant breached Canadians' privacy rights. That Federal
Court case is ongoing. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Eliminates Market Competition, Kovacevich Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOE KOVACEVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-01117 (N.D. Cal., February 15, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act and California state statutory and common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme known as "acquire, copy or kill" strategy in
order to maintain its market dominance and eliminate competition.
Facebook allegedly misuses valuable user data to identify and
eliminate emerging competitors. Using its dominant power, Facebook
discriminatorily shut off emerging competitors' access to
Facebook's valuable user data if they refused to sell their
businesses to Facebook. Consumers have suffered substantial
economic injury as a result of Facebook's destruction of
competition. If Facebook had to contend with rivals, fair
competition would have required Facebook to provide consumers
greater value in return for their data, but Facebook instead took
that data without providing adequate compensation. Through its
deception and the acquisitions enabled by its deception, Facebook
prevented competition on the merits, and as a result of that
reduction in competition, users received less value for their data
than they would have otherwise received, the suit says.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dennis Stewart, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     600 B Street, 17th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 595-3299
     E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

            - and –

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
     Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
     Ling S. Wang, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 333-8844
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
             csmith@gustafsongluek.com
             dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
             lwang@gustafsongluek.com

            - and –

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
     Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 346-2222
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             mjm@wexlerwallace.com
             mjt@wexlerwallace.com

            - and –

     Simon B. Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
     1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 496-8282
     Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
     E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
             phoward@smbb.com

            - and –

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Telephone: (248) 841-2200
     E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com

            - and –

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Telephone: (215) 923-9300
     Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Ad Metrics
------------------------------------------------------------
Documents made public in court allege that Facebook executives
brushed off an employee who proposed changing an ad metric to make
it more accurate, because they thought the change would impact
revenue.

The documents come as part of an ongoing class action lawsuit,
which was originally filed by a small business owner in 2018. They
have to do with Facebook's "potential reach" metric, which lets
advertisers see an estimated audience of how many people its
campaign could potentially reach while setting bidding and budgets.
The unsealed filing was first reported by the Financial Times.

According to the lawsuit, Facebook's senior executives knew for
years that its "potential reach" function was inflated and
misleading, but that they failed to act and actively tried to
conceal the issues. It said that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg
acknowledged in a fall 2017 email that she had known about problems
with "Potential Reach" for years.

The suit says "Potential Reach" is misleading because it describes
itself as a measurement of "people" when it is at best a
measurement of accounts. It says Facebook deliberately didn't
remove duplicate or fake accounts from that metric. The lawsuit
also claims that in early 2018 a Facebook analysis found removing
duplicate accounts from the reach creature would cause a 10% drop
in the figures.

A product manager working on "Potential Reach" allegedly proposed
changing the metric so it would no longer include the words
"people" or "Reach" and make clearer that it was based on accounts.
But the lawsuit says Facebook's metrics leadership team rejected
them "because the 'revenue impact' for Facebook would be
'significant.'"

"As the product manager for Potential Reach put it: 'it's revenue
we should have never made given the fact it's based on wrong
data,'" the lawsuit reads. "Another employee stated '[t]he status
quo in ad Reach estimation and reporting is deeply wrong.' The only
question was, '[h]ow long can we get away with the reach
overestimation.'"

Facebook generated $84.2 billion in advertising revenue in 2020,
making it one of the largest digital ad players in the U.S. and
globally.

"These allegations are without merit and we will defend ourselves
vigorously," a Facebook spokesperson said via email in response to
the new allegations in the lawsuit.

Hours after this story publish, Facebook added in another emailed
statement that the documents were being "cherry-picked to fit the
plaintiff's narrative." The company added that "Potential Reach" is
an estimate, not a guarantee of campaign results, since the company
charges based on how many people actually see or click on an ad.
The statement also said that it has been clear how the "Potential
Reach" has been calculated in its ad interface since before 2018.

In March 2019, after the original lawsuit was filed, Facebook said
it was changing "estimated potential reach" to be based on how many
people have been shown an ad on a Facebook Product in the past 30
days who match an advertisers' desired audience and placement
criteria, versus basing estimates on people who were active users
in the past 30 days.

A description on Facebook's "Potential Reach" function on its
website as described it as one that "estimates how many people your
ad could potentially reach depending on the targeting and ad
placement options you select while creating an ad." It also says
that the function "isn't an estimate of how many people will
actually see your ad, and may change with time."

The lawsuit cites an example when in August 2018 when Facebook told
advertisers it had a "Potential Reach" of 230 million adults, when
according to census data cited in the suit, only 170 million were
using Facebook.

Facebook's website on the function says estimates "aren't designed
to match census population or other sources," and could differ
depending on factors like how many accounts are used by a person or
how many visitors are in a particular geographic location at a
time.[GN]


FCA US: Myslivecek Sues Over Defective Clutch in Jeep Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN MYSLIVECEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-10346-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich., February 16, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive acts or
practices, and false advertising.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures and sells
Jeep vehicles equipped with a defective clutch. The clutch defect
in the Class vehicles occurs because the clutch pressure plate may
become overheated through friction, which may lead the pressure
plate to fracture. A fractured pressure plate may crack or fracture
the transmission case, allowing heated debris to contact ignition
sources on the vehicle, potentially leading to a vehicle fire.
Instead of replacing the defective clutches with ones suitable for
the Class vehicles, the Defendant is attempting to mitigate the
safety risks related to the defect by effectively neutering the
power output of the Class vehicles' engines in order to prevent the
clutch from failing. But this remedy deprives Class members of the
benefit of their bargains, the suit says.

FCA US LLC is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place
of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

                 - and –

         Joel D. Smith, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com

                 - and –

         Nick Suciu III, Esq.
         BARBAT, MANSOUR, SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
         6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
         Telephone: (313) 303-3472
         E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyer.com

FIRST NATIONAL: Lara Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leeana Lara, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Leeana Lara, et al. v. First
National Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert that the
Defendants' practice of using unexplained and unjustified condition
adjustments to comparable vehicles when valuing a total loss claim
for a vehicle, violates the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"),
specifically WAC 284-30-391(4)(b) and (5)(d), and so constitutes:
(1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, (3) violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act and (4) civil conspiracy. The Plaintiffs seek
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order dated October 21,
2020, denying their motion to certify class and Order dated
November 6, 2020, denying their motion for reconsideration.

The appellate case is captioned as Leeana Lara, et al. v. First
National Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 21-35126, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 16,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Leeana Lara and Cameron Lundquist Mediation
Questionnaire are due on February 23, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 18, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on April 19, 2021;

   -- Appellants Leeana Lara and Cameron Lundquist opening brief is
due on May 27, 2021;

   -- Appellees CCC Information Services Inc., First National
Insurance Company of America and LM General Insurance Company
answering brief is due on June 28, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants LEEANA LARA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and CAMERON LUNDQUIST are represented
by:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 224-2628
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com    

               - and -

          John Michael DeStefano, III, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 224-2628
          E-mail: johnd@hbsslaw.com   

Defendants-Appellees FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
New Hampshire Corporation; LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and CCC
INFORMATION SERVICES INC. are represented by:

          James Andrew Morsch, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          161 North Clark, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 876-7866
          E-mail: jmorsch@butlerrubin.com

               - and -

          John M. Silk, Esq.
          WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON
          901 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98164-2050
          Telephone: (206) 623-4100
          E-mail: silk@wscd.com  

               - and -

          Jason R. Burt, Esq.
          Cherish Alise Drain, Esq.
          Gregory G. Garre, Esq.
          Marguerite Sullivan, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: jason.burt@lw.com
                  cherish.drain@lw.com
                  gregory.garre@lw.com
                  marguerite.sullivan@lw.com

FISHER-PRICE: Hanson Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00204 (S.D. Iowa), 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 involves 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/2M2EUmQ
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: Kimmel Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMMEL v. FISHER-PRICE,
INC. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-09613 (D.N.J.), 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/3jWqWzk
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: Mulvey Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No.  1:19-cv-00518 (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 Torts -- Personal Injury -- 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/2NglLy6
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: Nadel Baby Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (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.

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/3djRr0r
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: Pasternacki Sleeper Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941 (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.

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/3jTT5qA
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

FOREST LABORATORIES: Class Cert. Bid in Namenda IP Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the lawsuit titled IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-6549 (CM) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.).

Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund ("SBA")
commenced the 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. Presently before the Court is 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.

SBA advances two theories of antitrust liability: (1) that the
Defendants' entering into several reverse-payment settlements with
generic manufacturers of Namenda unlawfully delayed the market
entry of generic competitors; and (2) the Defendants' conduct in
effectuating a "hard switch" for consumers between two versions of
Namenda harmed competition.

Namenda IR (immediate release) and Namenda XR (extended release)
(collectively "Namenda") are brand-name prescription drugs that
contain the active ingredient memantine. Namenda is used to treat
Alzheimer's disease, and has been commercially successful ever
since Forest introduced Namenda IR to the U.S. market in 2003.
Total annual sales of Namenda IR grew to approximately $1.5 billion
by 2013, the same year that Forest Laboratories launched Namenda
XR.

Although both versions of Namenda were patent protected, the
patents had different expiration dates. Therein lies the dispute
animating this lawsuit. SBA alleges that the Defendants acted
anticompetitively in attempting to protect Namenda's market
advantage afforded by the patents, ultimately resulting in indirect
purchasers paying higher prices for memantine than would otherwise
have been the case but-for the Defendants' conduct.

Lead plaintiff Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare
Fund ("SBA") is a fund that administers the prescription drug
benefit plan for active and retired New York City Police Department
sergeants and their dependents. It represents a class of "end
payors" or indirect purchasers of Namenda, which includes--subject
to some exceptions--"All Third-Party Payors who indirectly
purchased, and/or paid, and/or provided reimbursement for, some or
all of the price for Namenda IR 5 or 10 mg tablets, their AB-rated
generic equivalents, and/or Namenda XR capsules."

The TPPs are entities (besides the patient or the health care
provider) that provide reimbursement for health care expenses. They
include insurance companies, government payors like Medicare, and
self-insured health and welfare plans run by employers. TPPs are
indirect purchasers because they do not purchase drugs directly
from the manufacturer (in contrast to direct purchasers like
wholesalers). Instead, they pay reimbursement for the purchases
made by the individual consumers that they insure.

Defendant Forest Laboratories is a limited-liability company
incorporated in Delaware that manufactures and sells branded
pharmaceutical products. Forest is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Defendant Actavis PLC (now known as Allergan PLC). Defendants Merz
GmbH & Co. KGaA.; Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA; and Merz
Pharmaceuticals GmbH are headquartered in Germany and are also
engaged in the development, production, and distribution of
pharmaceutical products.

The present litigation is the latest of several lawsuits filed
against the manufacturers of Namenda and its generic counterparts.
In 2014, after Forest announced its plan to discontinue Namenda IR,
the State of New York sued Forest and Actavis to enjoin them from
doing so, arguing that the "hard switch" was anticompetitive. The
Honorable Judge Robert Sweet granted a preliminary injunction, and
that ruling was affirmed on appeal.

In August 2015, SBA filed the instant lawsuit, and in September
2015, direct purchasers of Namenda filed a similar lawsuit. Both
sets of plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' actions in
effectuating the hard switch and in entering into the
reverse-payment settlements forced them to pay supracompetitive
prices for memantine. In contrast to the direct purchasers, who
brought their claims under the federal Sherman Act, the indirect
purchasers in the instant lawsuit bring their claims under state
antitrust and consumer-protection laws. In total, SBA's operative
Second Amended Complaint alleges claims arising under the antitrust
laws of 24 states, and the District of Columbia. They also bring
claims under the consumer-protection laws of 14 states.

In September 2016, the Court denied the Defendants' consolidated
motions to dismiss. The Court then stayed the indirect purchasers'
litigation until a resolution of the federal claims from the direct
purchasers' lawsuit. That litigation ultimately settled on the eve
of trial. Following that, several of the Generic Defendants in this
suit also settled. The only Defendants remaining in this litigation
are, thus, those affiliated with the brand-name manufacturers and
originators of Namenda--Forest and Actavis and their German
counterpart, Merz.

The main motion for consideration before the Court currently is
SBA's motion for class certification. It seeks to certify the
following class: 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.

SBA's initial class definition included "All persons or entities
who indirectly purchased" or reimbursed for Namenda or its generics
in the requisite states during the class period. However, SBA
amended the proposed class when it filed its reply in support of
certification. The class is now smaller, limited only to TPP
entities.

The Defendants do not contest that SBA's amending of the proposed
class was prejudicial in any way. They maintain that the new class
definition does not cure any of the inherent problems that they
highlighted in their original opposition to certification, and that
their arguments against certification apply with equal force to the
narrower definition.

The Defendants have also filed a Daubert motion to exclude the
opinions of SBA's expert Dr. William Vogt, who offers a report
detailing his opinions on the level of damages attributable to each
of SBA's theories of antitrust liability. The Defendants filed this
motion as part of the summary judgment proceedings, but the Court
will consider it in this opinion since SBA also offers Dr. Vogt's
report to support certification.

The Court denied the Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the
opinions of Dr. William Vogt. Specifically, the Defendants wish to
exclude (1) his estimate of the date of market entry of generic
Namenda had there been no reverse payments, and (2) his damages
calculation based off of that estimated date of entry.

Judge McMahon finds, among other things, that Dr. Vogt's opinions
are admissible. Dr. Vogt is qualified to opine about the economic
factors at play that determine a possible date of generic entry, as
well as the resulting damages that may be attributable to an
impermissibly delayed entry. He has a Ph.D. in economics from
Stanford University, and has served an Associate Professor of
Economics at the Carnegie Mellon University and the University of
Georgia. He has also worked as a Senior Economist at the RAND
Corporation. He currently works for Acumen, LLC, a healthcare
policy consulting firm.

Judge McMahon opines that the Motion met the numerosity and
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. She also finds that the typicality requirement is met
because SBA must prove the existence of an antitrust conspiracy,
that the conspiracy caused injury, and that it resulted in damages.
She adds that the adequacy of representation requirement is met
because SBA's counsel is sufficiently qualified and experienced to
conduct the litigation.

Moreover, SBA's expert, Ms. Laura R. Craft, opines that the
proposed class is not only ascertainable, but that identifying the
class members would be "a largely programmatic exercise that
depends only on data routinely kept (and legally mandated) in the
pharmaceutical industry, and which is characterized by
extraordinarily high levels of standardization."

The Defendants argue that Ms. Craft's opinions cannot be relied
upon because she acknowledges that she has not personally obtained
the data necessary to carry out her methodology, nor has she ever
done so before to determine an indirect-purchaser class.

But "ascertainability does not require a complete list of class
members at the certification stage," Judge McMahon notes, citing In
re Petrobras, 862 F.3d at 266 n.16. There is no requirement that
the class actually have already been identified--or that the
methodology to identify the class need to have already been carried
out--by the time of certification. Judge McMahon holds, among other
things, that all that matters is that ascertaining the class is
"objectively possible," and that requirement is "modest." Hence,
the implied requirement of ascertainability is met.

To the extent the Defendants are arguing that Comcast overturned
the "'well-established' rule in the Circuit that 'the fact that
damages may have to be ascertained on an individual basis is not
sufficient to defeat class certification' under Rule 23(b)(3),"
they are wrong, Judge McMahon holds. Significantly, all of the
arguments propounded by the Defendants relate to the calculation of
the damages that would be owed to any particular TPP. As long as
Roach is good law in the Circuit, those arguments do not defeat
predominance. Hence, the predominance requirement is satisfied as
to SBA's pay-for-delay theory of liability.

The Defendants make one final argument: they insist that class
certification would be improper because Forest's rebate contracts
with potential TPP class members (which contain various terms) may
contain mandatory arbitration provisions such that they would
preclude litigation. They claim that, if these TPPs are certified
as class members, Forest would lose its right to arbitrate any of
the individual disputes. They insist that SBA should be obliged to
provide a full list of potential class members so that Forest can
determine which entities may need to arbitrate.

Judge McMahon notes that this argument is largely hypothetical.
Forest has not demonstrated that most TPP class members would be
contractually required to arbitrate the claims in suit. As SBA
notes, Forest is in the best position to provide the court with the
identities of the potential TPP class members that have agreed to
arbitrate the claims in this lawsuit. In the absence of strong
evidence indicating that this is an issue relevant to most TPPs, or
that it is an issue that otherwise predominates the common issues
of the class, the Judge is constrained to conclude that it does not
preclude certification.

SBA's theory of injury is perfectly plausible--indeed, in some ways
it is much easier to understand than the theory propounded for the
pay-for-delay scheme. But SBA has not demonstrated that all (or
even most) members of the class for which they seek certification
suffered the harm alleged by the hard switch theory, Judge McMahon
notes. Figuring out which proposed class members in fact suffered
the alleged antitrust injury would require an individualized
inquiry, which would predominate over the relatively
straightforward evidence needed to establish the antitrust
violation.

Judge McMahon also notes that SBA is seeking to certify what is, by
its own admission, an overbroad class. SBA and its expert, Dr.
Lamb, acknowledge that a TPP could not have been harmed by the hard
switch if it never reimbursed anyone for Namenda XR; nor could it
have been harmed if the only Namenda XR prescriptions for which it
paid were for insureds who would have converted to the branded XR
regardless of the hard switch.

This concession by SBA automatically defeats certification of the
proposed class, which is defined as "All third-party payors
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." That proposed class includes TPPs that did not
reimburse any insureds for Namenda XR. In fact, the proposed class
consists mostly of TPPs that did not suffer this form of antitrust
injury.

The Defendants provide evidence that a majority of TPPs that fall
within that definition never actually reimbursed an insured for any
Namenda XR prescription. The data before the Court shows that at
least 61% of SBA's current proposed class definition could not have
suffered any antitrust injury from the hard switch because they
never reimbursed for Namenda XR, Judge McMahon finds.

In light of this data, the Defendants argue persuasively that it is
impossible to conclude that there is common evidence of injury
across all (or at least all but a de minimis number) putative class
members that can be attributed to the hard switch.

Of course, the fact that the proposed class cannot be certified
does not mean that a smaller class consisting of only TPPs that
reimbursed for Namenda XR could not be certified, Judge McMahon
points out. Certifying a subclass of TPPs that reimbursed for
Namenda XR would be inappropriate in this case, because it is far
from guaranteed that all (or even most) of the TPPs that made such
reimbursement did so as a result of the hard switch.

Ultimately, the reason why the Court is certifying a pay for delay
class but declining to certify a hard switch class is because SBA
has not shown that only a de minimis number of TPPs that could be
members of a possible hard switch subclass would be uninjured,
Judge McMahon states. This contrasts with the pay-for-delay scheme,
where the Court was able to--on the basis of the evidence
presented--find it extremely unlikely that more than a de minimis
number of TPPs suffered no antitrust injury.

Judge McMahon, thus, declines to certify either the proposed hard
switch class or any subclass that might be able to be carved out of
it.

For these reasons, SBA's motion for class certification is granted
in part and denied in part in accordance with the limits
established by this opinion.

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.

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, the Judge 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.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. Nos. 444 and 551.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/149qlvjn from
Leagle.com.


FUBOTV INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of FuboTV, Inc. ("Fubo" or the "Company") (NYSE: FUBO)
from March 23, 2020 through January 4, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Fubo securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Fubo Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (1) Fubo's growth in subscriber
and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal
surge; (2) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (3) Fubo could not succesfully compete and perform as a
sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online sports
wagering opportunity; (4) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals; (5) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its
total revenue and subscription levels; and (6) the acquisition of
Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal
expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into
sports wagering.

On December 23, 2020, Richard Greenfield of Lightshed Partners
initiated coverage of Fubo with a sell rating and a $8 one-year
price target. In connection with initiating coverage, Lightshed
called prospects of Fubo achieving success with sports betting a
"pure fantasy." Lightshed further observed that the Company "[may
be] the most compelling short we have ever identified in our career
as analysts.

On this news, the shares of Fubo declined $11.90, or 21.22% over
two days to close at $44.18 on December 24, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Fubo securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fubotvinc-fubo-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-362/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

FUBOTV INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of FuboTV, Inc. ("Fubo" or the "Company") (NYSE: FUBO)
from March 23, 2020 through January 4, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Fubo securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Fubo Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (1) Fubo's growth in subscriber
and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal
surge; (2) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (3) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as
a sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (4) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals; (5) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its
total revenue and subscription levels; and (6) the acquisition of
Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal
expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into
sports wagering.

On December 23, 2020, Richard Greenfield of Lightshed Partners
initiated coverage of Fubo with a sell rating and a $8 one-year
price target. In connection with initiating coverage, Lightshed
called prospects of Fubo achieving success with sports betting a
"pure fantasy." Lightshed further observed that the Company "[may
be] the most compelling short we have ever identified in our career
as analysts.

On this news, the shares of Fubo declined $11.90, or 21.22% over
two days to close at $44.18 on December 24, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Fubo securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fubotvinc-fubo-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-362/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

FUBOTV INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased fuboTV, Inc.
(NYSE: FUBO) common stock between March 23, 2020 and January 4,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April
19, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements that misrepresented Fubo's financial health and its
operating condition. These misleading statements included
representations relating to a variety of Fubo's business operations
and performance metrics, including, among others, Fubo's ability to
grow subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality
factors, cost escalations and potentially shrinking addressable
market, ability to attract and generate advertising revenue, the
Company's valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of
online sports wagering.

Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research
reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed,
among others things, that (i) Fubo's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its
total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of
Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal
expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into
sports wagering.

Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo
securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020
to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.

If you purchased fuboTV common stock during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                        About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

FUBOTV INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against fuboTV Inc. ("fuboTV" or the "Company") (NYSE:
FUBO) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of fuboTV between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) FuboTV's growth in
subscriber and profitability were unsustainable past the seasonal
surge in subscription levels; (2) FuboTV's offering of products was
subject to undisclosed cost escalations; (3) FuboTV could not
successfully compete and perform as sports book operator and could
not capitalize on its only sports wagering opportunity; (4)
FuboTV's data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to
achieve long-term advertising growth goals and forecasts; (5)
FuboTV's valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and
subscription levels; (6) the acquisition of Balto Sport did not
provide the stated synergies, internal expertise, and did not
expand the Company's addressable market into online sports
wagering; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the laws

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of fuboTV
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
19, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


FUBOTV INC: Ibrahim Sues Over Misleading Company Growth Prospects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAFA SAID-IBRAHIM and ADHID IBRAHIM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FUBOTV INC., DAVID
GANDLER, EDGAR M. BRONFMAN JR., and SIMONE NARDI, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the federal securities
laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, the Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements that misrepresented Fubo's financial health
and its operating condition. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Fubo's growth in subscriber and profitability
were unsustainable past the seasonal surge in subscription levels;
(ii) Fubo offering of products was subject to undisclosed cost
escalations; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its only sports
wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve long-term advertising
growth goals and forecasts; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies,
internal expertise, and did not expand the company's addressable
market into online sports wagering.

FuboTV, Inc. is an American streaming television service that
focuses primarily on channels that distribute live sports, with a
principal place of business at 1330 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Christian Levis, Esq.
         Andrea Farah, Esq.
         David C. Harrison, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                 afarah@lowey.com
                 dharrison@lowey.com

                - and –

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 303-1964
         E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

FUBOTV INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the United States District Court Southern District of New
York on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of fuboTV, Inc.
("Fubo" or "Company") (NYSE: FUBO) from March 23, 2020 and January
4, 2021,inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges
violations of the federal securities laws.

Fubo is a Florida Company headquartered in New York. Fubo is a
multichannel video programming distributor ("vMVPD"), offering
subscribers access to live sporting events as well as thousands of
news and entertainment content. Fubo positions itself as a content
distributor at the intersection of three "megatrends":
cord-cutting, connected TV advertising, and online sports
wagering.

Fubo's stock was trading at $52.59 on December 23, 2020 but after a
series of reports and analysts questioning Fubo's business
operations and performance metrics, the price of Fubo securities
declined precipitously to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.
Among other things, these reports questioned Fubo's ability to grow
subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality factors,
cost escalations and shrinking addressable market, ability to
attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company's valuation,
and its business prospects of scaling its online sports wagering
opportunity.

The Complaint alleges Fubo made false and misleading statements to
the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational,
and financial prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements concerning: (i) Fubo's growth in subscriber
and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal
surge; (ii) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its
total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of
Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies and internal
expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into
sports wagering; and (vii) 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

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than April 19, 2021. Any member of
the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through
counsel of their choice.

If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Fubo's common
stock from March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, you may obtain
additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to
become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is
titled Said-Ibrahim et al. v. FuboTV Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-01412
(S.D.N.Y.). [GN]

FUBOTV INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a
announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of fuboTV, Inc. ("Fubo" or "Company") (NYSE: FUBO)
from March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

All investors who purchased shares of fuboTV, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of fuboTV, Inc. you may,
no later than April 19, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of fuboTV, Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose to investors:

-- Fubo's growth in subscriber and profitability was unsustainable
past the one-time seasonal surge;
-- Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation;
-- Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as a sports book
operator and could not capitalize on its online sports wagering
opportunity;
-- Fubo's data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo
to achieve its long-term advertising growth goals;
-- Fubo's valuation was overstated considering its total revenue
and subscription levels; and
-- the acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated
synergies and internal expertise and did not expand the Company's
addressable market into sports wagering.

On December 23, 2020, analyst Richard Greenfield of Lightshed
Partners initiated coverage of Fubo with a sell rating and a $8
one-year price target. In connection with initiating coverage,
Lightshed called prospects of Fubo achieving success with sports
betting a "pure fantasy." Lightshed further observed that the
Company "[may be] the most compelling short we have ever identified
in our career as analysts.

On this news, the shares of Fubo declined $11.90, or 21.22% over
two days to close at $44.18 on December 24, 2020.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.[GN]

GAMESTOP CORP: YouTuber Keith Gill Confirmed for Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Miri Teixeira at nme.com reports that Keith Gill, also known as
DeepFuckingValue or Roaring Kitty, has been confirmed as giving
testimony before Congress the the class-action lawsuit filed in
response to the GameStop shares hike.

A surge in GameStop shares came about due to a Reddit push that
resulted in stock prices rising to $347.51 (£247.81) from under
$100 (£71.31) in less than a week. A group of investment
enthusiasts, mostly from the subreddit page r/WallStreetBets,
identified that some hedge funds held large short-selling positions
on GameStop, and bought up all the available shares.

News has since broken that the saga is reportedly being turned into
a movie by film company MGM and writer Ben Mezrich. Other news
revealed that those deemed responsible were being taken to court by
US law firm Hagens Berman.

"He caused enormous losses not only to those who bought option
contracts, but also to those who fell for Gill's act and bought
GameStop stock during the market frenzy at greatly inflated
prices."

Gill has responded in a prepared testimony, according to
gamesindustry.biz, saying "The idea that I used social media to
promote GameStop stock to unwitting investors is preposterous.

"I was abundantly clear that my channel was for educational
purposes only, and that my aggressive style of investing was
unlikely to be suitable for most folks checking out the channel."
[GN]

GERBER PRODUCTS: Robbins Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ROBBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY (D/B/A NESTLE
NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION, OR NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH
AMERICA) and NURTURE, INC. (D/B/A HAPPY FAMILY BRANDS AND HAPPY
FAMILY ORGANICS), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01457 (C.D. Cal.,
February 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligent misrepresentation, the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the Unfair
Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
labeling and representations of baby foods. Many of the Defendants'
products contain labels using words such as organic, HappyTot,
and/or HappyBaby to imply to consumers that the products are
healthy. The Plaintiff and Class members did not know that,
contrary to the representations on the products' labels, the
products contained heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and
lead, at levels that are above what is considered safe for babies.
The Plaintiff and Class members were injured because they paid a
premium for the products based on the Defendants'
misrepresentations, the suit says.

Gerber Products Company, doing business as Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition, or Nestle Nutrition North America, is an American
purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham
Park, New Jersey.

Nurture, Inc., doing business as Happy Family Brands and Happy
Family Organics, is an organic baby and toddler food company based
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         David R. Shoop, Esq.
         Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
         SHOOP | A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
         9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 620-9533
         E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com
                 Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com

                - and –

         Michael R. Reese, Esq.
         REESE LLP
         100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10025
         Telephone: (212) 643-0500
         Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
         E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

                - and –

         Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
         Joseph Lipari, Esq.
         Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
         THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
         270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 969-7810
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

GOOGLE INC: Faces Possible Class-Action Over Game Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Schoon at 9to5google.com reports that to say the launch of
Google's Stadia platform was "rough" is an understatement. A huge
lack of games, miscommunication with eager early adopters, and more
plagued the first few months of Stadia. Among those problems was
game quality, specifically that games like Destiny 2 weren't 4K on
Stadia as Google had heavily implied. Now, Google may face a
class-action lawsuit over 4K game claims on Stadia.

A lawsuit originally filed in New York in October 2020 has recently
been surfaced by ClassAction.org as the suit moved to New York
Federal Court. The case alleges that Google "greatly exaggerated
the streaming quality and display resolution" in order to "juice
subscription numbers" for Stadia ahead of the platform's launch.

We addressed this issue* around the time of Stadia's launch,
talking about how Google was indeed exaggerating the quality of
games. It's true that Google did explicitly say all games would be
streamed at 4K 60fps, but it was later clarified that some games
would render at lower resolutions and be upscaled to hit the
optional 4k60 stream that Google was originally referring to.

While Google's claims were misleading, they boil down to
miscommunication and mismanagement -- seemingly a pattern Stadia's
leadership just can't break. The hardware behind Stadia is, in
fact, more powerful than PS4 or Xbox One as promised and games are
playable in 4K. Destiny 2 lacks 4K on Stadia, but that's not
Google's fault, it lies on developer Bungie's choice to prioritize
frames-per-second over resolution. At this point, roughly half of
Stadia's library can run at up to 4k60 with many others offering
4k30. Of note, Google still does not offer clear information on the
resolution of a game purchased on Stadia before the point of
purchase.

Suing Google over a lack of 4K on games on Stadia basically equates
to suing Netflix because some movies aren't available in 4K. You're
paying Netflix extra to unlock 4K and clearly, Netflix is capable
of streaming that, but it doesn't change the fact that some content
simply isn't available in that resolution, either by limitations of
production or the simple choice of the publisher. Developers
publishing games on Stadia have the same choices and potential
limitations. EA, for example, offers Madden NFL 21 in 4k60 on
Stadia, but limits Jedi: Fallen Order to 1080p60 with Google
upscaling the final stream for its Pro subscribers.

If the lawsuit manages to go through, it seeks damages for anyone
who purchased a Stadia Founder's Edition, Premiere Edition, or paid
for a Stadia Pro subscription based on the information that Stadia
would support all games in 4K.

*Note: The headline of our original November 2019 coverage of the
4K issue was changed in response to clarification from Google,
which provided valuable context about the situation and justified
changing the headline and correcting points made within the
article. [GN]

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Chabot Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Interested Parties DOUGLAS CHABOT, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE GREENLANE
HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 9:19-cv-81259-RKA,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 14, 2021, Judge
Roy K. Altman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed
the case with prejudice.

Defendant Greenlane sells tobacco products--and, in particular,
"vaporizers" and "e-cigarettes"--to approximately 9,700 smoke shops
and retailers throughout the United States and Canada. It also
sells products directly to consumers on its e-commerce websites. On
April 18, 2019, Greenlane went public through an initial public
offering ("IPO"), issuing $110 million in common stock at $17 per
share. Two months later, on June 19, 2019, its stock dropped to
about $11 per share and, two days after that, closed at $9.32.

Douglas Chabot and Yevgeny Goncharov were among the investors who
purchased Greenlane stock in April of 2019.  Having lost money on
that investment when the stock tanked, they brought a putative
class action against Greenlane and some of its officers and
directors. They claim that the Defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in a Form S-1
Registration Statement, a document companies are required to file
with the SEC before selling stocks in interstate commerce.

Chabot, et al., is now seeking an appeal to review the case
dismissal order entered by Judge Altman.

The appellate case is captioned as Douglas Chabot, et al. v.
Greenlane Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-10395, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, February 5,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
February 19, 2021, as to Appellant Douglas Chabot; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before March 5, 2021 as to Appellees.[BN]

Interested Parties-Appellants DOUGLAS CHABOT and YEVGENY GONCHAROV
are represented by:

          Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.  
          ROBBINS, LLP
          5040 Shoreham Pl
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: ecarrino@robbinsllp.com
                  soddo@robbinsllp.com
                  brobbins@robbinsllp.com

               - and -

          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Adam David Warden, Esq.
          Joseph Edward White, III, Esq.           
          SAXENA WHITE, PA
          7777 Glades Rd Ste 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
                  awarden@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com

Defendants-Appellees GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., AARON LOCASIO, ETHAN
RUDIN, ADAM SCHOENFELD, NEIL CLOSNER, and COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC
are represented by:

          Douglas Wesley Greene, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          999 3rd Ave Ste 3600
          Seattle, WA 98104-4040
          Telephone: (206) 566-7090
          E-mail: dgreene@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Ray Linscott, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave Ste 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 649-4000
          E-mail: jlinscott@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Steven Koslowe, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF
           & SITTERSON, PA
          150 W Flagler St Ste 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3263
          E-mail: jkoslowe@stearnsweaver.com

HOME DEPOT: Gregorio FDUTPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL GREGORIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No.
CACE-21-002428, was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-60372-RS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of
contract by selling, marketing, and advertising the herbicide
Roundup without informing consumers that it is potentially
carcinogenic because it contains the active ingredient glyphosate.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the
United States, headquartered in Cobb County, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Scott M. Edson, Esq.
         KING & SPALDING LLP
         1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 2nd Floor
         Washington, D.C. 20006
         Telephone: (202) 737-0500
         Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
         E-mail: sedson@kslaw.com

HUAZHU GROUP: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Huazhu Group Limited (NASDAQ: HTHT) resulting from
allegations that Huazhu may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Huazhu securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1949.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 21, 2020, Bonitas Research issued
a report on the Company which alleged that Huazhu "lied about the
ownership of its hotel portfolio to produce fake financials." The
report also stated that Bonitas' fieldwork "confirmed that Huazhu
secretly supported operating costs of franchisee hotels owned by
undisclosed current Huazhu employees & other undisclosed related
parties (‘off-book hotels')." Bonitas further asserted that it
"believe[s] that Huazhu concealed operating expenses using
undisclosed related party transactions to artificially inflate
Huazhu's reported profits[,]" and that it "calculate[s] that
Huazhu's fake profits manifested as RMB 2 billion (US$ 300 million)
of fake PP&E on its CYE'19 balance sheet."

On this news, Huazhu's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell
$1.54, or over 3%, to close at $40.48 per ADS on September 21,
2020, thereby injuring investors.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

IMMUNOVANT INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Immunovant, Inc., f/k/a Health Sciences
Acquisitions Corporation, ("Immunovant" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
IMVT) who purchased, or otherwise acquired, IMVT securities between
October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period).  

On February 19, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of
Immunovant investors.

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Immunovant Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies.

The Immunovant Defendants, according to the class action complaint,
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) HSAC had performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy
Immunovant prior to the Merger, and/or ignored or failed to
disclose safety issues associated with IMVT-1401; (ii) IMVT-1401
was less safe than the Company had led investors to believe,
particularly with respect to treating TED and WAIHA; (iii) the
foregoing foreseeably diminished IMVT-1401's prospects for
regulatory approval, commercial viability, and profitability; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, IMMUNOVANT
SECURITIES DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$100,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802,
KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.   

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

IMMUNOVANT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Immunovant, Inc. f/k/a Health Sciences Acquisitions
Corporation ("HSAC", "Immunovant", or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMVT;
HSACU; HSAC; and HSACW) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-00918, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Immunovant
securities between October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Immunovant securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 20, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Immunovant is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of autoimmune
diseases. The Company is developing IMVT-1401, a novel fully human
monoclonal antibody, which is in Phase II a clinical trials for the
treatment of myasthenia gravis and thyroid eye disease ("TED"),
also known as Graves' ophthalmopathy. The Company has also
completed initiation of Phase II clinical trials of IMVT-1401 for
the treatment of warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia ("WAIHA").

On September 29, 2019, HSAC, then a blank check company, also known
as a special purpose acquisition company, entered into an agreement
with Immunovant Sciences Ltd. ("Legacy Immunovant"), a private
biopharmaceutical company, and shareholders of Legacy Immunovant,
to effect a merger between the two entities (the "Merger"). As a
result of the Merger, HSAC acquired all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Legacy Immunovant, and Legacy Immunovant
became a wholly owned subsidiary of HSAC. Upon the closing of the
Merger, HSAC changed its name to "Immunovant, Inc."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HSAC had
performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy Immunovant prior to
the Merger, and/or ignored or failed to disclose safety issues
associated with IMVT-1401; (ii) IMVT-1401 was less safe than the
Company had led investors to believe, particularly with respect to
treating TED and WAIHA; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably diminished
IMVT-1401's prospects for regulatory approval, commercial
viability, and profitability; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 2, 2021, Immunovant issued a press release
"announc[ing] a voluntary pause of dosing in its ongoing clinical
trials for IMVT-1401." Immunovant disclosed that it "has become
aware of a physiological signal consisting of elevated total
cholesterol and LDL [low-density lipoproteins] levels in
IMVT-1401-treated patients" and "[o]ut of an abundance of caution,
the Company has decided to voluntarily pause dosing in ongoing
clinical studies in both TED and in [WAIHA], in order to inform
patients, investigators, and regulators as well as to modify the
monitoring program."

On this news, Immunovant's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or
42.08%, to close at $25.08 per share on February 2, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

INNOVATION TOOTELO: Court Authorizes Suit Over Medical Appointments
-------------------------------------------------------------------
montrealgazette.com reports that Quebec Superior Court has given
the green light to a class action lawsuit launched against
for-profit medical appointments website, Bonjour-Sante.

The lawsuit, against Boucherville-based Innovation Tootelo Inc.
which runs the website, was originally filed with Helene Bedard as
the representative plaintiff in 2018, but was suspended because of
a parallel suit between the Regie de l'assurance maladie du Quebec,
the province's public health-insurance program, and Bonjour-Sante.

The court authorized the class action with a new representative,
Josie-Anne Huard.

The heart of the dispute is whether it is legal to charge someone
to obtain an appointment for health care covered by RAMQ. The court
will also have to decide if members of the class can get reimbursed
for money they paid Bonjour-Sante, in addition to other damages.

The class action represents anyone who gave money to Bonjour-Sante
to get an appointment for a medical act covered by RAMQ since Sept.
20, 2015 -- a date set by a statute of limitation when the initial
request was filed, said Cory Verbauwhede, one of the lawyers for
the case.

According to the case filings, Huard paid $51.75 to Bonjour-Sante
to get three medical appointments for her child in 2017 for
services covered by RAMQ.

The website offers various types of subscriptions to its clients
and offers direct access to clinics' calendars, allowing
subscribers to book appointments without having to contact each
clinic individually.

In its defence, Tootelo told Judge Donald Bisson that the website
does not sell medical appointments, but rather a service that
searches for availabilities to make an appointment.

"This service obtains information for the user and simply saves
time," the company argued. "The contract between Tootelo and the
plaintiff covers searching for appointments, not the making of an
appointment."

The lawsuit will, therefore, centre around the real nature of the
service Bonjour-Sante provides, the judge wrote in his decision.

"Everyone agrees here that if the contract Tootelo agreed to with
the plaintiff covers the booking of a medical appointment, Article
22 (of the Health Insurance Act) would be violated."

The article states that "no payment may be charged to or received
from any insured person, directly or indirectly, for costs incurred
for insured services provided."

Verbauwhede makes a second, independent argument for why
Bonjour-Sante should be considered illegal.

"Clinics are already paid to manage appointments, which is not
limited to booking appointments, but also the publication of
appointment availabilities," he said.

Since Quebecers already pay for this service through the
government, they would be paying a second time for the service
through Bonjour-Sante.

Firms Grenier Verbauwhede Avocats, Trudel Johnston Lesperance and
Hadekel Shams are working for the defence in this case, while
Robert Kugler and Alexandre Brosseau-Wery of Kugler Kandestin
represent Tootelo. [GN]

INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE: Young Suit Remanded to St. Clair Cir. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois remanded the case, ALTAMESE YOUNG, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v.
INTEGRITY HEALTHCARE COMMUNITIES, LLC, AND BELLEVILLE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH & NURSING CENTER, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-CV-00244-MAB (S.D. Ill.), to the Circuit Court of the 20th
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

Presently before the Court is the parties' joint motion to remand
filed on Feb. 10, 2021.  The parties jointly request the Court to
remand the matter to the Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, which is where the case was
originally filed on Oct. 23, 2019.  Defendant Belleville removed
the case on March 4, 2020 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332,
1441, and 1446, arguing that removal was proper under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

Currently, the matter is set for a status conference on the issue
of jurisdictional discovery in light of the Court's Jan. 15, 2021
Order.  The purpose of the jurisdictional discovery was to
determine whether the home state exception to CAFA applies to the
present matter, which, if applicable, would require the Court to
remand the matter to state court.

As the parties now wish to remand the matter to state court, Judge
Beatty vacated all deadlines and canceled the status conference for
Feb. 18, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.  At the request of all the parties, he
remanded the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ufynzl6l from Leagle.com.


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Jianpu Technology Inc. (NYSE: JT) resulting from
allegations that Jianpu may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Jianpu securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2033.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the
results of its independent review into "transactions carried out by
the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit" with third-party
business entities. The Company concluded that previously-reported
revenue and associated expenses had been inflated due to "certain
transactions [that] involved third-party agents (including both
upstream agents and downstream suppliers) with undisclosed
relationships and some transactions [that] lacked business
substance." Jianpu stated that it "anticipates the total amount of
overstated revenue for the fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to be
approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164 million, respectively,
representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of the total revenue
previously reported."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to
close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021, injuring investors.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: The Schall Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Jianpu
Technology Inc. ("Jianpu" or "the Company") (NYSE: JT) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 29,
2018 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 19, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3btfMOE to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Jianpu's Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit engaged in transactions involving undisclosed related
parties or lacking in business substance. As a result, the
Company's revenues, costs, and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019
were overstated. The Company suffered from material weaknesses in
its internal controls over financial reporting. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Jianpu, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

KEITH GILL: Faces $5M Suit Over GameStop Stock Price Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mina Corpuz at The Enterprise reports that Brockton native Keith
Gill, who spent half a year making videos and sharing information
about investing, was sued in federal district court in
Massachusetts for his alleged role in manipulating the stock prices
of GameStop.

The class action suit, which lists Washington state investor
Christian Iovin as the plaintiff, said that its goal is to remedy
Gill's "egregious" conduct and "somewhat restore the integrity of
the securities market." The lawsuit demands a jury trial and asks
for $5 million plus in damages.

"To orchestrate the manipulation of GameStop stock, Gill created a
far-reaching and wildly successful social media campaign in the
year leading up to the surge in GameStop shares," the lawsuit
states.

Brockton native Keith Gill, who spent half a year making videos and
sharing information about investing, was sued in federal district
court in Massachusetts for his alleged role in manipulating the
stock prices of GameStop.

The class action suit, which lists Washington state investor
Christian Iovin as the plaintiff, said that its goal is to remedy
Gill's "egregious" conduct and "somewhat restore the integrity of
the securities market." The lawsuit demands a jury trial and asks
for $5 million plus in damages.

"To orchestrate the manipulation of GameStop stock, Gill created a
far-reaching and wildly successful social media campaign in the
year leading up to the surge in GameStop shares," the lawsuit
states.

Gill took on the persona of an amateur by using multiple identities
online to promote GameStop, the lawsuit says, referring to his
YouTube and Twitter account where he went by "Roaring Kitty" and on
Reddit under the username "DeepF***ingValue."

He acted "as a kind of Robin Hood" and characterized securities
professionals as villains to motivate amateur traders, the lawsuit
says. Gill targeted hedge funds that shorted GameStop as "evil,
powerful boys" and advocated for revenge by causing a market
frenzy, the plaintiff alleges.

As part of his online persona, members of the Reddit forum
r/wallstreetbets saw Gill's monthly updates about his investments
and said they were encouraged to buy shares of their own, the
lawsuit says. The suit includes screenshots of comments in the
forum to show that Gill further inspired them to hold their shares
and manipulate the market.

As a result of the effort, GameStop's shares shot up 1,600 percent
to a record of $483 a share and caused huge losses for short
sellers and those who bought the stock at higher prices.

The Brockton native's initial $53,000 investment became worth
nearly $48 million at the stock's height.

The lawsuit cites Gill's own videos, Reddit posts and Twitter posts
as evidence of his targeting hedge funds and recruiting investors.


In reality, Gill wasn't an amateur, the lawsuit said.

He has worked as a professional in finance and investment for more
than a decade and was licensed by MML Investor Services and
employed by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. while he made
his YouTube videos and posted on social media.

Gill, in written testimony for the U.S. House Committee on
Financial Services, said his job was to develop financial education
classes that advisors could present to prospective clients. He said
he never sold securities or was a financial advisor.

MassMutual and MML Investors Services are listed as defendants on
the lawsuit. It claims that as Gill's employers they had legal and
regulatory obligations to supervise his conduct and use of social
media.

Steve Berman, a lawyer who is part of the plaintiff's legal team
and managing partner from the firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
said in a statement that they are focused on what MML and
Massachusetts Mutual knew about Gill's activities.

"By failing to adhere to its own supervision obligation, MML and
MassMutual willfully participated in Gill's manipulative activity
and violations . . . (and) are liable for Gill's unlawful and
manipulative activity," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit claims that through his actions, Gill violated multiple
laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit's plaintiff, Iovin, used $200,000 in collateral to sell
call options for GameStop on Jan. 26 when the stock was below $100,
the lawsuit states.

Call options are financial contracts that give the buyer the right
to buy a stock, bond or commodity at a specific price within a
specific time period.

Iovin was "forced to 'cover' the options contracts by purchasing
back offsetting GameStop options contracts representing Gamestop
shares at unwarrantedly and unprecedented inflated prices of $300
and $315 unmoored to the true value of GameStop shares," causing
him to incur "substantial losses," the lawsuit states.

He made the transactions relying on the integrity of the market and
didn't know about what Gill was doing, the lawsuit states.

Others from around the country who were similarly affected like
Iovin could join the lawsuit class. They needed to have lost money
when they purchased GameStop shares, purchased back an option, had
an option for the stock called away, bought its shares to cover a
short position or had options expire between Jan. 22 and Feb. 2 of
this year.

The exact number of class members isn't known, but hundreds of
thousands of options were traded during the nearly two-week period,
the lawsuit says.

"Investors from all walks of life were significantly damaged by the
price manipulation incited by Keith Gill and his unsuspecting
followers who hung on his every word," said Berman, of the firm
representing Iovin. "Trades and social media of this magnitude does
not go unnoticed." [GN]

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Announces of Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. (OTCQX:KSHB) ("KushCo" or the "Company"), a
premier provider of ancillary products and services to the legal
cannabis and CBD industries, has announced that a putative
shareholder class action filed on April 30, 2019, in the United
States District Court, Central District of California ("the
Court"), Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, has been dismissed in
its entirety with prejudice, bringing the case to an end.

On April 9, 2019, the Company publicly announced that it would be
restating its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal
years ending August 31, 2018 and 2017, and for the three months
ended November 30, 2018 and 2017, due to inadvertent errors in the
accounting for certain shared-settled contingent consideration
related to Company's acquisitions in fiscal years 2017 and 2018,
which mistakenly categorized the acquisitions as "equity" instead
of "liability."

The class action plaintiffs had alleged that the Company knowingly
committed these errors, intentionally misstated its financial
statements, and had therefore violated federal securities laws. The
Court disagreed that the plaintiffs' complaint pled facts to
support their allegations and held that the plaintiffs' allegations
instead "fail to allege a strong inference of scienter," or
knowledge of wrongdoing. The Court therefore dismissed the
complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the
Company. Although the plaintiffs had noticed an appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, on February 17, 2021, the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss their appeal with prejudice, effectively ending
the case.

                          About KushCo Holdings

KushCo Holdings, Inc. (OTCQX: KSHB) (www.kushco.com) is a premier
provider of ancillary products and services to the legal cannabis
and CBD industries. KushCo Holdings' subsidiaries and brands
provide product quality, exceptional customer service, compliance
knowledge and a local presence in serving its diverse customer
base, which consists of leading multi-state-operators (MSOs),
licensed producers (LPs), and brands.

Founded in 2010, KushCo Holdings has now sold more than 1 billion
units to growers, brand owners, processors and producers across
North America, South America, and Europe, specializing in
child-resistant compatible and fully customizable packaging,
exclusive vape hardware and technology, and complementary solvents
and natural products. [GN]

LABOR SOURCE: BluSky's Bid for Cert. to Appeal in Murphy Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCQUISE MURPHY and RATANYA ROGERS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABOR
SOURCE, LLC d/b/a CATSTAFF d/b/a ONE SOURCE STAFFING AND LABOR, and
BLUSKY RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-1929 (ECW) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan
Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied BluSky's Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal.

On July 23, 2019, Plaintiffs Murphy and Rogers initiated the
putative collective and class action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals who have worked for Defendants
One Source and BluSky as non-exempt manual laborers.  The
Plaintiffs and the putative class and collective members challenged
the Defendants' minimum wage and overtime violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. ("FLSA"), as
well as the wage, hour, labor, and other applicable laws of the
State of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards
Act, Minn. Stat. Section 177.21 et seq. ("MFLSA") and the Minnesota
Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. Section 181.01 et seq. ("MPWA").

Defendant One Source, a Kansas limited liability company, is a
staffing agency that provides unskilled and semi-skilled workers in
the construction, manufacturing, fulfillment, and disaster
restoration industries.  Its principal place of business is located
in Olathe, Kansas.  One Source operates in various states across
the country, including Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, Texas,
Colorado, and New York.

Defendant BluSky is a foreign limited liability company that
provides manual labor services for restoration and environmental
services.  It principal place of business is located in Centennial,
Colorado.  BluSky contracted with One Source to obtain manual
laborers for restoration projects at various work sites, including
one in Minnesota.

On Sept. 30, 2019, the Defendants filed their Partial Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  They Defendants moved to dismiss (1) the
claims of any putative collective plaintiffs who did not work in
Minnesota for lack of personal jurisdiction (general and specific);
(2) the Plaintiffs' federal collective claims for failure to state
a claim (as a whole and, alternatively, as to employees outside
Minnesota); (3) the Plaintiffs' state and federal minimum wage
claims for failure to state a claim; and (4) the Plaintiffs' state
and federal recordkeeping claims for failure to state a claim.

With respect to the Defendants' motion based on lack of personal
jurisdiction, the Court in its Report and Recommendation
recommended denial of the Partial Motion to Dismiss to the extent
it seeks dismissal of the claims of any putative FLSA collective
plaintiffs against BluSky who did not work in Minnesota based on
lack of personal jurisdiction.  With respect to One Source, it
recommended granting the Partial Motion to Dismiss to the extent it
sought dismissal of the claims of any putative FLSA collective
plaintiffs against One Source who did not work in Minnesota based
on lack of personal jurisdiction.  As to One Source, the Plaintiffs
conceded that One Source has not appointed an agent for receipt of
process within Minnesota.

On April 16, 2020, District Judge Michael J. Davis adopted the
Report and Recommendation with respect to the finding that personal
jurisdiction exists as to the claims of any of the putative FLSA
collective Plaintiffs against BluSky who did not work in
Minnesota.

As part of the Plaintiffs' operative May 7, 2020 Amended Complaint,
the following claims are asserted: (1) First Cause of Action: Count
I: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)--Overtime Violations (on behalf
of the Collective Members); (2) First Cause of Action: Count II:
FLSA--Minimum Wage Violations (on behalf of the Collective
Members); (3) Second Cause of Action: Count I; Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act (MFLSA)--Minimum Wage Violations (on behalf of the
Minnesota Class); (4) Second Cause of Action: Count II:
MFLSA--Overtime Violation (On Behalf of the Minnesota Class); (5)
Second Cause of Action: Count III: MFLSA--Expense Reimbursement (On
Behalf of the Minnesota Class); (6) Second Cause of Action: Count
IV: MFLSA--Payroll Card Account Violation (On Behalf of the
Minnesota Class); (7) Second Cause of Action: Count V:
MFLSA--Failure to Keep Accurate Records (On Behalf of the Minnesota
Class); (8) Third Cause of Action: Failure to Pay for All Hours
Worked Under Minnesota Law (On Behalf of the Minnesota Class); (9)
Fourth Cause of Action: Count I: Minnesota Payment of Wages Act
(MPWA)--Failure to Pay Wages Promptly (On Behalf of the Minnesota
Class); and (10) Fourth Cause of Action: Count II: MPWA--Wage
Statement Violation (On Behalf of the Minnesota Class).

With respect to the Court's previous rulings regarding personal
jurisdiction, the claims under the First Cause of Action pertaining
to the FLSA (Counts I and II) relating to non-exempt manual
laborers working outside of Minnesota would only proceed as to
BluSky and not One Source.  Otherwise, the remaining Causes of
Action and Counts in the Amended Complaint would proceed, for the
purposes of personal jurisdiction, as to both BluSky and One
Source.

On June 4, 2020, BluSky again moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to
partially dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Its motion to dismiss
only addressed the First Cause of Action, comprised of the two
amended FLSA counts.  It sought dismissal with prejudice of the
Plaintiffs' collective claims in those counts as to employees
outside of Minnesota.  In the alternative, BluSky asked the Court
to dismiss all claims against BluSky outside of the Minnesota and
Missouri projects or all claims against it outside of joint
ventures with One Source.  The motion did not address personal
jurisdiction with respect to the Court's previous decision as to
Knowlton, except for the purposes of preserving BluSky's rights for
appeal.

On Oct. 14, 2020, Judge Davis denied the motion to partially
dismiss the Amended Complaint.

The present Motion was filed on Nov. 13, 2020, with briefing
concluding on Jan. 14, 2021.

BluSky moves the Court to certify the following issue for
interlocutory appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:
Whether, in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent,
registering to do business in Minnesota is sufficient to subject a
foreign corporation to general jurisdiction in Minnesota as set
forth in Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196 (8th
Cir. 1990)?

Magistrate Judge Wright explains that in Knowlton, the Eighth
Circuit found, consistent with the Minnesota Supreme Court's
interpretation of the relevant statutes, that a foreign corporation
had consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the District of
Minnesota by designating an agent for service of process in
Minnesota.  It explained that the whole purpose of requiring
designation of an agent for service is to make a nonresident suable
in the local courts.

As Knowlton makes clear, consent is an independent basis for
jurisdiction, wholly separate from the due process considerations
that govern an analysis of minimum contacts.  While persuasive
arguments can be made that the holding of Knowlton is not
reconcilable with the narrowing of the boundaries of due process
that govern an analysis of minimum contacts and general personal
jurisdiction under Goodyear and Daimler, the Court nonetheless
remains bound by Knowlton which is controlling in the case.

Magistrate Judge Wright then states that the a question of law is
"controlling" if "reversal of the district court's order would
terminate the action," or "if its resolution is quite likely to
affect the further course of the litigation, even if it not certain
to do so."  A controlling legal question "of the type referred to
in Section 1292(b) contrasts with a matter for the discretion of
the trial court.  BluSky contends that the putative nationwide
collective claims are the central discovery and class certification
dispute in the case and limiting the collective inherently would
streamline the litigation.

Magistrate Judge Wright finds that interlocutory review of the
issue of personal jurisdiction will not materially advance the
termination of the litigation because, regardless of the outcome,
the litigation will progress as to the Minnesota Class for both
BluSky and One Source.  Indeed, what BluSky seeks is an inevitable
piecemeal appeals process, which is disfavored by the Eighth
Circuit.  Permitting appeals before final judgment causes delay,
expense, and duplication of appellate process, especially in view
of the fact that, statistically speaking, most appeals result in
affirmances.

Moreover, it appears unlikely that certification will materially
advance the ultimate termination of the present litigation with
respect to the nationwide class as to BluSky in view of the Eighth
Circuit's recent decision in GreenState Credit Union v. Hy-Vee,
Inc., No. 20-8014 (8th Cir. Dec. 4. 2020).  In that case, the
Eighth Circuit denied a petition for permission to appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) where a district court had certified
the issue of whether Knowlton comports with the Supreme Court's
narrowing of general jurisdiction.

Finally, the Eighth Circuit declined the Section 1292(b) petition
in GreenState Credit Union, No. 20-8014 (8th Cir. Dec. 4.  If the
Eighth Circuit refused to certify the issue as part of a class
action suit where the entire case would have been dismissed if
there was no general jurisdiction (assuming there was no specific
personal jurisdiction), then Magistrate Judge Wright cannot discern
why the Eighth Circuit would choose to address the same issue as
part of a collective FLSA action where the case will continue to
proceed regardless of how the Eighth Circuit ruled on whether
Knowlton is still good law.

In sum, BluSky has failed to meet its heavy burden with respect to
the third prong under Section 1292(b). Therefore, its Motion for
Certification for Interlocutory Appeal is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1o05bf43 from Leagle.com.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) resulting from
allegations that Leidos may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Leidos securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2035.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 16, 2021, investment analyst Spruce
Point Capital Management published a report alleging, among other
things, that "Leidos' $1.0 billion levered acquisition of L3Harris'
Security Detection and Automation business (SD&A) is experiencing
significant problems, including product defects, that increase the
likelihood of a material adverse effect." The report further
alleged that Leidos misstated revenue, citing, for example, a $6
million variance between the third quarter 2020 investor
presentation and a Form 10-Q, which "raises the possibility that
Leidos has booked fake revenue, or is keeping two sets of books."

On this news, Leido's stock price fell $3.41 per share, or over 3%,
to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021, damaging
investors.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

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

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Acthar Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to Appeal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the
Acthar Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal on an expedited basis
in the lawsuits titled In re MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., Chapter 11,
Debtors. MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, et al., Defendants, Bankr. Case No. 20-12522-HD
(Jointly Administered), Adv. No. 20-50850-JTD, Misc. No. 20-408-LPS
(D. Del.).

The Acthar Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal on an expedited
basis the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting the Debtors'
Supplemental Motion for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Section 105 entered on December 4, 2020.

The "Acthar Plaintiffs" consist of: the City of Rockford,
Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, the International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 542, United Association of Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey ("Plumbers Local 322")
and Acument Global Technologies, individually and on behalf of the
classes of third-party payors and their beneficiaries that
Rockford, Steamfitters Local 420, and Plumbers Local 322 seek to
represent in their respective cases currently pending in federal
district courts in the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and the District of New Jersey,
respectively.

The Preliminary Injunction Order enjoins continuation of certain
litigation for a period of 270 days and provides that any party
subject to the Order may seek relief from any provision of the
Order for cause shown. The Acthar Plaintiffs assert that they may
appeal as of right from the Preliminary Injunction Order, which
should be considered a final order under the Third Circuit's
flexible pragmatic approach. Alternatively, they seek leave to
pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Preliminary Injunction Order.
As a basis for relief, the Acthar Plaintiffs argue that the
Bankruptcy Court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of
law as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052. They
seek to expedite the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 8013.

The Debtors counter that the Acthar Plaintiffs have no appeal as of
right because the Preliminary Injunction Order is not final. They
further assert that leave to appeal should be denied because the
Acthar Plaintiffs raise no challenge to the legal standards applied
and have failed to establish any other factor relevant to whether
to permit an interlocutory appeal.

Background

The Debtors filed their Chapter 11 cases in part to address a
number of lawsuits against them, including approximately 2,650
proceedings initiated by governmental units, related to the
Debtors' production of opioid-based pain medication, and more than
a dozen suits against the Debtors and certain co-defendants related
to the Debtors' Acthar product. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, the
Debtors entered into a restructuring support agreement ("RSA")
signed by, among others, 50 state Attorneys General, Washington,
D.C., and U.S. territories with respect to their opioid claims, and
the members of the Plaintiffs' executive committee representing the
interests of over 1,000 plaintiffs in the national multidistrict
opioid litigation.

The Debtors assert that, subsequent to filing, they also obtained
support for the RSA from an ad hoc group of an additional 1,300
municipalities. The RSA sets forth the terms of a chapter 11 plan,
which in turn incorporates a global settlement of all
opioid-related claims as well as a settlement of all Acthar-related
litigation commenced by federal governmental entities.

The Acthar Plaintiffs are a group of non-supporting litigants
pursuing recovery from the Debtors for alleged unlawful conduct in
their marketing of Acthar through various actions ("Covered Acthar
Actions"). The Covered Acthar Actions assert that certain Debtors
("Mallinckrodt Defendants") conspired with the exclusive
distributor of Acthar, Express Scripts, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates ("EST Defendants"), to unlawfully exploit a monopoly in
Acthar, principally by substantially increasing the price of the
product.

In the Supplemental Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Debtors
sought an order extending the automatic stay and temporarily
enjoining continuation of the Covered Acthar Actions against the
ESI Defendants and a limited number of other actions against
third-party defendants. They assert that the claims asserted
against the ESI Defendants in the Covered Acthar Actions centrally
involve the Debtors as essentially every allegation made against
the ESI Defendants is an allegation that those defendants acted in
concert with or at the behest of the Mallinckrodt Defendants.

The Debtors further assert that the ESI Defendants' defense
similarly focuses on the Debtors: The ESI Defendants have stated
they will defend themselves in these lawsuits by challenging the
Plaintiffs' abilities to hold the ESI Defendants liable for this
alleged unilateral business conduct of the Mallinckrodt Defendants.
In addition, the Debtors contend, the ESI Defendants have asserted
that the Mallinckrodt Defendants owe them contractual indemnity for
the claims asserted against the ESI Defendants under three separate
indemnity agreements. The ESI Defendants' indemnity claims will
rely upon establishing the Mallinckrodt Defendants' misconduct, and
the Debtors contend that even if the ESI Defendants' indemnity
arguments fail, the ESI Defendants will likely assert contribution
claims against the Mallinckrodt Defendants.

In support of their request for an order extending the automatic
stay to the Covered Acthar Actions, the Debtors argued that both
the Acthar Plaintiffs and the EST Defendants would require
extensive discovery from the Debtors in order to pursue and defend
against the claims brought against ESI. They further argued that
managing and participating in the Covered Acthar Actions already
had, and would continue, to require substantial attention from the
Debtors' key officers and executives. The Debtors further argued
that continued prosecution of the highly-publicized Covered Acthar
Actions, which assert billions of dollars of potential damages,
creates further negative publicity damaging to the Debtors'
businesses and employee retention, and creates risk and uncertainty
which could undermine support of the RSA parties, which in turn
threatens the entire restructuring.

The Acthar Defendants and certain other affected parties objected
to the Debtors' requested relief. The Acthar Defendants argued,
among other things, that the Bankruptcy Court lacked "related to"
jurisdiction to enjoin the Covered Acthar Actions because the three
agreements underlying ESI's contractual indemnity claims did not
establish a credible claim for indemnity. The parties were afforded
discovery and depositions in connection with the objections, and
the Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
Supplemental Motion over the course of three days.

At the conclusion of that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court read into
the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law, overruling
all objections, and granting the Preliminary Injunction Order.

Based on its findings and conclusions, the Bankruptcy Court entered
the Preliminary Injunction Order, imposing a 270-day stay of the
Covered Acthar Actions, from which any party may seek relief for
cause shown.

On December 15, 2020, the Acthar Plaintiffs filed their Expedited
Motion for Leave.

Discussion

The Court agrees with the Debtors that the Preliminary Injunction
Order does not decide any substantive issue affecting the
distribution of the Debtors' assets or the relationship among
creditors. The Preliminary Injunction Order does nothing more than
temporarily enjoin proceedings between the Acthar Plaintiffs and
the EST Defendants.

While the purpose of the injunction is to prevent the negative
impacts on the reorganization that will arise if the Covered Acthar
Actions proceed now--including the costs, burdens, and risks to the
Debtors' reorganization efforts identified by the Bankruptcy
Court--those negative impacts are not relevant to the finality
analysis, District Judge Leonard P. Stark holds.

The negative impacts would not affect distributions (other than by
depleting estate assets to the detriment of all) or the
relationship among creditors, Judge Stark finds. Moreover, there is
no risk, if the injunction is later reversed on appeal, that any
portion of the bankruptcy proceedings to that point will be undone.
In the absence of impact on distributions or creditor
relationships, there is no relevant impact, and the Preliminary
Injunction Order is not final even under a "pragmatic analysis,"
Judge Stark opines, citing In re Brown, 803 F.2d 120, 122 (3d Cir.
1986).

Judge Stark also finds that the Preliminary Injunction Order leaves
meaningful work to be done by the Bankruptcy Court, as it is a
temporary injunction; after the expiration of 270 days, the Debtors
must (if they wish it to continue) seek to extend it. The
Preliminary Injunction Order also does not implicate purely legal
issues. Reversal of the Preliminary Injunction Order would not have
any effect on the need for further fact-finding on remand, as the
necessary fact-finding has already occurred--there was discovery, a
lengthy evidentiary hearing, and a resulting evidentiary record
that supported the Preliminary Injunction Order. The Judge adds
that the Preliminary Injunction Order has no preclusive effect on
the merits and its review would not further judicial economy.

The Acthar Plaintiffs' disagreement does not "arise out of genuine
doubt as to the correct legal standard," but rather out of the
Bankruptcy Court's application of that standard to the facts of the
Debtors' reorganization and their connection to the pending
litigation, Judge Stark notes. The Judge points out that such a
disagreement is not appropriate for interlocutory appeal. Judge
Stark adds, among other things, that ss the Debtors correctly point
out, immediate appeal could complicate the adversary proceeding,
and it is the impact of an appeal on the adversary proceeding with
which this Court must be most concerned in determining whether to
permit an interlocutory appeal.

Conclusion

The Preliminary Injunction Order is not final under the pragmatic
approach, and interlocutory appeal is not appropriate. Accordingly,
the Court denies the Expedited Motion for Leave. The Clerk is
directed to close Misc. No. 20-408-LPS.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4e995sjm from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2641: D. Arizona Issues 5th Amended Remand and Transfer Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a fifth
amended suggestion of remand and transfer order in the
multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.).

The MDL involves personal injury cases brought against Defendants
C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. Bard
manufactures and markets medical devices, including inferior vena
cava ("IVC") filters. The MDL Plaintiffs have received implants of
Bard IVC filters and claim they are defective and have caused them
to suffer serious injury or death.

The MDL was transferred to the Court in August 2015 when 22 cases
had been filed. More than 8,000 cases had been filed when the MDL
closed on May 31, 2019. Thousands of cases pending in the MDL have
settled or are near settlement. The remaining cases no longer
benefit from centralized proceedings.

On August 20, 2019, the Court suggested the remand of 35 cases that
were transferred to the MDL by the United States Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation, and transferred more than 500 cases that
were directly filed in the MDL to appropriate districts. The Court
suggested the remand of another case and transferred nearly 400
cases on October 17, 2019. On March 5, 2020, the Court suggested
the remand of 30 cases and transferred more than 1,000 cases. On
September 10, 2020, the Court transferred more than 100 cases.

On December 30, 2020, the parties filed an updated status report
identifying approximately 500 cases that are ripe for remand or
transfer, including 147 cases that were voluntarily dismissed under
a settlement agreement but where the Plaintiffs have opted out of
the settlement. The Court has vacated the dismissal orders in the
cases where the Plaintiffs have opted out of the settlement, and
those cases have been reinstated in the MDL.

The four cases listed on Schedule A should be remanded to the
transferor courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(a):

   1. Plaintiff: James Nicol
      Current Case Number: 2:16-cv-02853-PHX-DGC
      Transferor Court: E.D. Mo.
      Case Number: 4:16-cv-1233;

   2. Plaintiff: Yusef S. Pasha
      Current Case Number: 2:17-cv-03899-PHX-DGC
      Transferor Court: S.D.N.Y.
      Case Number: 1:17-cv-07878;

   3. Plaintiff: Shane Tice
      Current Case Number: 2:16-cv-00832-PHX-DGC
      Transferor Court: D.N.J.
      Case Number: 3:15-cv-08669-MAS-LGH; and

   4. Plaintiff: Tamika E. Williams
      Current Case Number: 2:15-cv-01956-PHX-DGC
      Transferor Court: N.D. Ga.
      Case Number: 1:15-cv-03045-AT

Senior District Judge David G. Campbell notes that the MDL cases
listed on Schedule A are not likely to settle soon and no longer
benefit from centralized proceedings. The remaining case-specific
issues are best left to the transferor courts to resolve. The
Court, therefore, suggests that the Panel remand the cases on
Schedule A to the transferor courts for further proceedings.

The cases listed on Schedule B, which were directly filed in this
MDL, will be transferred to appropriate districts pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). To assist the courts that receive these
cases, this Order will describe events that have taken place in the
MDL. A copy of the Order, along with the case files and materials,
will be available to courts after remand or transfer.

The cases in Schedule B include, Patricia Lynn Smith, Current Case
No. 2:18-cv-03407-PHX-DGC, D. Alaska; Ronnie D. Burroughs, Current
Case No. 2:19-cv-00459-PHX-DGC; Hill, Shuane Tobert
2:19-cv-03443-PHX-DGC, M.D. Ala.; and Jill S. Riley, Current Case
No. 2:18-cv-01148-PHX-DGC, M.D. Ala.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Court will transfer the
cases listed on Schedule B to the districts identified in the short
form complaints or to the districts where the filters were
implanted based on information provided in plaintiff profile forms.
The Defendants' right to challenge venue and personal jurisdiction
upon transfer is preserved.

Because all general fact and expert discovery has been completed in
the MDL, the courts receiving these cases need not be concerned
with facilitating general expert, corporate, and third-party
discovery, Judge Campbell states. He notes that this observation is
not meant to restrict the power of receiving courts for good cause
or in the interest of justice to address issues that may be unique
and relevant in a remanded or transferred case.

According to the parties, the status of the remaining discovery and
other pretrial issues for the cases being remanded or transferred,
and the estimated time needed to resolve such issues and make the
cases ready for trial, will be determined on remand or transfer.
Final trial preparation in the bellwether trials was governed by
certain Court orders.

If the Panel agrees with the Court's suggestion of remand of the
cases listed on Schedule A and issues a final remand order ("FRO"),
the Clerk of the Court for the District will issue a letter to the
transferor courts, via email, setting out the process for
transferring the case. The letter and certified copy of the FRO
will be sent to the transferor courts' email addresses.

The parties have submitted a stipulated designation of record for
remanded cases. Upon receipt of the FRO, the Clerk of this District
will transmit to the transferor court the following: (1) a copy of
the individual docket sheet for the remanded action, (2) a copy of
the master docket sheet in this MDL, (3) the entire file for the
remanded action, as originally received from the transferor
district, and (4) the record on remand designated by the parties.

The Court has concluded that the cases listed on Schedule B should
be transferred to appropriate districts pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a). Upon receipt of the transfer order, the Clerk for
the District will follow the same procedures prescribed above for
each of the individual cases listed on Schedule B.

If a party believes that the docket sheet for a particular case
being remanded or transferred is not correct, a party to that case
may, with notice to all other parties in the case, file with the
receiving court a designation amending the record. Upon receiving
such designation, the receiving court may make any needed changes
to the docket. If the docket is revised to include additional
documents, the parties should provide those documents to the
receiving court.

Conclusion

Pursuant to J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court suggests that the
Panel remand the cases listed on Schedule A to the transferor
districts for further proceedings. The Clerk will forward a
certified copy of this order to the Panel.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Clerk of the District is
directed to transfer the cases listed on Schedule B to appropriate
districts for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Fifth Amended Suggestion dated Feb.
11, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/dn9g4dti from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2978: Transfer for Hotel's Accessibility Issue Suits Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "In Re: Hotel Booking Access for Individuals with
Disabilities Litigation, No. 2978," the Hon. Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
has entered an order denying the motion for centralization of
individual actions filed in Middle, Southern and Northern District
of Georgia, Central District of Illinois, District of Maine and the
District of New Jersey; two in District of District of Columbia and
Maryland, six in the District of Maryland and the Northern District
of New York and three in Western District of Texas.

Defendant in a recently dismissed Western District of Pennsylvania
action (Hotels and Stuff) requested to centralize this litigation
in the District of Massachusetts. This litigation currently
consists of 26 actions pending in 11 districts.

The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation noting that factual overlap
among the actions is not surprising, given that the Plaintiffs are
represented by common counsel, have filed highly similar complaints
in each case and the circumstances of each hotel's purported
violations likely will vary to a great degree (different types of
rooms, including different accessible rooms and unique
accessibility features), and is subject to different requirements
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the actions do
not appear to have required a significant amount of judicial
attention to date. This history of early dismissals and settlements
suggests that the typical advantages of centralization may not be
relevant and that the transfer to another district may be
particularly inconvenient to certain hotel defendants which are the
subject of pending motions for default judgment.

Subject hotels in the litigations are accused of non-compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and related regulations
because they provide insufficient information on their own
websites, or supply inadequate information to non-party booking
websites, about accessible guest rooms and other hotel features.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3sf5fxd.


MDL 2981: Google Antitrust Actions Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "In Re: Google Antitrust Litigation," No. 2981, the
Hon. Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring nine
cases to the Northern District of California and one to the
District of Columbia, assigning them to Judge James Donato.

Plaintiffs in five potential tag-along actions support
centralization of all 10 actions on the motion in the District of
the District of Columbia. Defendant Google and plaintiffs in six
consumer actions support some form of an MDL limited to the Google
Play Store actions in the Northern District of California.

More specifically, Google supports centralization of the Google
Play consumer actions in the Northern District of California and
does not oppose inclusion of the Google Play app developer actions.
However, Google seeks exclusion of the advertising action from any
MDL.

Plaintiffs in five consumer actions on the motion and one potential
tag-along action support centralization only of the Google Play
consumer actions in the Northern District of California while the
developer and advertising actions Plaintiffs oppose centralization
and, in the alternative, request the Northern District of
California and exclusion of the advertising action.

The panel concluded that centralization only of the Google Play
Store actions is warranted. The complaints in the advertising
action, the Google Play Store actions, and the governmental
enforcement action purportedly linking all actions show that they
plainly involve different relevant markets and that the alleged
anticompetitive conduct differs substantially. Additionally, the
putative class in the advertising action presents no overlap at all
with any of the Google Play Store actions. These differences likely
would prevent achieving any meaningful efficiencies in discovery
and pretrial motions based on the involvement of the same company
even if there is some overlap in the factual background from which
the actions arise. Further, the nine actions concerning the Google
Play Store, involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions present
common factual questions concerning Google's alleged monopolization
of the market for distribution of apps to Android mobile device
users through the Google Play Store. The majority of the actions
additionally involve the market for processing payments for Android
mobile app digital content.  Centralization should eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.

These nine actions generally accuse Google of monopolizing the
market for the distribution of applications to Android mobile
device users through the Google Play Store, while one (Case No.
5:20-03556) concerns Google' alleged conduct in the market for
online display advertising services, which involves the process of
placing ads on web pages, all in alleged violation of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3qHplju.


MDL 2982: Transfer for Prisoners' Home Confinement Actions Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "Federal Bureau of Prisons Home Confinement Litigation
(No. II)," No. 2982, the Hon. Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an
order denying the motion for centralization of two cases pending
each in the Central District of California and the Northern
District of Florida.

Petitioner Rhonda Fleming moves to centralize this litigation in
the Central District of California or, alternatively, the District
of Connecticut.

The panel concluded that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation considering that the actions
focus on the conditions and practices at different institutions,
one in Florida and one in California and that said actions do not
share significant common factual questions and both actions are in
procedural postures that would make centralization inefficient. In
the Fleming action, the magistrate judge has recommended denial of
petitioner's petition for habeas corpus, and the report and
recommendation is pending before the district judge while n the
Torres action, a class has been provisionally certified, and
discovery is due to close next month.

Said actions involve inmates' alleged entitlement to transfer to
home confinement based on the risks of COVID-19 transmission and
infection at U.S. Bureau of Prisons institutions.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3bvSN5s.


MDL 2983: Transfer of Dickey's Data Breach Actions Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "In Re: Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 2983," the Hon. Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, has entered an order denying the motion for
centralization of two litigation consisting of two pending in the
Southern District of California and one pending in the Northern
District of Texas.

Plaintiffs in the Southern District of California move to
centralize this litigation in the Southern District of California
while Plaintiffs in the Northern District of Texas, as well as
Defendants Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., and Dickey's
Capital Group, Inc. oppose centralization. Alternatively, the
opposing parties suggest the Northern District of Texas as the
transferee district for this litigation.

The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation noting that there are only six
actions at issue (including the three related actions), which are
pending in only three districts and said litigation has not grown
significantly since the motion for centralization was filed and
since only a minimal number of actions are involved and that the
proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate
that centralization is appropriate, Plaintiffs have failed to meet
that burden here.

Dickey's Barbecue Pit runs a restaurant franchise business. The
actions allege intrusion into the payment data systems at
restaurants resulting in data breach and the theft of millions
credit card numbers, which were listed on a dark web marketplace in
October 2020. Plaintiffs attribute this data breach to Dickey's
alleged failure to put in place reasonable data security
protections at its franchises.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/2NKgVJu.


METALS USA: Court Grants Final OK of $2.8-Mil. Wilson Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants final approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit
captioned JAMES WILSON, an individual, and JACK WHITE, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. METALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:12-CV-00568-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.).

The settlement provides, among other things, for $2.8 million
Maximum Settlement Fund.

The matter is before the Court on the parties' unopposed motion for
final class action settlement approval. The Court held a hearing on
the matter on April 24, 2020. The Plaintiffs also move for
attorney's fees, costs and an enhancement award for the Named
Plaintiffs, as the parties stipulated in the settlement.

Plaintiffs Wilson and White allege that Defendant Metals is liable
as a successor-in-interest to Dura-Loc Roofing Systems Limited for
the defective design and manufacture of roofing tiles following
Metals' purchase of Dura-Loc's assets in 2006, see Third Amended
Complaint. Metals allegedly breached a duty to disclose the
defective nature of the tiles.

On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed the class action suit for
fraudulent concealment/non-disclosure and breach of warranty
alleging Metals violated various provisions of the California
Civil, Commercial and Business and Professions Codes. In the more
than eight years this case has been pending, there have been
hundreds of written discovery requests and more than 20
depositions.

On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On October 11,
2018, the Court directed the parties to provide their mediation
statements/briefs in camera for the court's review prior to
preliminary approval. On October 19, 2018, the Court held a hearing
on the motion for preliminary approval and took the matter under
submission. On March 12, 2019, the Court issued an order raising
several concerns and granting the motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement and of the proposed notice to the putative
class.

The settlement includes all the modifications the Court encouraged
and preliminarily approved. The class counsel's request for
attorneys' fees will not exceed 25% of the gross settlement amount
and will be subject to a lodestar cross-check, as opposed to the
69.6 percent previously sought. Also following preliminary
approval, the parties reduced their hourly rates to coincide with
those previously approved by this Court in other cases.

At the same time, the parties have retained the reversionary
provision permitting funds to revert to the Defendant depending on
the proportion of class members, who opt out or in. The parties
also maintain their requests for incentive awards for the
Representative Plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2016, the Court certified the proposed class, defined as
"All individuals and entities that own homes or other structures
located in the State of California on which Dura-Loc Roofing
Systems Limited's Continental, Shadowline, or Wood Shake stone
coated steel roof shingles were installed during the period of time
beginning July 1, 1996 through May 12, 2006." It concluded the
class satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the predominance and
superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Nothing before the Court suggests its prior certification was
improper. The Court, therefore, certifies the class for purposes of
final approval of the settlement agreement.

In light of the foregoing analysis, the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class settlement, and motion for attorneys'
fees, costs and enhancement awards are granted. The distribution of
settlement funds will be as follows:

   1. Total fees awarded to the Plaintiffs: $983,228.20;
   2. Mr. James Wilson's incentive award: $25,000;
   3. Mr. Jack White's incentive award: $14,000;
   4. Mr. Stonebarger's total fees award: $47,520;
   5. Mr. Lambert's total fees award: $578, 040;
   6. Ms. Elaine W. Yan's total fees award: $67, 850;
   7. Paralegals' total fees award: $145, 810;
   8. Costs: $127,771.80.

All individual settlement payments will be made within 14 days of
the filed date of this order, and all other distributions will be
made within 30 days of the filed date of the Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1owv00lw from Leagle.com.


MML INVESTORS: Artificially Inflated GME Stock Prices, Iovin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN IOVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEITH PATRICK GILL, MML INVESTORS SERVICES,
LLC, and MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-10264 (D. Mass., February 16, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendant Keith Patrick Gill deceives
amateur traders using a social media campaign in order to increase
the worth of his GameStop Corp. (GME) shares. Gill took on the fake
persona of an amateur to create a demand for the stock. Because of
his conduct, in a matter of days, the price of GME shares went up
by more than 1,600% to a record $483 a share, causing huge losses
for both short sellers and those who purchased GME shares at
artificially inflated prices. At the time Gill was engaging in this
wrongful conduct, MML and MassMutual had legal and regulatory
obligations to supervise Gill to prevent this very conduct, the
suit says.

As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class members were harmed by
initiating both long and short positions based on MML's and
MassMutual's alleged failure to adequately supervise Gill's
deceptive, coordinated market manipulation.

MML Investors Services, LLC is a company that provides investment
management services based in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. is a financial services
company that provides insurance, retirement, investment, and
financial wellness products and services, headquartered in
Springfield, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
         Cambridge, MA 02142
         Telephone: (617) 482-3700
         Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
         E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (510) 725-3000
         Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
         E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com

               - and –

         E. Powell Miller, Esq.
         Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         950 West University Drive, Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 841-2200
         E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and –

         HONIGMAN LLP
         2290 First National Building
         660 Woodward Avenue
         Detroit, MI 48226-3506
         Telephone: (313) 465-7000

MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Class-Action Proposes $65M Settlement for Public
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Walter at coastalpoint.com reports that it's a lawsuit that's
been years in the making, but the class-action suit against
Mountaire Farms may be approaching a $65 million resolution. Rather
than face a prolonged jury trial, the poultry processing plant and
the citizens who sued them have agreed to a $65 million settlement
that could potentially be shared among a huge swath of people.

Incredibly, the proposed settlement could include anyone who has
lived or worked full-time in most of Millsboro or Dagsboro, at any
time since mid-2000, when the company first acquired the Millsboro
poultry processing plant. Although Mountaire does not admit
culpability for the alleged groundwater or air contamination there,
the company agreed to pay people who may have been affected in a
roughly 25-square-mile zone.

The $65 million proposed settlement would offer payments to the
Mountaire Settlement Class: any person who "on or after May 1,
2000, owned, leased, resided on, or were employed on a full-time
basis" at any property located partly or entirely within either the
"Groundwater Area" and/or the "Air Area." (See the official map at
www.MountaireSettlement.com.)

The settlement would resolve the Cuppels family (et al.) lawsuit
against Mountaire in Delaware Superior Court. Instead of a big
trial, the two parties agreed to a settlement to "avoid the
expense, inconvenience and uncertainty of continued litigation."

The settlement is supposed to compensate people for personal injury
and property damage caused by alleged contamination to
Millsboro-area groundwater and air. The plaintiffs alleged that
Mountaire disposed of contaminated wastewater and liquefied sludge
on land near the people's homes and properties, and that it seeped
into the groundwater, "causing nitrates and other contaminants to
enter plaintiffs' drinking water wells, resulting in health effects
and reduced property values." Additionally, the alleged air
emissions include hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, which can be a
nuisance around homes and a potential health issue.

The lawsuit became a class-action suit because there is a broad
enough population potentially with similar claims that they can be
lumped together as a "settlement class." That means all of those
people's legal rights are affected by the settlement, whether they
participate in the settlement or not.

Residents impacted on both sides of the Indian River

The environmental concerns bubbled to the surface in November of
2017. That's when Delaware Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control (DNREC) announced the plant's repeated permit
violations, including under-treated wastewater being
spray-irrigated onto nearby agricultural fields.

But this settlement is pointing back to May of 2000, when Mountaire
bought the old Townsend Inc. poultry plant on John J. Williams
Highway (Route 24), a mile or so outside of Millsboro town limits.
That suggests that the plaintiffs perceive an ongoing history of
contamination issues since Mountaire first arrived.

Originally, the groundwater issues seemed limited to a smaller
region around Mountaire, but the underground movement of water and
the alleged air emissions paint a larger picture of potential
impact.

People who live within 5 miles downwind of the plant are eligible
for compensation. The settlement map shows a roughly 25-square-mile
impact zone, made of two smaller regions that overlap. The
"groundwater area" surrounds the Mountaire facility by several
miles, stretching east to Oak Orchard, north above Mount Joy Road
and almost to Zoar Road, curving westward around Gravel Hill Road
(Route 30), and bounded by the Indian River to the south.

The "air area" is larger. It doesn't reach as far north or east,
but it includes a massive area west and south of the river,
including the Indian River Power Plant. It swings as far south as
the Indian River High School baseball fields and downtown Dagsboro,
then wanders up along Route 113, swinging west to include most of
Millsboro's commercial district and the Millsboro ponds.

Individuals could receive money for damages "including, but not
limited to personal injuries for air and/or groundwater exposure,
property damages, nuisance, negligence … trespass, unjust
enrichment, medical monitoring, wrongful death and survival,"
according to court documents. "The claims process shall consider
past and future out-of-pocket expenses for water testing and
alternative water supplies or treatment systems" for families in
the groundwater area.

Although the document doesn't mention adults or children who
attended the multiple schools or care centers in that zone, they
can also inquire with the claims administrator about registering as
part of the settlement class.

Basically, the only people living, working or using facilities in
that area who aren't eligible for the class action are those who
already made separate legal agreements with Mountaire; much of the
company's leadership or associates; or employees who were exposed
to the alleged hazards because of their work there.

Three companies were named as defendants: Mountaire Corporation (of
Arkansas), Mountaire Farms Inc. (of Delaware) and Mountaire Farms
of Delaware Inc.

Individuals should respond now

Right now, there are still several steps before the average person
gets a check in the mail. People have to register as class members
to participate. The court has to consider any objections, and then
whether to approve the $65 million settlement. Then the settlement
administrator would decide the allocation process: what proof to
require for property or personal-injury claims and how to weigh the
severity of each. After attorney and court fees, the rest of the
escrow account would then be divvied up.

So now, individuals have four options:

Participate -- Anyone who lived or worked in the eligible areas
near Millsboro and Dagsboro (according to the map) and wishes to be
considered for a payment must complete a registration form by March
22. Those who fail to register by this date will not be eligible
for settlement compensation.

Object -- Anyone who wants to participate in the class-action
settlement, but who objects to any part of the proposal, must
submit the necessary forms by Feb. 22.

Opt out -- Any class member who wishes to be excluded from the
class must submit the necessary forms by Feb. 22. They will not be
bound by any court judgments or orders, but neither will they
receive settlement money.

No action -- Anyone who does not take action or register by March
22 will still be bound by the terms of the lawsuit but won't get to
benefit from the settlement. Also, they will not be eligible to
participate in any other lawsuit against Mountaire on groundwater
contamination or air pollution.

No one is required to attend or speak at the April 12 court date in
order to be considered for participation, or to formally object to
the proposal.

If the judge approves the settlement, people will probably need to
submit more information (such as bills, medical records or any
other paperwork) to support their claims. The dollar figure each
person receives would depend on the number of total claims and the
severity of injuries or damages suffered by each person.

The court will rule on the proposed settlement at the final
fairness hearing, April 12, at 9:30 a.m., at the Sussex County
Superior Court Courthouse, located at 1 The Circle in Georgetown.
Due to COVID-19, the hearing may be held virtually (such as an
online teleconference). Check the website for potential changes
(www.MountaireSettlement.com). The Hon. Craig. A Karsnitz did sign
a preliminary approval for the settlement on Jan. 11.

Additional costs

The plaintiffs were represented by two law firms, Baird Mandalas
Brockstedt LLC of Delaware, and Schochor, Federico & Staton, of
Baltimore.

Of the $65 million, attorneys suing Mountaire will also request a
25 percent ($16.25 million) payment, plus expenses of $2.5 million.
In the past three years, they conducted hundreds of interviews and
hired dozens of experts in wastewater engineering, air emissions,
hydrogeology, medicine and more. That's before the intense
back-and-forth legal action in the courts.

"We are honored and humbled that the Millsboro community trusted
our firms to litigate this important environmental case," said
plaintiffs' attorney Chase T. Brockstedt. "I cannot be more proud
of our entire team and the incredible effort over the last three
years which led to this settlement."

Also, the seven individual plaintiffs who started and led the
class-action suit -- especially before it was designated as such --
will receive enhancement awards, as a type of bonus for their
efforts.

Other lawsuits and legal actions

The class action settlement comes about a year after Mountaire made
a private settlement with another group of about 100 citizens, the
Balback family and others, represented by Jacobs & Crumplar P.A.

Meanwhile, in terms of actually fixing the problem, Mountaire has
signed a consent decree to invest $120 million for wastewater
treatment system upgrades, reduction in air emissions and increased
reporting on pollution complaints. They must also continue
providing bottled water to certain residents; install at least 60
acres of "phytoremediation" to clean up the environment; and
establishing a process to respond to odor complaints. Ongoing
operations and maintenance will likely cost another $20 million.

That remediation came from a separate federal court case between
DNREC and Mountaire. But the Cuppels and company were also
intervenors in that case, successfully pushing for Mountaire to
make a larger investment than initially proposed in its
multi-million-dollar plant upgrades.

"Our sole focus now can be on building our new state-of-the-art
wastewater treatment, which has been our goal all along," said
Phillip Plylar, president of Mountaire Farms in Millsboro. "We are
ready to move forward."

Mountaire calls itself a "privately owned, Jesus-centered company
with a commitment to the communities in which our employees work
and live." The parent company is based in Arkansas, with operations
in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina.

"We thank Mountaire for choosing environmental responsibility and
doing what is right for the Millsboro community," said plaintiffs'
attorney Philip C. Federico. "This settlement is a win-win for
Mountaire and those we represent. We wish them well with their
upgrades and improvements, and know they will continue to be a
vital part of Sussex County and the Eastern Shore for decades to
come."

More information on the Mountaire lawsuit:

All details are online at www.MountaireSettlement.com;
For questions or documents regarding the settlement, contact
Cuppels v. Mountaire Class Action Claims Administrator, RG/2 Claims
Administration LLC; P.O. Box 59479; Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479,
phone (866) 742-4955, email info@rg2claims.com;
For questions about the lawsuit (not the settlement) contact class,
contact Chase Brockstedt, Esq., Re: Mountaire Class Action; Baird,
Mandalas, Brockstedt, LLC; 1413 Savannah Rd., Ste. 1; Lewes, DE
19958, phone (302) 313-5288.

The public should not contact the Delaware Superior Court or
Mountaire's attorneys. [GN]

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Painkiller Suit Moves Closer to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at courthousenews.com reports that the National
Football League must face claims that it failed to protect players
from a decades-long pattern of painkiller misuse that caused some
athletes to develop permanent injuries, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup advanced a nearly seven-year-old
class action against the league to a further stage of litigation
for the first time. The judge had dismissed the lawsuit twice
before. Each dismissal was partly reversed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

In a 12-page ruling, Alsup acknowledged that some technicalities
involving labor contracts could still enable the league to sidestep
liability for its allegedly negligent failure to protect athletes
from harm, but he nevertheless denied the NFL's motion to dismiss.

"Rather than a third dismissal and overindulgence in judicial
notice, the court believes the record for the court of appeals will
be more complete and true to history if we proceed to trial and/or
summary judgment," Alsup wrote in his ruling.

Lead plaintiff Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear and NFL Hall of
Famer, sued the league in May 2014. He claimed the NFL instructed
team doctors from at least 1969 to 2012 to dole out unprescribed
drugs without warning players of harmful side effects. Dent says he
ended his career with an enlarged heart, permanent nerve damage in
his foot and an addiction to painkillers.

Alsup dismissed the suit in 2014, finding that because the claims
were governed by labor contracts between players and 32 individual
NFL teams, the case must go to arbitration. In 2018, a three-judge
Ninth Circuit panel overturned the dismissal, finding the NFL's
duty to handle drugs with reasonable care was governed by federal
laws, not labor contracts.

A year later, Alsup again dismissed the case, finding the former
players lacked sufficient support for claims that the NFL played a
role in team doctors doling out unprescribed medications to hurt
athletes.

Last year, the Ninth Circuit partly reversed, finding the league
could be held liable under a "voluntary undertaking theory of
negligence" under California law. The novel legal standard allows a
defendant to be held liable for failing to "exercise reasonable
care" in a voluntary undertaking, such as efforts to prevent the
misuse of prescription drugs.

Applying that theory, the Ninth Circuit in 2018 overturned the
dismissal of another lawsuit, Mayall v. USA Water Polo, claiming
the governing body for U.S. water polo didn't do enough to protect
young athletes from concussions.

During a hearing, NFL lawyer Daniel Nash argued that the court must
consider the terms of labor contracts that the league relied on to
protect players from prescription drug misuse.

Philip Closius, an attorney for the plaintiffs, insisted that
actions the NFL did and did not take are the only relevant factors.
He said the standard is whether the NFL acted reasonably when it
took allegedly inadequate steps to address problems with
painkillers.

The league required teams to report the volume of drugs given to
players, funded studies and commissions to prevent the misuse of
drugs, performed audits of each team's practices, required each
club to register storage facilities for medications, and forced
teams to make players sign waivers before they could receive
Toradol, a strong prescription painkiller.

The Ninth Circuit wrote in its August 2020 opinion that "it was
within the NFL's control to promulgate rules or guidelines that
could improve safety for players" and that the lawsuit alleges the
NFL "demonstrated its ability to create better policies" but
"failed to enforce them."

In analyzing whether labor contracts preempt negligence claims
against the league, Alsup found the issue of when athletes can
return to play after an injury is one covered by collective
bargaining agreements. However, he observed other issues — such
as "harmful and long-term side effects" of doling out too many
painkillers — are not explicitly covered by the agreements.

Another legal question is whether plaintiffs must prove the NFL's
actions were carried out negligently to establish liability. For
instance, the league conducted audits on each team's drug use and
found multiple violations of drug laws.

Alsup asked if the audits themselves had to be carried out
negligently or if the league's failure to do more after finding
problems from those audits is enough to establish liability.

Adopting the latter theory will require analyzing "what the NFL
committed to do on that subject (if anything)" in collective
bargaining agreements, Alsup wrote.

The court must also determine if any terms of labor contracts
require interpretation, the judge added.

These are all questions that can be resolved in a trial or summary
judgment motion after all evidence is gathered and present to the
court, Alsup concluded.

The judge set an Aug. 20 cut-off for both sides to finish gathering
evidence, an Oct. 7 deadline for filing summary judgment motions
and a tentative trial date of April 4, 2022.

Attorneys for the NFL and plaintiff class did not immediately
return emails requesting comment. [GN]

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Scantlebury
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated January 13, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated January
13, 2021, classifying Madielee Scantlebury as a member of the
Plaintiff class in this action, and holding that she is entitled to
monetary and injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for
the injuries she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be
the Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-3367, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, February 17, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Madielee Scantlebury is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

ONTARIO: Agrees to Pay $10MM to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Kennedy at Social Justice Reporter reports that Ontario has
settled a class-action lawsuit with former Crown wards who accused
the province of failing to protect their legal rights by not
helping them pursue compensation for physical and sexual abuse they
suffered as children.

The total value of the settlement is $10 million -- $100 million
less than the plaintiffs had initially sought. Individual class
members will be entitled to compensation of up to $3,600 if the
settlement is approved by the court. A virtual hearing is scheduled
for May 12.

"The parties have agreed to settle the action on a basis that they
believe is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the
Class," wrote Brian Gray, a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of
the Attorney General, in an emailed response to questions from the
Star. Since the settlement has yet to be approved Gray said it
would be "inappropriate to comment further."

The lawsuit, which was started in January 2014, is not about actual
abuse suffered by the former Crown wards, either before or while
they were in the province's care. It accused the province, as their
former guardian, of failing to apply on their behalf for
compensation to which they were entitled as a result of that abuse,
either by suing the perpetrator or by applying to Ontario's
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Jonathan Ptak, one of the plaintiff's lawyers, said his clients
were making a "very narrow" claim against the province. "This
settlement is not about obtaining money for the actual abuse which
occurred," he said in a phone interview. "The class members are
still permitted to sue the abuser or responsible organizations for
damages related to the abuse that they suffered."

Ptak said class members can also still apply to the Victim Quick
Response Program, which replaced the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Board and provides short-term financial support to victims.

Toni Grann, one of the lead plaintiffs, told the Star in 2015 that
the lawsuit was about holding the province accountable for its
inaction.

"The Crown put itself in a position to presumably fight for us,
look after us, and they absolutely, completely failed," she said.

To be eligible for compensation, a person must have been alive as
of Jan. 22, 2012, a Crown ward in Ontario at any time between Jan.
1, 1966, and March 30, 2017, and must have suffered physical or
sexual assault before or while they were a Crown ward. Those who
are currently still in the province's care are not eligible. More
information about eligibility can be found from the class action
administrator at ontariocrownwardclassaction.ca.

Ptak said there is a "presumption in favour of the claimant," which
means that they will be presumed to be acting in good faith and
will not be cross-examined about their alleged abuse. "To minimize
the trauma of making a claim in respect of harm that you've
suffered in the past," he said [GN]

PAYSAFE LIMITED: Bitmouni Sues Over Compromised Personal Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal Bitmouni, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Paysafe Limited, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00641 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2021), seeks injunctive and
other equitable relief resulting from the failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information and
protected health information that Paysafe acquired from or created
for its patients, including without limitation, names, addresses,
dates of birth, patient identification numbers, Social Security
numbers, driver's license/state ID numbers, passport numbers,
credit/debit card information and financial account information.

Paysafe provides merchant services to individuals and businesses
throughout the United States. These services include, among other
things, providing the ability to accept payments online. To obtain
merchant services, customers provide an extensive amount of
personal identifiable information. On or before November 6, 2020,
Paysafe determined that there had been a potential compromise of a
website used by part of its U.S. business, and on or before
December 3, 2020, it determined that suspicious activity on the
website from May 13, 2018 to November 24, 2020, may have
compromised information held on the website. Bitmouni alleges that
Paysafe did not use reasonable security procedures and practices
appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information
they were maintaining for current and former clients.

Bitmouni operated an online business that used Paysafe's services
to accept payment card payments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
             rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

             - and -

      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      Martin Ramey, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Rd, Suite 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Tel: (910) 772-9960
      Fax: (910) 772-9062
      Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
             mjr@rhinelawfirm.com

PENNSYLVANIA: DOC's Bid for Summary Judgment in Stradford Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LACEY STRADFORD, et al. v. JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Civil Action No. 16-2064
(E.D. Pa.), Chief District Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denied the Department
of Corrections' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Stradford, William Nettles, Jesse Stroud, William Scott,
and Richard Richardson are all offenders with sex offense
classifications who are, or were formerly, incarcerated in State
Correctional Institutions in Pennsylvania.  They bring the putative
class action and assert an equal protection claim against Defendant
Wetzel, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania DOC.

The DOC operates halfway houses known as Community Corrections
Centers or Community Contract Facilities ("CCCs").  CCCs are
governed and operated by the DOC's Bureau of Community Corrections
("BCC").  The BCC places individuals in and discharges them from
any and all CCCs.  The BCC's goal is to assist parolees and
reentrants with their transition into society.  It decides whether
a parolee is placed in a CCC, which CCC the parolee is placed, and
when that placement occurs.

The Plaintiffs claim that although they have been granted parole,
their release from prison and placement into DOC-operated halfway
houses has been significantly delayed because of the DOC's policy
of considering community sensitivity to a criminal offense in
making these placements.  Because the consideration of community
sensitivity disproportionately delays the placement of parolees
with a sex offense classification, the Plaintiffs have been subject
to prolonged incarceration following a grant of parole which
individuals without a sex offense classification do not have to
endure.

The DOC and BCC's policy regarding CCC placement has evolved over
the life of the case.  Under the most current version of the
policy, there is no longer the 24-month limitation for CCC
placement and the BCC no longer uses the "hard to place"
designation.  If a sex offender is denied CCC placement, the BCC's
denial letter now informs the offender to reapply after a specified
date or if circumstances change.  Even under this new policy,
parolees with sex offense classifications still experience delays
in being placed in CCCs as compared to parolees who are not sex
offenders.

In 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in the matter
alleging the DOC was violating the Equal Protection Clause because
of its then-policy prohibiting convicted sex offenders who had
received a positive parole action from entering CCCs until 24
months before their maximum sentence date.  The DOC moved to
dismiss the Complaint arguing it had a rational basis for its
policy.  On March 31, 2017, the Court granted the motion and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' Complaint.  Subsequently, the Plaintiffs
appealed.

While the case was pending before the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, the DOC changed its policy, removed the 24-month
limitation, and began its practice of housing sex offenders at
Progress CCC.  The DOC argued this policy change mooted the case,
prompting the Third Circuit to remand the case and direct the Court
to determine the mootness issue.  On Jan. 17, 2019, the Court held
the policy change did not moot the case because there was evidence
that only sex offenders experienced delay before receiving a
placement in a CCC (whether by first being placed in Progress CCC
or otherwise).

On Nov. 5, 2019, the Third Circuit agreed the case was not moot;
however, it determined the Plaintiffs' equal protection challenge
to the DOC's use of Progress CCC had not been considered by the
Court.  The Third Circuit thus remanded the case for the Court to
grant the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint addressing
these new allegations.

On remand, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint challenging
not only the DOC's use of Progress CCC, but also the DOC's policy
of considering community sensitivity when making decisions about
placing sex offenders into CCCs.  The parties proceeded through
discovery and on July 22, 2020, each filed a motion for summary
judgment.

The DOC argues it is entitled to judgment because it has
established a rational basis for its policy and, in the
alternative, because its decision to discontinue use of Progress
CCC has mooted the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs argue they
are entitled to judgment because community sensitivity is not a
rational justification for the continued delay in releasing sex
offenders into CCCs.  The Court held a telephonic oral argument on
the motions on Nov. 16, 2020.

Judge Sanchez notes that the Plaintiffs, and their putative class
of incarcerated individuals with a sex offense classification who
have been approved for parole and are in need of placement in a
CCC, experience delays in being released to CCCs on parole.  The
DOC delays the placement of those with sex offense classifications
due in large part to its consideration of community sensitivity to
sex offenders.  Under rational basis review, however, this
justification fails.  Each of the other potential governmental
interests also fails because they are either illegitimate or not
served by the delay in the release of those with sex offense
classifications.

As a result, the DOC's policy of delaying CCC placement for those
with a sex offense classification and consideration of community
sensitivity as stated in the DOC's Policy 8.1.1, Section 4(a),
violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Judge Sanchez finds that that the DOC has not proffered a
legitimate justification for its policy of delaying the release of
sex offenders to CCCs after they receive a positive parole action.
Any consideration of community sensitivity -- which on the record
is merely private biases against sex offenders -- is not a
permissible basis for treating sex offenders differently.

As for concerns with public safety, these considerations are
misleading because sex offenders seeking placement in a CCC (like
all other offenders who have received a positive parole action)
have received a determination that there is no reasonable
indication that they pose a risk to public safety and they are
subject to the strictures of Megan's Law which also provide
protection to the public.

And finally, the DOC's concerns with community integration and
proportionality within the CCCs and surrounding communities are
unaffected by whether sex offenders are released in a timely manner
or after lengthy delays, suggesting this interest is neither
legitimate nor rationally related to the current policy.

Because there are no legitimate bases for delaying sex offenders'
release to CCCs, and any potential justifications are not
rationally related to the policy, Judge Sanchez will deny the DOC's
motion for summary judgment.

For the same reasons, Judge Sanchez will grant the Plaintiffs'
motion.  Because he concludes the DOC's policy is not rationally
related to a legitimate government interest, the policy violates
the Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional.  The Judge
will therefore enter an order enjoining the DOC from considering
community sensitivity to an offense when determining placement of
offenders in CCCs.

For these reasons, Judge Sanchez denies the DOC's motion for
summary judgment, granted the Plaintiffs' motion, and enjoined the
DOC from continuing its unconstitutional practice.  An appropriate
order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/189j037z from Leagle.com.


PENUMBRA INC: RM Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. reminds investors of the upcoming March 16, 2021
deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Penumbra
Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE; PEN) securities between
August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Penumbra investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information to RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire)
toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here.

The Penumbra class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known
design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2) that
Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex
causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already
occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled
due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's public
statements as set forth above were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial Journalism (the
"FFJ"), an independent non-profit news outlet, published an article
raising serious questions about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety
profile. The FFJ noted that since being introduced in mid-2019,
there were twelve deaths listed in a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") database that occurred after a surgeon
injected an iodine contrast dye into the Jet 7 Xtra Flex. The FFJ
article also described how Penumbra's warnings against using the
product with contrast dye and non-Penumbra products did little to
address the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety issues. In response,
Penumbra's stock price fell.

Then, on November 23, 2020, an article was published in the Journal
of NeuroInterventional Surgery presenting the cases of three
patients who suffered as a result of Jet 7 Xtra Flex device
malfunctions, including two fatalities. As this report became more
widely circulated, it caused Penumbra's stock price to fall
approximately 12% from November 23, 2020 to November 25, 2020.

Thereafter, on December 8, 2020, the securities research firm
Quintessential Capital Management issued a report questioning the
validity and independence of the scientific research supporting the
Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, and accusing Penumbra of using a fake
author to publish studies regarding the purported safety and
efficacy of its products. In response, Penumbra's stock price fell
an additional 9%.

Finally, on December 15, 2020, Penumbra issued a press release
announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" recall of the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex because the catheter "may become susceptible to distal tip
damage during use" which could lead to injury or death. On a
conference call held the same day, Penumbra's CEO acknowledged that
the product's design "ma[de] the catheter susceptible to failure in
certain scenarios" and that Penumbra's "steps to ensure the safe
use of the product . . . were not able to fully address the risks."
In response, Penumbra's stock price fell 7%, further damaging
investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Penumbra securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 16,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire)
toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com or click
here. For more information about class action cases in general or
to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website by
clicking here

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW P.C.
is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide. [GN]

PLUM PBC: McKeon Sues Over Plum Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MCKEON and JOSH CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLUM, PBC; and PLUM, INC.,
d/b/a PLUM ORGANICS, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01113-JSC (N.D.
Cal., February 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's
False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, the Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act,
the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' negligent misrepresentation
and failure to disclose the presence or risk of arsenic, lead,
mercury, cadmium and/or perchlorate or other ingredients in Plum's
Baby Foods. Plum's packaging and labels emphasize quality and safe
ingredients, organic, and provides a recipe free of any unnatural
ingredients. Yet nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements,
warranties, and/or packaging does Plum disclose that the Baby Foods
include and/or have a high risk of containing heavy metals or other
ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements, the suit says.

Plum, PBC is a manufacturer of baby foods based in Emeryville,
California.

Plum, Inc., doing business as Plum Organics, is a manufacturer of
baby foods based in Emeryville, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Dennis Stewart, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     600 B Street, 17th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 595-3299
     E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

            - and –

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
     Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
     Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 333-8844
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
             rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
             mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com

            - and –

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 346-2222
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             kae@wexlerwallace.com

            - and –

     Simon B. Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
     1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 496-8282
     Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
     E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
             phoward@smbb.com

            - and –

     Kevin Landau, Esq.
     Miles Greaves, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, NY 10038
     Telephone: (212) 931-0704
     E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
             mgreaves@tcllaw.com

            - and –

     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Lori G. Kier, Esq.
     Davina C. Okonkwo, Esq.
     SAUDER SCHELKOPF
     1109 Lancaster Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (610) 200-0581
     E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
             lgk@sstriallawyers.com
             dco@sstriallawyers.com

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in South Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM SOUTH,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21760-WPD,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 10, 2020, the
Plaintiff asked the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P.
      23(a) and (b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the "Class" or
      "Class Members" defined as:

      "all individuals who: (a) on or after September 18, 2013;
      (b) are or were covered by a Progressive Select Insurance
      Company ("Progressive") Florida personal automobile
      insurance policy; (c) made a claim under the Collision or
      Comprehensive coverages of that policy for damage or loss
      to a covered vehicle which Progressive accepted and
      treated as a total loss claim; and (d) Progressive paid
      the claim on a cash settlement basis with the actual cash
      value derived from the Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss
      system. The class period will be from September 18,
      2013, to the date of class certification.;

   2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel under
      Rule 23(g); and

   3. appointing himself as Class Representative.

The Plaintiff contends that Progressive uniformly did not pay
title/license and dealer fees to the Class, which violated Fla.
Stat. section 626.9743(5) and breached the Policy on its face and
as conformed to the Policy.

The Defendant is seeking an appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in response to Plaintiffs' notice
of filing of proposed class notices.

The appellate case is captioned as Progressive Select Insurance
Company v. William South, Case No. 21-90006, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, February 3, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent WILLIAM SOUTH, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLP
          110 SE 6th St Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          E-mail: mfistos@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          JEEVES LAW GROUP, PA
          954 1st Ave N
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705-1502
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Carly Abramson Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Cir Fl 8
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          E-mail: ckligler@leoncosgrove.com  

               - and -

          Roger Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES LAW GROUP, PC
          2833 Crockett St Ste 135
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (214) 253-8300
          E-mail: contact@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras St Ste 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          4051 27th Ave N
          Saint Petersburg, FL 33713
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, PA
          320 W Kennedy Blvd Ste 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com

               - and -

          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
          1221 Brickell Ave Ste 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 630-8304
          E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com  

               - and -

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLP
          110 SE 6th St Ste 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820  
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com

Defendant-Petitioner PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Bryan Thomas West, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          98 SE 7th St Ste 1100
          Miami, FL 33173
          Telephone: (305) 982-5600
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  bryan.west@akerman.com

               - and -

          Julia Constance Barrett, Esq.
          James M. Brigman, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree St NE Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: jbarrett@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS, LLP
          950 Main Ave Ste 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          E-mailL karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com  

               - and -

          Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.
          Jason L. Margolin, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          401 E Jackson St Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7333
          E-mail: irene.bassel@akerman.com
                  jason.margolin@akerman.com

               - and -

          Paul Alessio Mezzina, Esq.
          Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 737-0500
          E-mail: pmezzina@kslaw.com
                  jmitchell@kslaw.com

RED ROBIN: Bruun Suit Remanded to Nevada's 8th Judicial Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada remanded the case, Christopher Bruun,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00903-JAD-BNW (D.
Nev.), back to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 9,
Case No. A-20-814178-C.

The case is a proposed nationwide class action on behalf of Red
Robin restaurant customers who were cheated out of two ounces of
the Stella Artois beer they ordered because the chalices in which
the 16-ounce beers are served actually hold just about 14 ounces.
Defendants Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. and Red Robin
International, Inc. removed the case from Nevada's Eighth Judicial
District Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which
requires an aggregate $5 million amount in controversy for federal
jurisdiction.

In the removal petition, Red Robin alleges that over "$16 million
worth of draft Stella Artois beer" was sold from 2016 when its 454
corporate-owned restaurants began pouring it, through the May 2020
removal.  It adds that there are another 102 franchised locations
(whose sales figures are yet unavailable) that also sold the
product, which would increase that total, as would an award of
attorney's fees.  The restauranteur concludes that "the proposed
class and the number of restaurants involved, the fact that all of
the corporate restaurants were required to carry Stella Artois on
tap, the dollar figure associated with the Stella Artois beer sales
in corporate-owned and franchise locations, and plaintiff's prayer
for attorneys' fees satisfy CAFA's jurisdictional floor.

Plaintiff Bruun moves to remand the action back to state court.
His remand motion takes the fizz out of those numbers.  He aptly
notes that the proposed class members' damages are just a subset of
the total-sales figures because these customers received about 14
of their promised 16 ounces.  So the amount in controversy relates
to only the two ounces of beer that "Red Robin promised but did not
deliver" to the class members, which would make up just 12.5% of
the purchase price, or $2 million.  Yet more discounting must be
done because that $2 million figure assumes that all $16 million in
Stella sales was for 16-ounce glasses, despite the restaurant
offering multiple sizes.  Red Robin distills this number down
further in its response to the motion to remand, acknowledging that
the corporate sales of the 16 ouncers made up just $7.1 million of
the Stella sales "for a total of $887,500" in shortage.

Judge Dorsey finds that Red Robin's figures are mostly foam and
fail to satisfy CAFA's jurisdictional amount-in-controversy
threshold.  She explains that if the 454 corporate stores across
the country sold $7.1 million in 16-ounce Stella Artois beers
during the relevant period (which comes out to about $15,639 per
store), then she could extrapolate that the 102 franchised
locations may have sold about $1,595,178 worth.  And 12.5% of that
is just $199,397.  At this point in the calculations from Red
Robin's own data and reasonable assumptions based on it, the Judge
only gets to $1,086,897--not even a quarter of the way to CAFA's $5
million threshold.

To augment that total, Red Robin tries to tap into sales from
2014-2015 by arguing that the applicable statutes of limitation may
reach back six years, and forward into 2020-2021 "given the time it
takes for resolution of class action matters."  These arguments are
based on unreasonable assumptions, too, according to Judge Dorsey.
She says the declaration of Red Robin's Vice President of
Restaurant and Corporate Technology, which was submitted in support
of the removal petition, states that "from at least 2016 until the
present, all corporate-owned Red Robin restaurants have been
required to sell Stella Artois beer on draft," and Red Robin has
offered nothing to suggest that this requirement was similarly in
place in 2014 and 2015.

The restauranteur next hypothesizes that the class might recover
treble damages, which are available, it notes, in 19 states.  So it
multiplies the total class damages by three.  But, Judge Dorsey
holds that the prospect of recovering treble damages in 38% of the
states in the nation can't support trebling 100% of the damages.
At best, treble damages would add an estimated $1,239,063 to the
amount in controversy, bringing the total to just $2,325,959.58.

Nor has Red Robin shown that a fee award will get it to the fill
line.  It attempts to satisfy that burden with a strange brew: a
two-sentence argument and the declaration of a class-action defense
attorney that "typical attorney's fees for defendants in similar
class actions cases run between $1 million and $2.5 million
depending on" a wide range of factors.  As class-action attorneys
well know, however, fees are earned, calculated, and paid very
differently for plaintiffs than defendants, and Red Robin makes no
effort to address that stout disparity.  Plus, "a court's
calculation of future attorneys' fees is limited by the applicable
contractual or statutory requirements that allow fee-shifting in
the first place," but Red Robin doesn't identify any provisions
that would apply in the case.  And even if the Judge were to accept
Red Robin's attorneys' fees calculation and factor in its high-end
estimate of $2.5 million, she says the amount in controversy still
falls short of the $5 million mark.

Because she cannot conclude that the Defendants have established by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
meets CAFA's jurisdictional threshold, Judge Dorsey granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.  She directed the Clerk of Court to
remand the case back to the Eighth Judicial District Court,
Department 9, Case No. A-20-814178-C, and to close the case.  The
Judge denied as moot and without prejudice all other motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/53dbp8sw from Leagle.com.


SAPPHIRE INVESTMENTS: Garcia Seeks Online Booking's Access Features
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAPPHIRE INVESTMENTS, LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21STCV06089 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Best Western Plus
Commerce Hotel on its reservation Website at
https://www.bestwestern.com/en_US/book/hotels-in-commerce/bestwestern-plus-commerce-hotel/propertyCode.05734.html
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Sapphire Investments, LLC is an owner and operator of the Best
Western Plus Commerce Hotel located at 7272 E. Gage Ave., Commerce,
California. [BN]

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

SECURITY BENEFIT: Court Dismisses Clinton Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELLA CLINTON, et al., Plaintiffs v. SECURITY BENEFIT
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-HLT-KGG
(D. Kan.), Judge Holly L. Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and
dismissed the case without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs are several individuals who purchased annuities from
the Defendant.  They have filed the class-action lawsuit alleging
that the annuities they purchased were the result of a fraudulent
scheme by the Defendant and the other organizations not a party to
the case.  The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1961-1968, as well as state-law claims under California,
Illinois, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida law.

The case is about a specific type of annuity issued by the
Defendant, a life-insurance company.  In 2010, a private-equity
firm acquired the Defendant.  Shortly thereafter, the Defendant
began developing and marketing a series of equity-indexed
annuities.  Many of these annuities came with the option to be
linked to certain proprietary indexes that claimed to protect
annuity holders from market volatility.  The Defendant developed
these products with independent marketing organizations and
insurance-product design firms. Defendant first developed the
Secure Income Annuity in 2011.  In 2012, the Defendant introduced
the Total Value Annuity.

At issue in the case are three indexes that were crediting options
for these annuities.  The first is the 5 Year Annuity Linked TV
Index ("ALTV Index") for the Total Value Annuity.  The ALTV Index
is tied to the Trader Vic Index, with an added volatility overlay
to reduce anticipated volatility.  Annuities linked to the ALTV
Index only credited interest at the end of a five-year period.
Reallocation to a different index during this five-year period was
prohibited.  The second is the Morgan Stanley Dynamic Allocation
Index Account ("MSDA Index") for the Secure Income Annuity.  The
third is the BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Annual Point to Point
Index Account ("BPHD Index") for the Total Value Annuity.  The BPHD
Index was composed of high-dividend stocks chosen though a
"rules-based" strategy.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knew these indexes would
generate "near-zero" returns.  They also allege that the Defendant
presented annuities linked to these indexes as "uncapped" and with
100% participation, when in fact the annuities were more
economically equivalent to traditional annuities with caps and
lower participation rates.

To induce sales of these annuities, the Defendant prepared and
disseminated hypothetical illustrations and marketing materials.
The hypothetical illustrations depicted projected future account
values based on historical performances of the given index.  To
project future returns, the Defendant relied on "backcasting."

The Plaintiffs allege the time periods used in these backcasted
hypothetical illustrations were "cherry-picked to correspond with
years when the index asset components exhibited non-representative
gains."  They claim that these "selectively engineered backcasting
techniques" were misleading and misrepresented expected future
performance.  The Plaintiffs allege that insurance groups have
"recognized the potentially misleading nature" of backcasting.

Similarly, marketing materials like brochures compared the
hypothetical performance of the indexes to other more traditional
crediting options like the S&P 500, Dow Jones, and NASDAQ.  These
illustrations also suggested that annuities linked to the indexes
would perform better returns than those linked to more traditional
crediting options.  Despite the projected performance in these
hypothetical illustrations, the Plaintiffs' actual annuities did
not see any returns like those projected.

As part of each annuity sale, the selling agent and purchaser
(annuity holder) signed a Statement of Understanding ("SOU").  The
SOU described the nature, attributes, and operation of the
crediting options available.  The Plaintiffs contend that the SOUs
contained misleading information and failed to disclose material
facts.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and various classes, assert
seven claims against the Defendant.  The first and second claims
assert violations of RICO on behalf of all the Plaintiffs and a
national class.  The third claim asserts a violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law on behalf of Plaintiff Rosen and
a California subclass.  The fourth claim asserts a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act on
behalf of Plaintiffs Stauffer-Schmidt and Webber and an Illinois
subclass.  The fifth claim asserts a violation of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act on behalf of Plaintiffs Cox and Yuen and an
Arizona subclass.  The sixth claim asserts a violation of the
Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act on behalf of Plaintiff Wright
and a Nevada subclass.  The seventh claim seeks "Rescission and
Restitutionary Relief Pursuant to Common Law Fraud" on behalf of
all the Plaintiffs and all the subclasses.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the first amended complaint and
makes several arguments.  It first argues that the Plaintiffs' RICO
claims are reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
Alternatively, it argues that the Plaintiffs' RICO claims suffer
from pleading deficiencies and specifically are neither pleaded
with particularity nor plausible.  The Defendant also seeks
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' state-law claims for similar reasons.

Both parties have asked the Court to take judicial notice of
various documents that are either appropriate for judicial notice
or referenced or quoted in the first amended complaint.  Both
requests are unopposed.  Accordingly, Teeter grants these motions
and has considered these documents.

Turning to the motion to dismiss, Judge Teeter holds that the
Plaintiffs' RICO claims are not reverse-preempted under the
McCarran-Ferguson Act.  She notes that even if the annuity
contracts themselves were approved (or at least not affirmatively
disapproved) by state regulators, she agrees with the Plaintiffs
that this approval does not invoke reverse-preemption.  The
Plaintiffs' claims focus on the marketing materials and other
documents that they claim fraudulently induced them to buy the
annuities and misrepresented the features of the indexes--not on
any misrepresentation in the annuity contracts themselves.

The Defendant does not argue that any state regulators reviewed
those other materials and determined that they contained no
misrepresentations or material omissions.  It only makes the
unsupported assertion that the "design of an annuity product is
reflected in the terms of the annuity contract."  Even if this is
true, Judge Teeter finds that it doesn't address misrepresentations
in marketing materials or SOUs.

Nor has the Defendant alleged any state policy would be frustrated
by allowing the RICO claims to proceed, the Judge holds.  She says,
the fact that all the states at issues regulate insurance generally
is not sufficient to preempt the Plaintiffs' RICO claims.  As the
Supreme Court held in Humana Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 307
(1999), Congress did not intend "to cede the field of insurance
regulation to the States" completely through the McCarran-Ferguson
Act.  Rather, there must be some frustration or interference with a
state's administrate regime.  The Defendant has not shown this to
be the case given the Plaintiffs' allegations, and thus it has not
shown the Plaintiffs' RICO claims are reverse-preempted under the
McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Because she finds that the Defendant has not demonstrated that the
Plaintiffs' RICO claims are reverse-preempted, Judge Teeter must
address the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim under RICO.  Having carefully and repeatedly reviewed the
first amended complaint, the judicially noticed documents, and the
parties' arguments, she concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed
to allege sufficient facts that would support an inference of fraud
sufficient to sustain their RICO claim.  At most, the allegations
are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability" but "stop
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief."

This, Judge Teeter notes, compounds--and likely flows from--the
Plaintiffs' failure to plead the predicate acts of mail and wire
fraud with particularity.  And without these predicate acts, there
is no plausible RICO claim alleged.  Without a viable RICO claim
under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), there is no viable RICO conspiracy
claim under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d).  Accordingly, the Judge
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' RICO
claims.

Finally, the parties both agree that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims are based on the same factual allegations of fraud as their
RICO claims.  Because she finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations
fail for want of both particularity and plausibility, Judge Teeter
finds that their state-law claims, therefore, fail for the same
reasons.

For these reasons, she granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' first amended
complaint.  She also granted the Defendant's Request for Judicial
Notice and/or Consideration of Certain Documents in Connection with
its Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Request for
Judicial Notice.  The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Request for Oral
Argument on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2t83ol8x from Leagle.com.


SHILLING TRUCKING: Deny CEPA Suit Alleges Retaliatory Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VENUS DENY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHILLING TRUCKING LLC, KENNETH SHILLING
individually and d/b/a SHILLING TRUCKING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-5
and JOHN DOES 1-6, Defendants, Case No. MID-L-001012-21 (N.J.
Super., Middlesex Cty., February 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffered both economic
and non-economic losses as a result of the egregious and
intentional retaliation by his employer after he objected his
employer's instructions to take a truck to Burlington, Vermont,
logging additional time, to the point where he had approximately
twenty hours on duty by that point, in violation of the law.

The Plaintiff began to work for the Defendants as a truck driver on
or about July 1, 2020 until his termination on July 4, 2020.

Shilling Trucking LLC is a trucking company located at 191 North
Avenue, Suite 164, Dunellen, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
         COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
         18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
         Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
         Telephone: (856) 727-9700

SHIRE LLC: May Arbitrate Claims in Intuniv Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated lawsuit captioned In re: INTUNIV ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (Direct Purchasers), Case No. 1:16-cv-12653-ADB (D.
Mass.), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
grants in part Shire's motion to compel arbitration.

The "pay-for-delay" or "reverse settlement" case arises from an
alleged anticompetitive agreement between the brand and generic
manufacturers of Intuniv, an ADHD medication. Defendants Shire LLC
and Shire U.S., Inc. manufacture Intuniv, which is the brand-name
for extended release guanfacine hydrochloride. Defendants Actavis
Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc., and Actavis LLC,
manufacture Intuniv's generic counterpart.

The Plaintiffs, who include both Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
("DPPs") and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs"), allege that
they were forced to pay inflated prices for Intuniv due to the
Defendants' improper agreement to delay competition for both brand
Intuniv and generic Intuniv in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-2.

Currently before the Court are Shire's motion to compel Meijer,
Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. (together, "Meijer"), one of the
DPPs, to arbitrate its claims against Shire, and Meijer's motion to
be appointed class representative for the DPPs.

Factual Background

In September 2009, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approved Shire's New Drug Application for Intuniv. As a result,
Shire was entitled to three years of regulatory exclusivity, during
which time the FDA could not approve a generic version of Intuniv.
In December 2009, Actavis filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application
("ANDA") for a proposed generic version of Intuniv and asserted
that its drug would not infringe on Shire's patent. As the first
filer of an ANDA, Actavis would have been entitled to a 180-day
period during which no other generic manufacturer could have
manufactured an Intuniv alternative.

In May 2010, Shire sued Actavis for patent infringement in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, which automatically
triggered a 30-month stay of the FDA's approval of Actavis' ANDA.
After denying Actavis' motion for summary judgment, the Delaware
Court held a bench trial in September 2012. While the underlying
patent litigation proceeded, Shire and Actavis engaged in
settlement negotiations. In April 2013, before the Delaware Court
issued a decision, Shire and Actavis settled the case.

In broad strokes, Shire and Actavis agreed that (1) Shire would
drop the patent suit; (2) Actavis could make and market generic
Intuniv beginning in December 2014; (3) Actavis would pay a 25%
royalty to Shire for the first 180 days that Actavis' generic
Intuniv was on the market so long as it was the only generic
Intuniv on the market; and (4) Shire could not authorize or license
a third party to market or sell a generic Intuniv during Actavis'
180-day exclusivity period but could, itself or via an affiliate,
market a generic Intuniv during that time.

The Plaintiffs argue that the settlement agreement was
anticompetitive. Essentially, they assert that the market for
Intuniv would have become competitive earlier had Shire and Actavis
not entered into their settlement because Actavis would have
launched a generic Intuniv before December 2014 and Shire would
have authorized a third-party to market a generic to compete with
Actavis' generic.

Procedural Background

FWK Holdings, LLC, filed the action on December 30, 2016, and
Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. ("RDC") filed similar claims on
January 11, 2017, [Complaint, Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., v.
Shire LLC, No. 17-cv-10050 (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2017). The Court
granted a joint motion to consolidate the two actions. The case has
also proceeded in tandem with the IPPs' action against Shire and
Actavis arising out of the same alleged misconduct.

On September 24, 2019, the Court granted the DPPs' motion to
certify the following class: All persons or entities in the United
States and its territories, or subsets thereof, that purchased
Intuniv and/or generic Intuniv in any form directly from Shire or
Actavis, including any predecessor or successor of Shire or
Actavis, from October 19, 2012 through June 1, 2015.

The Court, however, dismissed FWK as a class representative after
finding that its relationship with class counsel was too entangled.
Despite some reservations about RDC's adequacy as a class
representative, the Court permitted RDC to take on that role.

On March 12, 2020, RDC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York -- In re
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., No. 20-bk-20230 (Bankr.
W.D.N.Y.). Because of RDC's bankruptcy, the Defendants moved to
decertify the DPP class. The Court granted the motion in part,
finding that RDC could not adequately represent the interests of
absent class members given bankruptcy-related conflicts of
interest. Nevertheless, the Court declined to decertify the class
in favor of allowing motions to intervene.

Meijer is a pharmacy retailer headquartered in Michigan. On June 2,
2020, Meijer filed a motion to intervene, which Shire opposed. On
July 24, 2020, the Court granted Meijer's motion to allow the
parties to engage in limited discovery to "evaluate Meijer's
adequacy as a class representative." A few days later, Meijer filed
an intervenor complaint. According to Meijer, it purchased generic
Intuniv directly from Actavis during the class period and is the
assignee of the antitrust claims of the Frank W. Kerr Company and
McKesson Corp., which purchased branded Intuniv from Shire during
the class period.

On August 28, 2020, Shire moved for an order compelling Meijer to
arbitrate its claims against Shire. On September 8, 2020, Meijer
filed a motion to be appointed the DPPs' class representative. The
parties subsequently filed oppositions, replies, and sur-replies.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Shire argues that Meijer entered agreements that require it to
arbitrate its claims against Actavis and, because of the doctrine
of equitable estoppel, it must therefore also arbitrate its related
claims against it. Shire asserts that equitable estoppel applies
for two independent reasons. First, because Meijer's claims against
Shire arise from and are directly related to the agreements Meijer
entered into with Actavis to purchase, inter alia, generic Intuniv
and those agreements contain arbitration clauses. Second, because
Meijer's claims against Shire and Actavis turn on the same factual
and legal issues, Meijer is bound by contract to arbitrate its
claims against Shire. Shire further maintains that because the
arbitration agreements at issue delegate the threshold question of
arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Court must dismiss Meijer's
complaint, or stay the litigation, until an arbitrator decides
whether Meijer must arbitrate.

In opposition, Meijer maintains that Shire has waived any right to
arbitration, and further, that Shire's equitable estoppel argument,
an issue to be decided by the Court, fails for a number of
reasons.

In its reply brief, Shire asserts that the arbitrator must decide
whether Shire has waived its right to arbitrate, that, in any
event, it has not waived its right to arbitrate because it sought
arbitration promptly after discovering that the right existed, and
that it call properly invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

The Court agrees with the reasoning in De Angelis v. Icon Ent. Grp.
Inc., 364 F.Supp.3d 787, 796-97 (S.D. Ohio 2019), and finds it to
be consistent with both Apollo Comput., Inc. v. Berg. 886 F.2d 469
(1st Cir. 1989) and Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales,
Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 529 (2019). The Supreme Court's decision in
Henry Schein fundamentally requires that when the question of
arbitrability has been delegated to an arbitrator, courts must
respect that delegation. In the case, there has been such a
delegation and, thus, the Court must defer to the arbitrator.

After considering waiver factors, and resolving any doubt in favor
of arbitration, the Court finds that Shire has not waived its right
to seek arbitration of Meijer's claims against it.

The Court finds that the arbitration agreements clearly and
unmistakably evidence an intent to have the arbitrator decide
arbitrability. Whether Meijer's claims against Shire fall within
the agreements' respective ambits and whether Shire, as a
nonsignatory, may compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel,
are for the arbitrator to decide.

The Court also finds that Shire has not waived its right to seek
arbitration of Meijer's claims against it based on its litigation
conduct. It is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' position and takes no
pleasure in potentially further delaying a case that has gone on
for this long. Ultimately, however, the Court is unwilling to usurp
the role of the arbitrator and cannot find that Shire has waived a
right when Shire only recently had reason to be aware of that
right. Accordingly, Shire's motion to compel arbitration is granted
insofar as Meijer must now submit its claims to an arbitrator for a
decision as to arbitrability.

The Arbitration Agreements

Shire identifies two agreements that it believes require Meijer to
arbitrate its claims against Shire.

First, in July 2008, Meijer entered into a Retail Purchase
Agreement ("RPA") with Watson Pharma, Inc., pursuant to which
Watson agreed to sell certain generic drugs at specified prices to
Meijer. Watson merged with Actavis in October 2012, with Actavis as
the surviving company. Although generic Intuniv was not among the
generic drugs originally covered by the RPA, the parties amended
the product list to include it in November 2014. The RPA contains
"Disputes and Arbitration" section.

Second, in 2017, Teva USA and various affiliates entered into a
Generic Products Purchase Agreement ("GPPA") with The Buyers
Consortium, LLC ("BC"), whereby members of the BC agreed to
purchase certain drugs, including generic Intuniv, from Teva in
particular quantities and at particular prices. Both Actavis and
Teva are wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries of Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited. In May 2020, Meijer became a member of the BC.
The GPPA contains arbitration provisions.

Motion to be Appointed Class Representative

Having concluded that the arbitrability of Meijer's claims must be
decided by the arbitrator, the Court will deny Meijer's motion to
be appointed class representative with leave to renew. If the
American Arbitration Association determines that Meijer's claims
against Shire are not arbitrable, Meijer may renew its motion and
the Court will consider it then.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Shire's motion to compel arbitration is granted in
part and Meijer's motion to be appointed class representative, is
denied with leave to renew. Should Meijer wish to proceed, it must
submit its claims to an arbitrator, as required by the RPA and
GPPA, for a decision as to arbitrability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 11,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ptmzr2y from
Leagle.com.


SIMPLY SELF: Freeman Sues Over Harassment and Retaliatory Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LANEECIA S. FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY SELF STORAGE, VINCENT WARD,
ANDREE CONSTANCE, and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case No.
MER-L-000348-21 (N.J. Super., Mercer Cty., February 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffered harassment from
Defendant Constance after she noticed and reported that Constance
was taking items from units that were supposed to be subject to
auction. The Plaintiff was allegedly harassed for a significant
period of time between her initial reporting of the illegal conduct
and her retaliatory transfer. The transfer was malicious and
intentional and designed to effectuate the Plaintiff's punishment
by reducing her income and by ending her employment, the suit
adds.

The Plaintiff was employed on or about March 3, 2020.

Simply Self Storage is a privately owned self-storage company in
the United States, headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
         COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
         18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
         Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
         Telephone: (856) 727-9700

SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Court Certifies Class in Makaneole Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES
AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01528-JR (D.
Or.), Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland Division, grants the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

On Oct. 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her
Findings and Recommendation ("F. & R.").  Judge Russo recommends
that the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.  Defendants SunPower North America Manufacturing
LLC, SunPower Manufacturing Oregon LLC, and SunPower Corp. filed
timely Objections.

SunPower argues that Judge Russo misconstrued Oregon law, and this
misconstruction led her to misapply the class-certification
factors.

First, SunPower claims that it does not meet the definition of
"employer" under Oregon law.  Judge Mosman opines that this is a
legal argument unrelated to class certification.  Judge Russo
correctly explained that the Court should not advance a decision on
the merits to the class certification stage.  SunPower may
eventually succeed on this legal argument, but class certification
does not hinge on its resolution.  Judge Mosman agrees with and
adopts Judge Russo's F. & R. on this point.

Second, SunPower asserts that whether it is an "employer" under
Oregon law cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.  Unlike its
first argument, this argument appropriately attacks class
certification, Judge Mosman finds.  However, it too fails, he says.
He agrees with Judge Russo that SunPower's argument necessarily
relates to all employees and thus is efficiently determined on a
class-wide basis.

Next, SunPower argues that "the successor inquiry must consider the
various components of a vertically-integrated operation
independently."  Judge Russo rejected this argument as inconsistent
with the Blachana inquiry, which does not split the business into
parts.  She noted that the record, even at this stage, suggests
SunPower purchased virtually all of the business property including
the portions of the vertically integrated enterprise it chose not
to continue."  Judge Mosman agrees with Judge Russo.

Finally, SunPower argues that Judge Russo's incorrect
interpretation of Oregon law "permeates application of the Rule 23
factors."  Since he concludes that Judge Russo appropriately
construed Oregon law, Judge Mosman rejects the premise of this
argument, and he finds SunPower's remaining objections
unpersuasive.

Upon review, Judge Musman adopts Judge Russo's F. & R. as his own
opinion, and grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/z4gb45iq from Leagle.com.


SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: James Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ANTHONY JAMES and IVONNE RIVERA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No.
210201425 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., February 16, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of confidence, and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to adequately maintain
its storage and security systems and failure to sufficiently secure
Plaintiffs' personal and sensitive information from cyberattack.
Had the Defendant remedied the deficiencies in its information
storage and security systems, followed industry guidelines, and
adopted security measures recommended by experts in the field, the
Defendant would have prevented intrusion into its information
storage and security systems, the suit says.

As a direct and proximate result of SEPTA's alleged wrongful
actions and inaction and the resulting data breach, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have been placed at an imminent, immediate, and
continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and identity
fraud.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is a
regional public transportation authority that operates bus, rapid
transit, commuter rail, light rail, and electric trolleybus
services in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
         Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq.
         Samuel B. Dordick, Esq.
         SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
         One Liberty Place
         1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-8282
         E-mail: rmongeluzzi@smbb.com
                 jgoodman@smbb.com
                 sdordick@smbb.com

                - and –

         Patrick Howard, Esq.
         SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
         120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
         Horsham, PA 19044
         Telephone: (215) 496-8282
         E-mail: phoward@smbb.com

SPANCRETE INC: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Dokey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL DOKEY, Plaintiff v. SPANCRETE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 19-CV-921-JPS-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Judge Joseph Peter
Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin entered an Order that:

     (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

    (ii) granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
         judgment as to the Defendant's liability under the Fair
         Labor Standards Act as to the Plaintiff, individually;

   (iii) granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
         judgment as to the Defendant's liability under the
         Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Law as to the
         Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class;

    (iv) denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

     (v) denied the Plaintiff's second motion to compel.

In June 2019, Plaintiff Dokey brought the action against Defendant
Spancrete on behalf of himself and a putative collective under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  ThePlaintiff also brought a
class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
alleging that the Defendant violated Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("WWPCL").  The Plaintiff has since filed two
motions to compel, a motion for class certification, and a motion
for partial summary judgment.  The Defendant also filed a motion
for summary judgment.

The Defendant, a manufacturer of precast concrete products, is
based in Waukesha, Wisconsin with other facilities located
throughout Wisconsin, Illinois, and Florida.  From May 2017 to
January 2019, the Plaintiff was a Quality Control Technician at the
Defendant's facility in Valders, Wisconsin.  As a Quality Control
Technician, the Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis and was
considered a "non-exempt" employee for purposes of the FLSA and
Wisconsin law.  Therefore, if the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in
a given workweek, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff
one-and-a-half times his "regular rate" for those overtime hours.
One's "regular rate" is not only his or her hourly rate of pay, but
includes "all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of,
the employee," subject to numerous exceptions.  Under both federal
and state law, nondiscretionary bonuses must be included when
employers compute an employee's regular rate of pay.

On June 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the action alleging that the
Defendant violated both the FLSA and WWPCL by failing to include
all forms of nondiscretionary compensation when calculating the
regular rate of pay for its non-exempt, hourly employees.  However,
in his motion for certification of the FLSA collective, the
Plaintiff sought to limit the collective to non-exempt, hourly-paid
employees at Defendant's Valders, Wisconsin facility.  On Jan. 8,
2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion, pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and authorized the Plaintiff's
counsel to issue notices to the putative collective members.  After
the Plaintiff's counsel issued such notices, the putative
collective had thirty days to "opt-in" to the FLSA collective
action.

Sometime after the Plaintiff brought the action, the Defendant
hired the accounting firm Baker, Tilly, Virchow, and Krause LLP to
conduct an audit.  As a result of this audit, the Defendant
conceded that (1) it maintained a bonus program, the Op-Ex Employee
Excellence Program, (2) the Op-Ex Bonus was nondiscretionary in
nature, and (3) it failed to include that bonus in its employees'
regular rate calculation when determining their respective overtime
compensation.  The parties dispute whether this program ended in
December 2018 or June 2019.

On Feb. 12, 2019, during the opt-in period, the Defendant mailed
both checks and letters to the putative collective.  The letter
informed the members (1) about the audit and (2) that the enclosed
check "represented the additional amounts that should have been
paid."  The Defendant also "doubled that payment to make up for the
fact that the amount was originally miscalculated."  It is
undisputed that neither the Defendant, nor its attorneys, sought
Court approval to contact the putative collective prior to mailing
the aforementioned letters.  The Plaintiff informed his counsel on
Feb. 17, 2020 that he received both a check and letter from
Defendant.  The Plaintiff's counsel notified the Defendant that the
Plaintiff did not intend to deposit or cash his check, nor enter
into negotiations concerning the same.  To date, he has neither
deposited nor cashed his check.

As expected, during the pendency of the action the parties engaged
in discovery.  The Plaintiff submitted his first set of discovery
requests to the Defendant on Sept. 20, 2019, to which theDefendant
eventually responded.  The Defendant initially objected to the
production of various documents because the Court had not yet
granted conditional certification.  In January 2020, after the
Court granted conditional certification, Plaintiff tendered a
second set of discovery requests to Defendant.  The Defendant has
responsed to the Plaintiff's sets of discovery requests.

In February 2020, the Plaintiff's counsel retained Benjamin M.
Duveneck, an accounting and finance consultant, to provide his
expert analysis in the matter.  Duveneck states that the
Plaintiff's counsel provided him with two Excel spreadsheets and
two payroll registers with a check date of Feb. 12, 2020.  ased on
the information provided, Duveneck maintains that the Defendant's
calculations appear correct; however, because he did not have
access to the "source documents," such as payroll registers and
time sheets, Duveneck was (and still is) unable to determine
whether the amounts Defendant paid to each employee are accurate.

To summarize, while the Plaintiff admits that the Defendant has
used the proper method to recalculate the amounts it owes to its
employees as part of their regular rate, the Plaintiff vehemently
denies that theDefendant has provided the appropriate underlying
data to allow him to verify whether its calculations are actually
accurate.  Based on the foregoing, the amounts that the Defendant
owes to its employees, including the Plaintiff Dokey, remain in
dispute.

Before addressing the parties' dispositive motions, Judge
Stadtmueller rules on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

To bring his WWPCL claim on behalf of a class, the Plaintiff asked
the Court to certify the following class: "All hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees who are or have been employed by Defendant at
its Valders, Wisconsin facility within the two (2) years
immediately prior to the filing of the Complaint and who received
non-discretionary forms of compensation in addition to regular
wages that were not included in their regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes."

Judge Stadtmueller finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied his
burden as to the Rule 23 requirements.  Because the Plaintiff has
carried his burden with respect to class certification, he grants
his motion and certifies the desired class.

With regard to the Plaintiff's FLSA claim, the Plaintiff has filed
a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Defendant's
liability.  Notably, he pursues his summary judgment as to his FLSA
claim individually and not on behalf of the putative collective.
However, the Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on his behalf
and on behalf of the Rule 23 class as to the Defendant's liability
under the WWPCL.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's motion must be denied
because he "has admittedly sustained no damages."  Similarly, with
regard to the Plaintiff's WWPCL claim, the Defendant maintains that
it is undisputed that "the analysis under the FLSA holds in equal
force," and thus, there are no claims left to dispute.

There being no genuine issue as to the Defendant's liability under
the FLSA as to the Plaintiff and under the WWPCL as to the
Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class, Judge Stadtmueller grants the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  He finds that the
Court has already rejected the Defendant's arguments that (1) a
Rule 23 class is inappropriate in the case, and (2) there is no
dispute as to the accuracy and adequacy of the Defendant's
calculations for both the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class.  He also
finds that the Plaintiff has shown that damages in the case are
very much in dispute.  The Defendant cannot now claim that the
Plaintiff's obstinance is the reason why the Plaintiff's damages
and the damages of the Rule 23 class remain in dispute.

In its motion for summary judgment, the Defendant argues that
because it has already paid the wages it owed to its employees
under the FLSA and WWPCL, and that because the Plaintiff admitted
that the Defendant used the correct methodology when calculating
those amounts, the Defendant has no remaining liability as to any
of the putative collective or class members.

Judge Stadtmueller has already rejected this line of reasoning.  He
also notes that there is a genuine dispute as to whether the Op-Ex
Bonus was the only nondiscretionary bonus that Defendant offered,
as well as a dispute as to when the Op-Ex Bonus was offered.  Both
of these variables could impact the overtime calculations in the
case.  The Plaintiff argues that his admission regarding the
Defendant's use of the correct methodology does not foreclose the
possibility that it failed to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation in its calculations.  The Judge
agrees.  Therefore, he denies the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.

Lastly, in their respective briefs on the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, the parties include extensive discussion as to
whether attorneys' fees are available to the Plaintiff under both
federal and state law.  Judge Stadtmueller finds that the wiser
exercise of discretion on the matter of whether attorneys' fees may
be awarded and, if so, in what amount is best left for the parties
and their counsel to thoughtfully address in the first instance.
In the event they are unable to reach an accommodation, he will
defer any further consideration of this question until such time as
the case is otherwise concluded.

Finally, Judge Stadtmueller addresses the Plaintiff's second motion
to compel, which the Plaintiff filed on Sept. 22, 2020.  The
Plaintiff explains that on May 20, 2020, he served his Third Set of
Interrogatories and First Set of Requests to Admit.  At that time,
trial was scheduled for June 22, 2020.  Pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 26(c), the parties must have concluded discovery on or before
May 22.  Thus, when it served these discovery requests, the
Plaintiff ultimately gave the Defendant two days to respond.  When
the Defendant filed its responses on June 19, 2020, it objected to
all of his requests on the basis that such requests were untimely.
The Plaintiff also argues that even if the deadline had passed,
because the Court indicated it would reschedule dates and deadlines
as circumstances warrant, the Court should reopen discovery
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26(c) and compel the Defendant to
answer his Interrogatories Nos. 22-24.

Judge Stadtmueller rejects the Plaintiff's assertion that by
granting the motion to amend the scheduling order, the Court had
also altered the discovery deadline in the case.  He also rejects
the Plaintiff's argument that he should reopen discovery.  He says,
reopening discovery after the discovery period has closed requires
a showing of good cause.

The Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 24 asks the Defendant to identify
the factual or legal basis if it denied any of his Requests to
Admit.  Thus, a response to that interrogatory requires the
Defendant to respond to each of the Plaintiff's Requests to Admit.
Upon review of those requests, Judge Stadtmueller determines that,
with one exception, Request No. 36, the Plaintiff asks the
Defendant to admit to facts that were already a part of the record
in the case.  Based on the foregoing, he denies the Plaintiff's
second motion to compel.

For these reasons, Judge Stadtmueller concludes that because there
is no genuine issue of material fact as to the Defendant's
liability as to the Plaintiff, individually, pursuant to the FLSA,
and as to both the Plaintiff and the recently certified Rule 23
class pursuant to the WWPCL, he will grant the Plaintiff's motion
for partial summary judgment as to the Defendant's liability.  Yet,
because there is an outstanding, genuine factual dispute as to
whether the Defendant has appropriately compensated the Plaintiff,
the putative collective, and the members of the Rule 23 class, the
Judge will deny the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.  The
case will proceed to trial, to be scheduled at such time as the
Court finds it is safe to conduct such proceedings in person.

Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  He certified the following class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees who are or have been employed by Defendant at its
Valders, Wisconsin facility within the two (2) years immediately
prior to the filing of the Complaint and who received
non-discretionary forms of compensation in addition to regular
wages that were not included in their regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes."

The Judge also granted (i) the Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment as to the Defendant's liability under the Fair
Labor Standards Act as to Plaintiff, individually; and (ii) the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to the
Defendant's liability under the Wisconsin Wage Payment and
Collection Law as to the Plaintiff.

The Judge denied (i) the Defendant's motion for summary judgment,
(ii) the Plaintiff's motion to file a sur-reply, and (iii) the
Plaintiff's second motion to compel. He denied as moot the
Plaintiff's first motion to compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/25bsq42v from Leagle.com.


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Velasquez Suit Claims Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-at-00105
(E.D. Cal., February 15, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including unfair
competition, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide
required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized
statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses,
failure to provide wages when due, and failure to pay straight and
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from September of 2016 to March of 2020.

Sun-Maid Growers of California is an operator of a raisin and dried
fruit processing plant, headquartered in the San Joaquin Valley,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Telephone: (858) 551-1223
     Facsimile: (858) 551-1232

TITAN HOLDINGS: Faces Garcia ADA Suit Over Online Hotel Room Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TITAN HOLDINGS LLC and TUCK VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV06076 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

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

Titan Holdings LLC is the owner of the Tuck Hotel located at 820 S.
Spring St., Los Angeles, California.

Tuck Ventures, LLC is the operator of the Tuck Hotel located at 820
S. Spring St., Los Angeles, California. [BN]

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

TOWER IMAGING: Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Chiropractic Clinic Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWER IMAGING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 121468093 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct., Hillsborough
Cty., February 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an unsolicited fax
advertisement to the Plaintiff's stand-alone fax machine. The
Plaintiff and Class members were allegedly damaged due to the
Defendant's action including intrusion into their seclusion,
violation of their right to privacy, occupy fax lines, and
prevention of their fax machines from receiving authorized faxes,
prevention of their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue
wear and tear on their fax machines, and require time and
additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of
the unsolicited message.

Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. is a chiropractic clinic in
Tampa, Florida.

Tower Imaging, LLC is a company that provides radiology services,
with its principal places of business in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
         ANDERSON + WANCA
         3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
         Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
         Telephone: (847) 368-1500
         Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
         E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

TRU TOP: Arizona District Court Certifies Class in Wolchko Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, George D. Wolchko, Plaintiff v. Tru Top Offer LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-02506-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), Judge
Douglas L. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Judge finds that (i) the Class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable, (ii) there are questions of law or
fact common to the Class, (iii) the claims of Lead Plaintiff are
typical of the claims of the members of the Class, (iv) the Lead
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
members of the Class, (v) the questions of law or fact common to
the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members of the Class, (vi) a class action is
superior to the other available methods for a fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy, and (vii) Jonathan A. Dessaules
and Jesse Vassallo Lopez of Dessaules Law Group are qualified to
serve as the class counsel for the Class representative in the
litigation, in their individual and representative capacities, and
for the Class.

For these reasons, the case will proceed as a class action.

The class is defined as: All persons within the United States who
received an unsolicited call or voicemail from 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.

Lead Plaintiff Wolchko is certified to represent the Class.

Jonathan A. Dessaules, Jesse Vassallo Lopez, and the firm of
Dessaules Law Group are appointed as the class counsel pursuant to
Rule 23(g)(1).

Finally, the Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct discovery to
identify the members of the class and to determine damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ravencj from Leagle.com.


TYSON FOODS: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Tyson
Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN) from March 13, 2020 through December 15,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Tyson Foods, Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit,  defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Tyson knew, or should
have known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading
throughout the globe; Tyson did not in fact have sufficient safety
protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; as a result,
Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus within the
facilities; as a result of the foregoing, Tyson would face negative
impact to its production, including complete shutdowns of certain
facilities; due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson
would suffer financial harm related to its lowered production; and
as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 5, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]


TYSON FOODS: Settlement Reached in Broiler Chicken 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 had
reached an agreement to settle all class claims related to the
Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
poultry products, filed a class action complaint against the
company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several
other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of
Illinois.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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 Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation (the "Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation"). Since the
original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of
the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making
similar claims, and others may do so in the future.

All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens 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 also allege that defendants
"manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price
index, the Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the
defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the
members of the putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions
likely to be filed by defendants are currently expected in late
calendar year 2020 and 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after
rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions in
calendar year 2022.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a grand jury
subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties in
the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to
intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil
action, which the court granted in part.

Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the
DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the
chicken industry. On June 2, 2020 a grand jury for the District of
Colorado returned an indictment against four individual executives
employed by two other poultry processing companies charging a
conspiracy to engage in bid-rigging in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

On June 10, 2020, the company announced that it had uncovered
information in connection with the grand jury subpoena that the
company had previously self-reported to the DOJ and have been fully
cooperating with the DOJ as part of its application for leniency
under the DOJ's Corporate Leniency Program.

On October 7, 2020, the DOJ announced a superseding indictment
adding charges against six more individuals to charge a total of 10
executives and employees at poultry processing companies for a
conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products
from at least 2012 until at least early 2019.

The partial stay previously granted by the court in the civil
action was lifted and discovery is continuing.

Plaintiffs in the civil action filed complaints expressly
referencing the conduct in the DOJ's indictments or motions arguing
that bid-rigging conduct was encompassed by prior complaints. On
September 22, 2020, the court ruled that bid-rigging claims will be
consolidated into the existing action but bifurcated from the
original supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims. The original
claims will proceed on their current schedule and the bid-rigging
claims, including any related discovery, are stayed until the
supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims are resolved.

The company had been vigorously contesting the litigation. In
January 2021, as a result of the settlement by a co-defendant in
the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation, the company aggressively
pursued settlement discussions with the Classes.

On January 19, 2021, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle all class claims related to the Broiler
Antitrust Civil Litigation.

Settlement terms were reached with the putative Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff Class, the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff Class
(collectively, the "Classes").

Under the terms of the settlements, the company had agreed to pay
the Classes an aggregate amount of $221.5 million in settlement of
all outstanding claims brought by the Classes. These settlements
are subject to the execution of long-form settlement agreements
with the respective parties and court approval thereof and do not
settle claims made by plaintiffs who opted out of the Classes in
the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2021, the company recorded an
aggregate legal contingency accrual of $320 million for the
above-referenced settlements and to resolve the remaining claims
brought by opt-out plaintiffs.

Tyson Foods said, "While we do not admit any liability as part of
the settlements, we believe 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 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.

TYSOON FOODS: Peterson Suit over Inflated Beef Price 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 an indirect consumer purchaser litigation styled as
Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.

On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information
services provider, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state antitrust
and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims
against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second
amended complaint on November 22, 2019. The company moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint.

The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.

Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of a putative class
of direct purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix,
raise, and stabilize the wholesale price for beef, as well as on
behalf of a putative class of commercial and institutional indirect
purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an
alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef.

On September 28, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint. On December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints.

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.

UNITED AIRLINES: Claims in Rudolph Suit Narrowed; Bid to Stay Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB RUDOLPH, MARK HANSEN, and JASON BUFFER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. and UNITED AIRLINES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 20 C 2142 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M.
Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division:

    (i) denied United's motion to stay Mr. Hansen's claim pending
        arbitration; and

   (ii) granted in part and denied in part United's motion to
        dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiffs Rudolph, Hansen, and Buffer filed the putative
nationwide class action alleging breach of contract by the
Defendants for failure to refund travel fares in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic.  The case arises against the backdrop of
numerous United flight cancellations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiffs allege that they sought refunds from United for
travel plans never fulfilled, but were offered only credits for
future travel.  According to them, United's refusal to extend
refunds was in breach of its Conditions of Carriage ("COC").  The
complaint notes that the United States Department of
Transportation's ("DOT") has issued various statements regarding
customer refunds.

Mr. Rudolph purchased three tickets for travel on United beginning
on April 4, 2020 to and from Hilton Head, South Carolina to
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, with connecting flights in
Chicago.  He paid $1,521.45 for his tickets.  Mr. Rudolph requested
a refund on March 16, 2020 due to his concerns about the pandemic.
nited representatives denied his request, indicating that his
ticket purchase did not qualify for a refund.  Instead, Mr. Rudolph
was offered a rebooking or ticket credit for travel within one year
of the original purchase date.  Later, United cancelled one or more
segments of his itinerary.

Mr. Buffer purchased two roundtrip tickets for travel beginning on
March 19, 2020 from New York, New York to Athens, Greece via
Frankfurt, Germany.  The tickets cost $668.  About four days before
his departure, a United representative informed Mr. Buffer that at
least one leg of his trip had been cancelled, and offered him a
rebooking or cancellation of the remainder of his trip with flight
credits.  Mr. Buffer declined, and United declined his request for
a refund.

Mr. Hansen used travel booking website Expedia to purchase four
roundtrip tickets on United for travel beginning on March 28, 2020
from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Liberia, Costa Rica, with
connecting flights via Houston, Texas.  He paid $1,483.40 for the
tickets.  United changed Mr. Hansen's itinerary several times in
the days leading up to the trip.  It then canceled a portion of his
itinerary, and ultimately canceled the remainder two days before
his scheduled departure.  United issued Mr. Hansen a flight credit.
Mr. Hansen contacted both Expedia and United for a refund, to no
avail.

United moves to stay Mr. Hansen's claim pending arbitration,
attaching the declaration of David Coons, Expedia's Vice President
for Product and Technology, and Expedia's Terms of Use in support.
It argues that the Arbitration Clause contained in Expedia's Terms
of Use is valid, and that Hansen's refund claim falls within its
broad scope.  It contends that Washington state law and federal
arbitration law control.  Mr. Hansen does not contest it.

Judge Durkin agrees.  Indeed, the Terms of Use provide that the
applicable law is the FAA, federal arbitration law, and for
reservations made by U.S. citizens, the laws of the state in which
the purchaser's billing address is located.  And the complaint
indicates that Mr. Hansen is a citizen and resident of Washington
state.  Consistent with the FAA, Washington law recognizes a strong
public policy favoring arbitration when "the parties agreed by
contract to submit their disputes to an arbitrator."  However, the
Judge agrees with Mr. Hansen that United should not be permitted to
do indirectly what federal regulations prohibit it from doing
directly, particularly given the regulation's purpose to provide
protections to consumers.  Hence, the motion to stay is denied.

Having determined that a stay is not proper as to Mr. Hansen's
claim, Judge Durkin turns to United's motion to dismiss his and the
other Plaintiffs' claims.  United's principal argument is that the
Plaintiffs' claim fails as a matter of law because the COVID-19
pandemic and related restrictions and warnings referenced in the
complaint constitute Force Majeure Events within the meaning of the
COC.  As a result, United was only obligated to extend a travel
credit to affected passengers (which it did).  Additionally, United
asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that Costa
Rica's borders were closed to all persons other than citizens,
residents, and foreign diplomats from March 18, 2020 through April
12, 2020--a date range that encompassed Mr. Hansen's planned
travel.

In response, the Plaintiffs point to the complaint's allegations
that United's decision to cancel flights was based on pure
economics.  And they argue that none of the circumstances that
United cites outright prohibited the operation of the flights at
issue.  Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that reading "Force Majeure
Event" as broadly as United urges would eviscerate the Schedule
Change and Irregular Operations provisions, such that any change
that was unforeseen or beyond United's control would disqualify
affected passengers from receiving refunds.

For the most part, Judge Durkin agrees.  Even assuming COVID-19
and/or the related restrictions United cites qualify as Force
Majeure Events, that is not enough to excuse United from offering a
refund for flights it cancels.  Those events also must have
directly and proximately caused the cancellations.  With this in
mind, the Judge takes the Plaintiffs' claims in turn.

First, it is plausible that United cancelled Mr. Buffer's flights
in mid-March 2020 "because of a desire to save on operating
expenses" as the complaint alleges, and not because COVID-19 had
been declared at that time as a public health emergency and global
pandemic.  Indeed, according to the complaint, United made various
statements in public filings with the SEC regarding "adjustments"
to its flight schedule due to "reduced demand."  And that United
continued to operate some flights during this time cuts against
blaming the pandemic itself.  United does not contend that economic
motivations constitute a Force Majeure Event, and nor could it.
Ultimately, whether the cancellations at issue occurred because of
economic considerations, or were due to restrictions and warnings
related to the pandemic, can only be answered with discovery.
Accordingly, United's motion is denied as to Mr. Buffer.

But Mr. Hansen's claim is another story.  While Mr. Hansen contends
that the Costa Rican border closures are "irrelevant," Judge Durkin
disagrees.  He says it simply is not plausible that such closures
were not a proximate cause of at least the cancellation of Mr.
Hansen's travel in and out of Costa Rica in March and April 2020.
Indeed, Costa Rica was Mr. Hansen's destination, not a layover, and
no reasonable air carrier would agree to transport an American
citizen and resident under those circumstances, where he would not
be permitted entry on arrival. Such a government-ordered closure
falls comfortably within the definition of a Force Majeure Event.
Accordingly, Mr. Hansen fails to state a plausible breach of
contract claim as to those flights.  But Mr. Hansen's claim as to
the remainder of his itinerary may proceed for the same reasons Mr.
Buffer's does.

Finally, Mr. Rudolph's claim fails in full, because, according to
the complaint, Mr. Rudolph cancelled his flight before United did.
The Plaintiffs do not contend that the COC obligates United to
offer a refund when a passenger cancels a non-refundable ticket
first.  But they argue that Mr. Rudolph nevertheless states a claim
because United repudiated the agreement with Mr. Rudolph before he
cancelled his plans.

Judge Durkin holds that the complaint alleges only that United made
"public announcements" of "cuts to its April and May 2020 flight
schedules," and that it "was planning for  domestic bookings to
decrease in the weeks to come." hese are "indefinite statements,"
not repudiation.  Accordingly, Mr. Rudolph fails to state a claim
for breach of the COC's terms.

Finally, United contends that United Airlines Holdings, Inc. must
be dismissed because it is not a party to the COC.  The Plaintiffs
fail to respond, and thus have waived the argument.  Accordingly,
and because United's argument is sound, United Airlines Holdings,
Inc. is dismissed with prejudice.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Durkin denied United's motion to
stay Mr. Hansen's claim pending arbitration.  United's motion to
dismiss is: (1) granted without prejudice as to Mr. Rudolph's
claim; (2) granted with prejudice as to Mr. Hansen's claim to the
extent he seeks a refund for the portions of his itinerary that
involved his arrival in, or departure from, Costa Rica; (3) granted
with prejudice as to defendant United Airlines Holdings, Inc.; and
(4) otherwise denied.

If the Plaintiffs believe they can remedy the deficiencies
identified in the Opinion as to those aspects of the complaint that
were not dismissed with prejudice, they may move to amend their
complaint by March 5, 2021.  Any such motion will be accompanied by
a brief of no more than 10 pages explaining how the amendments cure
the deficiencies identified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nyb23b96 from
Leagle.com.


WATER TOWER: Mendoza BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WATER TOWER HOTEL, LLC f/k/a
RITZ-CARLTON WATER TOWER, Case No. 2020 CH 07303, was removed from
the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00861 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act through the use of a
fingerprint scanner connected to the Defendant's timekeeping and
payroll system.

Water Tower Hotel, LLC, formerly known as Ritz-Carlton Water Tower,
is a hotel management company doing business in Illinois. [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

WESTERN UNION: Perez Sues Over Intercepted Online Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN UNION HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CACE-21-003115 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
February 15, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's use of tracking, recording,
and/or session replay software to intercept the Plaintiff's and the
Class members' electronic communications with the Defendant's
Website, including how they interact with the Website, their mouse
movements and clicks, information inputted into the Website, and/or
pages and content. The Defendant has intercepted the electronic
communications involving the Plaintiff and the Class members'
visits to its Website without their knowledge or prior consent,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy and/or
exposure of their private information viewed on the Website, the
suit says.

Western Union Holdings, Inc. is a money transfer services provider
based in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GE TILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
     E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

             - and –

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and –

     Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 400-4713
     E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

WILORNA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Serve Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wilorna Enterprises, LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21STCV06078 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Farmer's Daughter
Hotel on its reservation website at
https://farmersdaughterhotel.com/, including the Plaintiff. The
website reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by
disabled travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel
room would work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to
engage in an online booking of the hotel room with any confidence
or knowledge about whether the room will actually work for him due
to his disability, the suit says.

Wilorna Enterprises, LLC is an owner and operator of the Farmer's
Daughter Hotel located at 115 S. Fairfax Ave., Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

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

WW NORTH AMERICA: Hirsh Labor Suit Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHRYN HIRSH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WW NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-9782-DSF (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants Hirsh's motion for final approval of
class settlement and payments to the Plaintiff, the Class Counsel,
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the
Settlement Administrator.

Judge Fischer finds the Settlement was made and entered into in
good faith and approves the Settlement as fair, adequate, and
reasonable to all the Class Members.

In the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Court certified the
Class for purposes of settlement.  For purposes of effectuating the
Settlement, the following Class is finally certified: All persons
who worked for Defendant as Studio Team Members in California at
any time between Nov. 14, 2015, through the date of the Preliminary
Approval Order.

In the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, Plaintiff Hirsh was
appointed as the Class Representative, and Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff &
Lowe, LLP as the Class Counsel. as to the conditionally certified
Class as to the conditionally certified Class.  Judge Fischer
confirms their appointments for purposes of the settlement.

A Request for Exclusion was submitted by one Class Member.  The
Judge finds that Cindy Newman submitted a valid and timely Request
for Exclusion and, therefore, will not be bound by the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement related to the non-PAGA portion of the
Settlement.

The Defendant is to fund the Qualified Settlement Fund no later
than 40 days after Final Approval.  The Settlement Administrator is
authorized to pay and distribute the Net Settlement Amount and PAGA
Group Payment to the Class Members in accordance with the terms of
the Stipulation of Settlement and the Order.

The funds for any check that remains uncashed 90 days after the
payment of first round settlement checks by the Settlement
Administrator will be paid as a cy pres award to the Legal Aid at
Work (amounts to be earmarked for legal aid clinics and educational
functions).  In such event, the Class Members whose checks remain
uncashed 90 days after the payment of first round settlement checks
by the Settlement Administrator will nevertheless remain subject to
the terms of the Judgment.

For the reasons stated in the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, the Class
Counsel will be paid $185,426.10 as their attorneys' fees and
$8,295.61 for reimbursement of costs and expenses from the Maximum
Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation
of Settlement.

The Settlement Administrator will withhold 10% of the stated
attorney's fees until further order of the Court.  When the Class
Counsel provides a declaration stating that all other terms of the
settlement have been implemented, as well as a proposed order
releasing the remainder of the fees award, the Court will issue an
order releasing the remainder of the funds.

Plaintiff Hirsh will be paid a Class Representative Service
Enhancement in the amount of $1,500 from the Maximum Settlement
Amount in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement.

The Settlement Administrator will be paid an amount not to exceed
$15,000 from the Maximum Settlement Amount for the costs and
expenses of administering the Settlement.

A payment in the amount of $37,500 from the Maximum Settlement
Amount will be allocated to penalties under the PAGA, California
Labor Code section 2698, et seq., and paid by the Settlement
Administrator directly to the LWDA.

Judge Fischer dismissed the Action on the merits and with
prejudice, permanently barring the Plaintiff and all other
Settlement Class Members from filing, commencing, prosecuting, or
pursuing all the Settlement Class Released Claims as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement, whether or not on a class action
basis, or from participating in any class action involving such
claims.  The claims pursuant to Labor Code section 2699, et seq.
are dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement.

The Parties will implement the Settlement according to the terms of
the Stipulation of Settlement.

The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the
Action, the Plaintiff, the Class Members, and the Defendant for
purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement,
construction, administration, and interpretation of the Settlement
and the Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4urg9egf from Leagle.com.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***